Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202528879)

Decision
Case ID	202528879
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paragon Asra Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	4 March 2026

Background

The resident is lead complainant for a group who of 11 residents who raised the complaint with the landlord. The landlord is not the freeholder of the development and has told us a managing agent is responsible for repairs to the building. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about the repairs and maintenance of the development, along with his service charge costs.
There is a concierge service in place at the development where the resident lives. He also raised concerns with the landlord about this service. The landlord provided the resident with a response on the issues, which he remained unhappy with.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Repairs, maintenance and the management of the development he lives in.
2. His service charge costs.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about repairs, maintenance and the management of the development he lives in.
There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his service charge costs.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord did not adequately follow through the remedies it offered to the resident in its complaint responses. It identified that oversight of the managing agent was an issue. The evidence shows this continued after it had sent its stage 2 response. It took around 3 months from identifying the heating systems fault to it being repaired.
There is no record that the landlord provided the resident with a simple explanation of the additional service charges it added to his account. Its complaint responses did not answer the issue at all. There is no record that it confirmed it could rely on its formal delay notice for a second time when it added costs to his service charge account in November 2025.
The landlord’s stage 2 response showed learning from the resident’s complaint. This was reasonable and the evidence shows it implemented its learning. However, its stage 1 response did not define the resident’s complaint or say if it had upheld his complaint. Its stage 2 response did not answer all the issues the resident had raised.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the residents for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. Provides the residents with a simple explanation why its costs increased, along with a breakdown of these specific costs. Confirms its position on the concierge service holding parcels for the residents. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 01 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay compensation to 11 residents. The total amount payable to each resident is £140 each. This made up as follows: £90 it offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not already paid this. A further £20 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the residents concerns about repairs, maintenance and the management of the development he lives in. A further £30 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to each resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 01 April 2026
3	Service charge review order The landlord must confirm: It sought legal advice that it was able to rely on its formal notification of delay for a second time in the recovery of its service charge costs for the 2022 to 2023 financial year. If it did not obtain legal advice relying on its formal notification of delay for a second time, it reviews its position to adjust the residents service charge accounts in November 2025. It shares the outcome of its review with both us and the residents.	No later than 1 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 June 2025	The resident raised his complaint with the landlord, on behalf of the residents at the development he lives at. He said: It’s management of the development was not satisfactory. It was unclear what it was spending the residents’ money on. The managing agent’s poor maintenance and management was going to lead to further issues, disrepair and increasing costs. The resident’s complaint also related to other issues which can be summarised as: Maintenance and repair of the heating and hot water system, which had broken several times in the previous month. Management of the communal areas, including litter removal and parking enforcement. Repairs to the communal entrance doors. The increase in the costs of heating at the development. Reported thefts of parcels from the communal area. The servicing of lifts at the development.
11 July 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: This was an interim response as it was actively reviewing several of the issues. It had also raised frustration with the managing agent about their poor communication. The managing agent had accepted their communication did not meet the expected standards. The managing agent had appointed a new property manager. They had also updated their communication process and would give residents weekly updates about the progress of repairs. It had also asked the managing agent to invite it to meetings it may arrange with residents itself. The steps it had taken was to improve the relationship between it, the residents and the managing agent. It would offer the resident £20 compensation due to the failures it had found.
11 July 2025	The resident escalated his complaint, as he was unhappy with the landlord’s delay in responding at stage 1.
02 September 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said: The managing agent had confirmed there were 3 separate boiler faults between May and June 2025. There had been some delays to the repairs due to obtaining the correct parts. However, it had otherwise been serviced in line with the required standards. The managing agent said the costs for providing additional cleaning for the litter problem was too high. It was considering if the development’s concierge service could take these duties on. The managing agent was taking action to resolve the problem of illegal use of the car park. The communal doors at the development had been damaged due to vandalism. The doors had been repaired with further measures being considered. The concierge’s parcel service did not apply to its residents. It was looking at other options. There was no evidence of pests in the communal area. It would arrange follow up checks for this. The managing agent was implementing weekly updates and meetings to improve communication. It would work closely with and oversee the performance of the managing agent. It would provide residents with regular updates and improve oversight, communication, through a joined-up approach with all parties. It would pay all its residents in the development £90 compensation. This was made up as follows: a) £60 for the delay in sending both its complaint responses. b) £30 for its poor communication and the inconvenience caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us on 5 October 2025. He said: The persistent loss of hot water was causing his household stress. He was worried that every time a repair is done on the heating system, his landlord would charge him for this. His landlord had provided residents with a poor service. It had added a service charge over spend from 2023 to his account, without explaining this. He wanted it to give him a breakdown of the service charge costs for temporary repairs to the heating system and the full repair of the system. He wanted the landlord to cover all its costs due to investigating the issues. He wanted further compensation for distress.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Repairs, maintenance and the management of the development
Finding	Service failure

