Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202335442)

Decision
Case ID	202335442
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Paragon Asra Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	22 June 2026

Background

1. The resident is a shared owner of a flat. The landlord holds the head lease. A separate private company owns the freehold, another private company acts as the managing agent, and a separate company manages the billing for the heat network that provides energy to the building. The complaint concerns the landlord’s decision that it is not responsible for maintaining or replacing the resident’s heat interface unit (HIU) or energy meter.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to:

a)     Reported faults with the HIU and energy meter.

b)     The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:

a)     No maladministration in the landlord’s response to reported faults with the HIU and energy meter.

b)     A reasonable offer of redress has been made for the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord correctly explained that, under the terms of the shared ownership lease, it was not responsible for repairs to the interior of the property and did not own or manage the freehold. It also correctly advised that statutory repairing obligations did not apply to repairs that were the resident’s responsibility under the lease.
5. The landlord offered an appropriate apology for its failure to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the expected timescales. It also offered reasonable compensation, in line with our compensation guidance.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 October 2023	The resident contacted the landlord and raised a complaint. They said: they had experienced issues with the energy meter since July 2022 as the issue arose during the defect period, they believed that the developer or freeholder was responsible they had been unable to resolve the issue through the managing company they wanted the landlord to inspect and either repair or replace the meter
19 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It apologised for delays in responding to the resident’s concerns but maintained that it was not responsible for repairing or maintaining the energy meter. It offered £200 compensation for poor communication and delays in providing an explanation.
25 February 2024	The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2. They said: they had reported the defect to the managing agent and the landlord on several occasions the landlord has a repair obligation under section 11 of the landlord and tenant act (1985) the energy company would not accept the repair request directly from tenants, it was therefore the landlord’s responsibility the landlord and the managing agent failed to keep accurate records about a water leak from the HIU after the leak the landlord and managing agent failed to inspect the energy meter for damage the issue was causing them distress and financial hardship
29 April 2024	The landlord issued it’s stage 2 response. It said: it had taken legal advice, which confirmed that it was not responsible for the repairs a clause in the lease means that the repair is the resident’s responsibility to resolve the landlord and tenant act does not apply to shared owners it believed the energy company was responsible for replacing the energy meter the defect period ended in March 2022
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. They said they had reported problems with their energy meter over several years, but the issue remained unresolved. They wanted the landlord to arrange for the energy supplier to repair or replace the meter. And pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

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	The landlord’s response to reported faults with the energy meter.
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

6. Throughout 2022 and 2023, the resident was in contact with the freeholder, managing agent, concierge, and energy supplier. They reported concerns about a faulty energy meter.
7. In March 2023, the managing agent told the resident that it did not consider the energy meter or HIU to have a latent defect. It therefore said that neither the managing agent nor the freeholder were responsible for replacing them.
8. We cannot investigate the actions of the freeholder, managing agent, concierge, or energy supplier because they are not members of our Scheme. We are also unable to hold the landlord responsible for the actions of those organisations, as it does not own the freehold, manage the building on the freeholder’s behalf, or provide the resident’s energy supply.

What we have investigated

9. Our investigation has considered how the landlord responded to the residents reports that the energy meter and HIU were defective.
10. There is no evidence to show that the resident reported any concerns about faults with the energy meter or the heat interface unit to the landlord, before submitting their complaint in October 2023.
11. In its complaint responses, the landlord told the resident that, as a shared owner, they were responsible for the maintenance and repair of items within the property. It explained that it did not have a repairing obligation for the energy meter and that section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 did not apply to repairs that the resident was responsible for.
12. This was appropriate and consistent with the terms of the resident’s lease which states that the resident is responsible for maintaining electrical equipment that exclusively serves their property. The lease also requires the resident to meet the full cost of repairs to the interior of the property. As the energy meter and heat interface unit (HIU) are located within the resident’s property and serve only that property, the lease places the repair obligation upon the resident.
13. The landlord sought legal advice to confirm its position before issuing its final response. This was appropriate and the landlord was entitled to rely on that advice.
14. The resident explained that they had been unable to arrange for the energy meter or HIU to be replaced because the energy supplier considered them to be a tenant rather than the property owner. They therefore believed the landlord should arrange the replacement. However, the resident is a shared owner and holds the underlease for the property. In March 2023, the managing agent told the resident that it had arranged for the energy supplier to install a replacement meter, but that the cost would be recharged to the resident. We have not seen evidence that the landlord’s further authorisation was required for the works to proceed. Instead, the evidence suggests that the resident chose not to proceed because of the cost of replacing the unit.
15. If the energy supplier does not recognise the resident’s status as a leaseholder, they may wish to raise the matter with the Energy Ombudsman.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

16. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint set out in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaints procedure also complied with the Code.
17. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. The policy also says it may make a discretionary compensation payment where there have been failures in complaint handling.
18. The landlord took 84 working days to issue its stage 1 response. In that response, it appropriately apologised for the delay and offered £250 compensation for poor communication and complaint handling failures. We consider this offer reasonable and in line with our guidance on compensation.

Learning

19. The landlord’s decision to obtain external legal advice showed that it wanted to ensure its position was correct before issuing its final response. This demonstrated that the landlord took the matter seriously and was appropriately seeking expert advice. The landlord should share this learning with relevant staff.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. No issues with record keeping identified.

Communication

21. The resident may have benefited from greater information regarding the different roles and responsibilities of the various organisations involved in the ownership and management of the property.