Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202328053)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328053

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

1 August 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Request for information about her service charges.
    2. Associated complaint. 

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. The property is a flat which is managed by a managing agent (the agent). The agent works on behalf of the freeholder for the building. The landlord is a leaseholder for the resident’s property and it is not the freeholder. The landlord collects service charges from the resident, which it then pays to the agent for the costs of managing the property.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 February 2023 in response to receiving the service charge budget statement for 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024. She asked the landlord to clarify certain terms and charges, provide specific reports and statements, and clarify who was responsible for monitoring aspects of the agent’s service. The resident asked if the landlord would agree to her withholding part of her service charges because she considered the charges to be unreasonable.
  3. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 6 March 2023. It replied to her on 14 March 2023 to say it would respond soon. The resident emailed the landlord again on 16 March 2023 and did not receive a response. She then chased it by telephone on 24 April and 10 May 2023 and did not receive a response.
  4. On 10 May 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord about its lack of response to her requests for information. She said it was causing her distress by not managing her services and not providing easy to understand service charge budgets and statements. The landlord did not provide a stage 1 complaint response to the resident and, on 20 July 2023, she escalated her complaint to the final stage of its internal complaints process.
  5. On 10 August 2023 the landlord provided 133 files containing invoices for various aspects of communal services and a rent review letter to show how the resident’s charges were calculated. The resident responded to say that she had already received the majority of these files before and her specific questions from 28 February 2023 remained unanswered.
  6. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 18 August 2023, when it apologised for its delay in providing her requested information. It attached further information which it said supported its services charges and explained how the 2023 to 2024 budget was calculated. The landlord explained that the agent and itself had differing financial years which needed to be considered when examining the statements and invoices. It said a named staff member was available to answer any further questions the resident may have. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and offered the resident £80 compensation for its delay in responding.
  7. On 22 September 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident again to provide specific answers and calculations to respond to the questions she raised in her original email on 28 February 2023.
  8. The resident has said she met with a senior member of the landlord’s finance staff on 17 January 2025 to discuss her concerns and oversee their resolution.
  9. On 10 March 2025 the resident said that new service charge inconsistencies had arisen the following financial year. The resident said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s explanation of her service charges from her complaint. To resolve her complaint, she wanted:
    1. Better communication from the landlord.
    2. It to resolve her concerns with the service charge by the 2025 financial year and it provide evidence to justify the service charges.
    3. Assurances from the landlord that it would calculate charges fairly and accurately, and for it to provide evidence of this.
    4. For the landlord to write off the amount of service charge she was withholding.

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. Disputes that relate to the amount of, reasonableness of, or liability to pay service charges are within the remit of the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT). The resident may wish to seek advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her dispute. She may also wish to approach Citizens Advice or Shelter for advice.
  2. In line with paragraph 42.d. above, we will not make a determination on whether the level of the service charges was justified. Instead, this investigation will focus on whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s request for information about her service charges, and whether it acted in line with its legal obligations in providing information.
  3. The resident told us on 10 March 2025 that she had further concerns with the service charge budget in the following financial year. Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure. As the landlord has not had an opportunity to respond to the resident’s new dissatisfactions through its complaints procedure, these new issues are outside the scope of this investigation. If the resident wishes to pursue this, she can raise a new complaint to the landlord. She may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her concerns.
  4. The resident wants the landlord to write off the amount of service charge that she was withholding. This is not an order that is within the Ombudsman’s power to make as the payment of service charges is a contractual obligation between the resident and the landlord.  This is better suited to the FTT to decide. We will, however, consider if any compensation should be paid to the resident to address any negative impact to her resulting from any failure by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about her service charges