What we considered

The landlord’s stage 2 response said it would work closely with and oversee the performance of the managing agent. The resident has told us that repairs to the heating system were completed around December 2025. We consider it reasonable to assess the landlord’s response to the issues the resident raised to this date.

Heating system and communal door repairs

The landlord’s records show the managing agent is responsible for communal areas. It is responsible for heating and hot water issues within individual properties, and the managing agent only carries out an annual service of the heating system.
The landlord’s maintenance policy says loss of hot water will be rectified within 24 hours. Repairs needing special parts are variable timescale repairs. It will talk residents through what it intends to do, agree timescales and project manage through to work completion. We consider the landlord should take reasonable steps to ensure the managing agent follows this.
The resident raised this group complaint on 6 June 2025. He said the heating system had failed several times over the previous month and the communal doors at the development had been broken for months. It is unclear if the resident reported these issues to the landlord or the managing agent. There is no record when the heating system failures were repaired. We are unable to determine if the loss of hot water was rectified in line with the timeframe of its repairs policy
The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged it was frustrated with the managing agent’s communication. Its stage 2 explained the reason for the delays in repairing the heating system. It was reasonable that it showed learning from the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. The managing agent would provide weekly updates to residents.
2. It asked the managing agent to invite it to any onsite meetings.
3. The next heating contract would include the need to hold spare parts on site to avoid delays.
The landlord’s complaint responses and evidence of the remedies it agreed, indicate it was in communication with the managing agent about the issues. However, its evidence does not show detail of the conversations it had with them. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s evidence shows the managing agent inspected the heating system in August and September 2025. It found 3 faults with the system that needed repairing. The managing agents told the residents on 14 November 2025 that 2 of the 3 faults still needed repairing. They needed to order further parts and estimated it would be another 4 weeks before they completed the repairs. The resident has told us that the heating system was repaired in December 2025.

Maintenance issues

The resident raised concerns about illegal parking, litter and pests at the development. The landlord’s stage 2 response provided the resident with an answer on these issues and what the managing agent was doing to resolve them. This was reasonable.
There is no record in the landlord’s evidence of reports of pests at the development. Its stage 2 response told the resident this and that it would arrange for further inspections. This was reasonable.
The managing agent’s weekly communication with the residents shows it updated them on the 3 issues. Their updates gave advice to residents on what it was doing about the illegal parking and how to minimise the litter and pest issues. This was reasonable.

Management of the development

The resident contacted the landlord on 10 March 2025. He said he was concerned that the landlord had not told its residents about a break-in to the building that had resulted in the theft of parcels and a bike. He was concerned about the security in the block, along with the heating costs for the development. On 13 March 2025 the landlord contacted the resident and asked to meet with the group of residents to discuss their concerns. The next day the resident told the landlord the dates he was available to meet it. It is unclear if a meeting did take place as there is no mention of this in the landlord’s evidence. This was a record keeping failure.
On 15 April 2025 the landlord discussed the resident’s security concerns with the development’s concierge service. They said they did not accept parcels for its residents, although there were times parcels were left when they were away from their desk. They advised it of their patrol arrangements for the development. However, there is no record that the landlord told the residents of this, despite its records saying it would do so. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s complaint responses told the resident the concierge service did not accept parcels for its residents. It said that it was looking at alternative options. However, there is no record of what these options were or if it has since implemented changes. This was not reasonable.
There is no record in the landlord’s evidence that it considered the resident’s concerns about the heating costs of the development. This was not reasonable and a record keeping failure.

Summary

The evidence shows the landlord acted upon the resident’s concerns about the heating system. It took steps to put things right for him and the other residents, for example the introduction of weekly updates from the managing agent. It offered all residents at the development £30 compensation for the poor communication and inconvenience caused. This was reasonable.
The compensation the landlord offered went some way to address the impact of its failures on the resident. However, it failed to provide a response to the heating cost issue, and it has not demonstrated it oversaw the managing agent’s performance, as its stage 2 response said it would. This was unreasonable and after finding the heating system faults in September 2025, it was around 3 months before the system was repaired. There is also no record that it told the residents the outcome of its review of the parcel issue.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the residents of the development a further £20 compensation each. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures that it did not fully put right.

