Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202319237)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319237

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

17 June 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about payments made to his rent account.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the property since 23 December 2021. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is 1 bedroom flat. The resident has a brain injury which makes reading and understanding difficult for him.
  2. The resident moved into the property on 23 December 2021. On that date the resident paid 1 weeks rent in advance of £129.89, as agreed in the affordability assessment. A direct debit was also set up for £25 a month which the resident said was to cover the remaining rent needed to cover 1 months’ rent in advance.
  3. The resident made a further payment on 11 February 2022 of £240.71 to cover arrears on the account following a delay with a universal credit payment.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 29 April 2023 in which he said he had paid a 4 week deposit which the landlord should refund as it was a deposit. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 May 2023.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 31 July 2023. It confirmed the resident did not pay a deposit but made a payment of £129.89 which was a week’s rent in advance. It confirmed the affordability assessment as well as the sign-up check list held on file showed that.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 September 2023 to ask for an update on the complaint. He contacted the landlord again 19 October 2023. He said the landlord told him the deposit was non-refundable which he considered unlawful. He said he had also paid a rent payment of £240.71 in February 2022, and he was still paying the £25 direct debit.
  7. The resident formally requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 25 October 2023. The landlord provided its response on 27 November 2023. It gave a history of the monies paid into the rent account since December 2021. It found no evidence of a non-refundable deposit and did not uphold the complaint.
  8. In referring the complaint to us, the resident requested a refund of the deposit paid.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In his formal complaint, the resident raised the legality of a non-refundable deposit. We are unable to determine whether a deposit is legally refundable or not, such a determination is more appropriate for a legal setting and the resident can seek legal advice in relation to that issue if he wishes.

The landlords handling of the resident’s concerns about payments made to his rent account.