  1. Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) (the Act) sets out the following:
    1. When a landlord issues a summary of costs to a resident, such as an invoice, the resident may request supporting information for those costs within 6 months.
    2. The landlord must provide “reasonable facilities” for “inspecting the accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the summary”.
    3. The landlord must make this information available to the resident within a month from their request, and the information should be available for 2 months after that.
  2. The landlord is not obliged to provide information going back further than the last financial year, however, it may do so at its discretion. When a landlord agrees to provide historical records, the Ombudsman would expect it to fulfil its offer.
  3. The specific requests and questions the resident made to the landlord on 28 February 2023 were:
    1. Which properties were included in the landlord’s definition of ‘block’ and ‘estate’.
    2. An explanation for how it calculated 4 of the costs in the budget, and supporting evidence to substantiate one of these figures.
    3. Annual expenditure reports for the years 2018-2021.
    4. Statements of anticipated service charge expenditure for 2022 and 2023.
    5. Up to date statements of her car parking, rent and service charges, and year end surplus/deficit.
    6. Confirmation of who was responsible for:
      1. Checking the agent’s services were fair and justified and carried out by competent contractors.
      2. Checking the standard of work done by the agent’s contractors.
      3. Checking the supporting invoices and documentation for the agent’s charges.
    7. Whether it would agree to her withholding part of the service charge that she disputed.
  4. The landlord did not provide the annual expenditure reports to the resident until 10 August 2023. It did not provide direct answers to the resident’s other questions until its email on 22 September 2023. The landlord took approximately 7 months to fully answer the resident’s query. It therefore failed in its statutory duty to provide the information within a month, as set out in the Act.
  5. The landlord’s account of events said that it maintained regular contact with the resident while her query was outstanding. However, it has not provided any evidence of this. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact with a resident. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place.
  6. In this case, when the landlord’s response to the resident’s request became delayed, it would have been appropriate for it to explain why to her, provide her with an updated timeframe, and keep her updated. Since the landlord has not evidenced that it took these steps, we are unable to conclude that it communicated appropriately with the resident during the lengthy delay.
  7. It was a serious failing by the landlord in not meeting its legal obligations. Further, most of the information the resident requested should have been readily available to the landlord such as which members of staff within its organisation were responsible for overseeing the charges levied by the managing agent. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide an initial partial reply, whilst it sought supporting evidence from its agent for one of the charges.
  8. It was positive that the landlord ultimately provided the information the resident request and in its final stage complaint response, the landlord recognised its delay and offered the resident compensation. It was also positive that it provided the name of a member of staff to her to assist with any further queries. This showed it was committed to resolving the resident’s concerns. Therefore, the landlord’s overall handling of the matter amounts to service failure.
  9. Given the length of the delay, the landlord’s offer of £80 compensation was insufficient. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience while awaiting answers to her queries, as the uncertainty affected her ability to make financial plans. Also, she spent time and effort in chasing the landlord for answers. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay her an extra £120, bringing the total compensation of £200, inclusive of the £80 it already offered. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which is available on our website. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord which has led to detriment for the resident. Awards in this range are appropriate when there has been a failure which caused distress and inconvenience but did not necessarily result in a permanent effect on the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s housing complaints policy sets out a 2-stage internal complaints procedure. It should issue its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. It should issue its final complaint response within 20 working days. The policy says that when the landlord needs to exceed these timeframes, it should explain why to the resident and keep them informed of progress. These timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). All landlords who are members of the Scheme must adhere to the Code. 
  2. The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 10 May 2023. By 21 July 2023, the landlord had yet to provide her with its response. This was after approximately 2 months. There was no evidence that it explained to the resident why there was a delay and or that it agreed an updated timeframe with her for its response. This was unreasonable and would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she was waiting for a response for longer than she should have been.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation of her complaint on 21 July 2023. It then issued its final complaint response to her on 18 August 2023. This was after 21 working days, which was not a significant delay. However, its final stage complaint response did not acknowledge or explain why it had delayed significantly in providing a stage 1 complaint response.
  4. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to ‘be fair’, ‘put it right’, and ‘learn from outcomes’. The landlord did not explain why it delayed in responding at stage 1, and therefore it could not learn from the failure so it could improve its service in future. Also, by not acknowledging its failure, it did not identify that it had caused detriment to the resident by its delay, and it did not offer any redress for this.
  5. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. To recognise the resident’s inconvenience, and time and trouble, the landlord must pay her compensation of £100. This award is in line with our remedies guidance, mentioned above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s:
    1. Request for information about her service charges.
    2. Associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the following orders:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £300. This is made up of:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s request for service charge information. The landlord may deduct the £80 it offered her previously, if it can evidence that it has already paid this.
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
    2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report. The apology must comply with our guidance for apologies set out in our remedies guidance.
    3. The landlord must also contact the resident to gather information on what she considers unresolved from her service charge query. It must write to her to set out its understanding of this, provide the details of the staff who will oversee her query to resolution, and set out a timeframe for resolving her concerns.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its procedures and resourcing for managing service charge queries to ensure that it can respond to residents without undue delay and within statutory timeframes. This should involve working with the managing agent to ensure that standard information about the costs of service charges for the estate for the last year is available to the landlord’s staff immediately without the need for a specific request each time a resident asks for this.  
  2. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to see if she wants to raise a new complaint about the ongoing issues following the stage 2 response. If the resident raises a new complaint, the landlord must provide a response in line with its complaints policy. If the resident has been unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the request for information since September 2023 and she has communicated this to the landlord, the landlord can consider the complaint from October 2023 onwards. The landlord must use its discretion to assess this.