Complaint	Service charge costs
Finding	Service failure

What we considered

The landlord told the resident on 3 September 2025 that it would be sending a revised service charge statement for the 2022 to 2023 financial year. The group complaint relates to the service charge increase for this period. The landlord sent its revised statement on 12 November 2025. This investigation will consider events up until this date.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says a landlord can recover its costs late if it has given formal notification of a delay within 18 months of the date when it incurred the costs. It must tell tenants in writing that those costs had been incurred and under the terms of the lease they would need to contribute to them by the payment of a service charge.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 October 2024, to complain about an unexpected debt on his service charge account. He asked it to explain the reasons for the debt and give him a breakdown of what the charge was for.
The landlord sent the resident a year end account letter on 12 November 2024. It said its costs for the financial year 2022 to 2023 were higher than expected. It was still able to recover these costs as on 26 September 2023 it had sent him formal notification of late accounts. This was reasonable and in line with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord’s letter included signed certification from its head of finance that its statements of estimated and actual expenditure matched its accounting records.
The resident raised this issue again when he escalated his complaint with the landlord. He wanted a clear explanation for the additional service charge costs. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 2 September 2025 included this as part of the complaint definition. However, it did not provide the resident with a response on this matter. The landlord identified its error the next day and apologised for this. It said there were concerns about the service charge accounts and it would be sending residents a revised statement for the 2022 to 2023 financial year. This was reasonable and in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord sent a revised service charge statement on 12 November 2025. It said there had been an error in the managing agents charge and it had under charged some residents for the 2022 to 2023 financial year. As a result, it added further chargesto some resident’saccounts. It is reasonable to conclude that the resident thought the landlord had already confirmed its final year end accounts on 12 November 2024. Having revised the resident’s service charge at this time there is no record that it confirmed it could rely on its formal notification of delay for a second time in November 2025. This was not reasonable and is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
The resident told us he is still unhappy that the landlord has not given him a clear explanation for the additional service charge costs. The landlord’s evidence does not show that it did this and explained in simple terms the reasons for the service charge increase. This was not reasonable.
We have ordered the landlord to confirm its position if it could legally rely on its formal notification of late accounts for a second time. We have also ordered it to clarify with the residents the reasons for it increasing their service charges, along with a breakdown of costs.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord provided the resident with acknowledgement of his complaint, at both stages within 5 working days as set out by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This was reasonable.
Both the landlord’s complaint responses were provided outside of the 10 (stage 1) and 20 (stage 2) working days prescribed by the Code. There is no record that the landlord asked the resident for an extension to its investigation at either stage. However, it apologised for the delays and offered the resident £60 compensation for this. This was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance.
The landlord’s delays caused the resident inconvenience. He had to chase it for its responses. The evidence shows this caused the landlord confusion as it agreed to escalate his complaint before it had sent him its stage 1 response. Although this did not cause the resident detriment it was a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not set out what the resident’s complaint was about, or if it had upheld his complaint. This was a failure to follow the Code which says landlords must set out the complaint definition and its decision. Its stage 2 did not recognise this failure or apologise to the resident. This was a complaint handling failure.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was in line with the requirements of the Code. It:
1. Used clear, plain language.
2. Confirmed its decision and the reasons for this.
3. Offered the resident a remedy and showed learning from his complaint.
The landlord’s complaint responses also did not answer the following points the resident raised, which was a complaint handling failure:
1. What repairs and servicing had been done to the heating system over the past 2 years.
2. What caused the heating system to break.
3. What the maintenance plan was for the next 12 months.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the residents of the development a further £30 compensation each. This is in line with our remedies guidance for minor failures it did not acknowledge.

Learning

The landlord has shown learning from the resident’s complaint. It should continue to monitor and review the measures it introduced to ensure its residents receive prompt, accurate updates, to maintain transparency in the service it provides. The landlord should consider using published best practice such as TPAS leasehold engagement guide, to continue improving the service it provides.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We found record keeping failures in the landlord’s response to the issue the resident raised. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.

Communication

The landlord’s communication could have been more proactive in keeping the resident up to date. It acknowledged this during its internal complaint’s procedure. This is a positive step by the landlord, and it should take learning from the case to improve its future service offer.