  1. On 16 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with a provisional offer of accommodation. This offer letter detailed a requirement to pay rent in advance. It does not detail how much but sets out that it would carry out an affordability assessment and agree an amount with the resident. This is reasonable and sets out the expectations for the resident.
  2. The landlord completed an affordability assessment with the resident. This details the resident had to pay £129.89 as a week’s rent in advance and the resident agreed to pay this upfront. The resident does not dispute this.
  3. However, it is important to note that this affordability assessment does not make a mention of the requirement for the resident to pay anything further beyond the weeks rent in advance or that the landlord consider the affordability of the £25 per month which it then asked the resident to set up.
  4. On 23 December 2021, the landlord completed a sign-up checklist with the resident. This further highlights the requirement to pay a week’s rent in advance. Again, the resident does not dispute this.
  5. On that same date, the landlord asked the resident to set up a direct debit of £25 per month. While there is a note provided by the landlord, written 9 January 2022, which says this was so the resident built up an advance, the landlord has provided no other documentation to explain why this was set up, the nature of the payment and how long the resident would be expected to pay the amount for. Had the landlord noted the reason for the monthly direct debit payment or showed that it had explained fully the details of the payment, the resident may have been clearer about the nature of the payment.
  6. While the resident does not dispute that the landlord asked him to set up this direct debit, it would be reasonable to expect both the affordability assessment, and the sign-up check list noted the reason and details of the arrangements. It is not appropriate that the landlord has failed to show that the monthly payment was considered as part of the affordability assessment or that it was noted on the sign-up documents. Landlord’s need to ensure they are clear and transparent and hold thorough records of agreements, particularly where they relate to financial matters.
  7. The landlord’s income management policy states that at sign up, it will ask for a payment up to a month in advance. It does not specify that it specifically requires a month in advance. It also says that where it makes alternative arrangements, a manager would authorise this. Again, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it properly explained the alternative arrangement to the resident or that it was authorised a manager. This is further evidence of a lack of effective record keeping in this case.
  8. It is also important to note that when the resident raised this issue with his MP in June 2022, the landlord noted to the MP that the resident was unable to pay a month’s rent in advance and therefore they accepted a payment of a week. It makes no mention of the landlord asking the resident to make up the month’s rent in advance via the £25 monthly deposit. This would have been an opportunity for the landlord to have provided a reasonable explanation about the £25 monthly payment and clear up any confusion about it being a deposit.
  9. When the resident contacted the landlord on 17 January 2023 to ask for a refund of the rent in advance, the landlord said it kept 4 weeks credit on the rent account. This would have been a further opportunity for it to explore the resident’s concerns and would have enabled the landlord to have provided an explanation for the £25 monthly amount and helped again to clear up any confusion. Its lack of explanation and exploration of the issue raised by the resident was not appropriate, particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities and his ability to advocate for himself.
  10. Furthermore, in both the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response it failed to provide an explanation as to why the resident had been asked to pay the £25 monthly deposit despite the resident consistently saying to the landlord that he had been paying the £25 monthly payment and questioning the reasoning behind that. Landlord’s need to conduct thorough investigations of complaints to ensure they fully understand the issues raised by a resident. The landlord’s lack of detailed enquiry into the issue left the resident without a proper answer to his complaint.
  11. Throughout the duration of the complaint, there was some confusion by what the resident meant when he said “deposit.” However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it explored this with the resident during the complaint process. Had it done so, it may have been able to provide a clearer explanation to the resident as to what it intended the payment to be for and to provide evidence to show why it would be unable to refund that amount.
  12. As part of the formal complaint, the resident also questioned why the landlord asked him to make an additional rent payment of £240.71 in February 2022. Having considered the rent statements provided, there was arrears on the account due to the delay in the payment of the resident’s universal credit to his rent account. Therefore, it was reasonable of the landlord to ask the resident to make a payment to cover the shortfall.
  13. Furthermore, the evidence provided by the landlord shows it helpfully explained to the resident, on 11 February 2022m that the delay in setting up the alternative payment arrangement for the universal credit meant that it would not cover the period prior to it being set up hence him being asked to cover the shortfall by making the additional payment.
  14. While the landlord has shown that it explained the reasoning behind the payment of £240.71 to him at the time, it would have been useful for it to have provided a clear explanation in its complaint response to. Its failure to provide a clear explanation caused confusion for the resident and its response lacked empathy.
  15. Overall, the landlord’s handling of this issue fell below the standard we expect. There is no evidence to support why it asked the resident to set up the monthly direct debit, that it needed more than a week’s rent in advance to maintain the tenancy or that it explored and discussed the resident’s concerns with him to fully understand the issue. Its lack of thorough investigation and empathy towards the resident was not appropriate.
  16. Therefore, there was maladministration in landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about payments into his rent account.
  17. A compensation order is made for £250, comprising:
    1. £100 for the time and trouble.
    2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident raised a formal complaint on 29 April 2023 which the landlord acknowledged, in line with its complaints policy, within 5 working days.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response was due on 19 May 2023; however, it did not provide it. Instead, it acknowledged the complaint again on 12 July 2023 after the resident raised his concerns again. This is not appropriate as landlord’s need to ensure they log complaints properly and provide responses within the published timescales. Not doing so caused a delay in the resident receiving a formal response to this complaint.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 31 July 2023. This was 3 working days after the response was due. While the delay in this instance was minimal, given that the resident had already raised the complaint in May 2023, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided its response within the 10 working day timescales in line with its policy.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 September 2023 to chase up his complaint, yet the landlord did not log an escalation to stage 2 on this date. The resident then contacted the landlord again on 20 October 2023 at which point the landlord asked if he wished to escalate his complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that if a complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the complaint process. Given that the resident had told the landlord in September that he was dissatisfied, it was not appropriate that the landlord only escalated the complaint after the resident specifically asked for stage 2.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 November 2023, 3 working days after the response was due as per the landlord’s complaints policy. While the delay was minimal in this instance the landlord needs to ensure it strives to provide complaint responses within the published 20 working day period and where it cannot, it must communicate this to the resident.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint could have been improved. Therefore, there was maladministration in its complaint handling.
  7. A compensation order has been made for £100, comprising:
    1. £50 for the delayed stage 1 response.
    2. £25 for not escalating to stage 2 at the earliest opportunity.
    3. £25 for the delayed stage 2 response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about payments made to his rent account.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide compensation to the resident of £350, made up of the following:
    1. £250 for its handling of the concerns about the rent account payments.
    2. £100 for its complaint handling.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must meet with the resident to discuss the monthly payment totalling £475 and whether it would be appropriate, taking into account the resident’s circumstances, to refund the amount at this time.
  4. A significant part of this case was the lack of evidence that it had agreed with the resident the terms of the £25 monthly payment and the reason behind it. Therefore, within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must undertake a review of this case to understand where its record keeping fell short and what learning it can take from this to embed into its policies and procedures going forward. The landlord must also provide an explanation to the resident and this service about the reason it asked for the payment. It must provide us with a copy of this review within the set timescale.