Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Abri Group Limited (202450758)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202450758

Abri Group Limited

18 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the fire alarm going off and the lift being deactivated.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy, which commenced in July 2015. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the 12th floor of a multi-storey block. There are 2 lifts in the building. The housing records confirm the resident is dyslexic and has mental health issues.
  2. The resident made a complaint on 3 January 2025. He said he reported the fire alarm was activated in the early hours of the morning, but no one attended. He noted that he was unable to sleep due to the noise. The resident told the landlord on 7 January 2025 that the lifts did not work when the fire alarm went off and he wanted it to address his concerns about ASB.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 31 January 2025 and said:
    1. It could find no record of the resident reporting the fire alarm had gone off during the early hours of the morning.
    2. The resident told the landlord’s out of hours service at 7.10 a.m. on 3 January 2025 that the fire alarm had been activated and the lifts had shut down, but no one had attended.
    3. It raised a repair to check the fire alarm following receipt of the resident’s report. It did not raise a repair to check the lifts.
    4. Its contractor attended at 8.30 a.m. and reset the fire alarm. This was in accordance with its 24-hour emergency response time.
    5. It telephoned the resident twice on 3 January 2025 to discuss his concerns but received no answer. A voice message was left for the resident.
    6. It had received no reports of ASB prior to the resident making a complaint. A community safety officer visited the resident on 29 January 2025, during which he raised concerns about drug use by non-residents entering the building.
    7. The resident should raise any ASB related issues with the police in the first instance and provide the landlord with the crime reference number so that it could keep a log of the issues.
    8. It would offer the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused due to the failure to raise a job to repair the lifts.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 31 January 2025. He said he called the landlord’s out of hours service at 10.42 p.m. on 2 January 2025 and had a log of the telephone call.
  5. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 3 March 2025 and said:
    1. It could find no evidence to confirm the resident reported the fire alarm was activated on 2 January 2025.
    2. Its out of hours service did not always raise a job to check the lifts when the fire alarm was activated. This was because the lifts could not be used in the event of a fire. The lift contractor attended at 2.13 p.m. on 3 January 2025 and repaired the lifts.
    3. The resident reported the fire alarm was activated again on 24 February 2025. Its contractor attended on the same morning and confirmed the fire alarm had been set off by people smoking in the building. The alarm was reset. It notified all of the residents on 25 February 2025 that the lifts were back in service.
    4. The resident told the landlord on 26 February 2025 at 11.59 p.m. that the fire alarm had been activated. Its contractor attended at 1.30 p.m. and reset the fire alarm. This was in accordance with the 4-hour response time. It did not, however, raise a job to check the lifts. This was despite the resident noting they were out of service.
    5. It would review its processes following reports of the fire alarm going off and the lifts shutting down.
    6. Whilst the resident had been given the correct advice regarding ASB, it could have provided more information on its approach and offered him the option to use a dictaphone given he was dyslexic. It was sorry this had not been offered to him previously.
    7. The resident should report drug use to the police given it was a legal matter. It was also investigating his concerns and would install a ring doorbell outside of his home to help improve his feeling of safety.
    8. It arranged for the communal front door to be repaired on 19 February 2025 and received no further reports of it being insecure. The communal side door was repaired on 20 February 2025 after it was identified that it was sticking and not fully closing. No further work was required.
    9. It would increase its offer of compensation from £50 to £100. This was because of the delay in offering the resident support on how to report ASB and for the delay in reviewing the process when the lifts shut down.

Post complaint events

  1. The resident’s ASB case was closed on 28 March 2025 due to lack of evidence.
  2. The landlord undertook an assessment on 7 April 2025 after the resident said he could not hear the fire alarm. This confirmed the resident could evacuate the building in the event of a fire. It also agreed to provide the resident with a ‘‘pillow shaker’’ and increased its lift servicing programme to twice a month. It provided the resident with a ring doorbell and offered him a dictaphone on 9 June 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In considering the landlord’s response to the issues raised by the resident, it is noted that he has referred to a possible impact upon his mental health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a resident’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if he wishes to take his concerns further.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building and keeping shared areas such as lifts in a reasonable condition.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will keep lifts and fire alarms in good repair and proper working order. It provides a 24-hour emergency response service to make safe ‘‘critical failures’’ and offers appointments for nonemergency repairs. No definitions are included in the policy for repairs that are considered ‘‘critical failures.’’ The landlord responds to fire alarm activations and lift breakdowns within 4 hours
  3. The landlord’s fire safety procedure says it will analyse false alarm activations that are reported to find patterns so that suitable and sufficient control measures are put in place. Residents are provided with information about the evacuation strategy for the building on an annual basis. The landlord has a ‘‘stay put policy’’ in place for the resident’s building. Person centred fire risk assessments (PCFRAs) are completed when the landlord becomes aware a resident is at risk.
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will do all it can to prevent, investigate and tackle ASB. This includes working with partners such as the police and responding quickly to reports of ASB and criminal activity. Regular contact is maintained with residents who report ASB.
  5. The landlord’s ASB procedure says it will contact residents within 5 working days of receiving an initial report of ASB and agree a plan of action with them. Vulnerability risk assessments are completed at the discretion of the caseworker. Residents who are identified as vulnerable are offered support. This includes considering ways to improve their security and providing information in different formats.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may offer an apology and compensation for any distress or inconvenience it causes. Awards up to £99 are made where the impact on a customer is low and they have not suffered distress as a result of the landlord’s actions or errors. This includes complaints from residents about the time taken to complete a repair. Awards up to £199 are made where a resident experiences unreasonable inconvenience or has been the subject of repeat service failures.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the fire alarm going off and the lift being deactivated

  1. The resident told the landlord on 3 January 2025 that the fire alarm was set off during the early hours of the morning and he was unable to sleep. He said he reported the issue at the time the alarm was activated but no one attended. He also noted the lifts had shut down and he struggled to use the stairs due to his medical condition. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had a responsibility to meet its repairing obligations as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
  2. The landlord’s out of hours team raised a job to reset the fire alarm on 3 January 2025 following receipt of the resident’s report. This was consistent with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. There is no evidence a repair was raised to check the lifts at this point. This was a failure and caused delays.
  3. The landlord’s contractor reset the fire alarm at 8.30 a.m. on 3 January 2025. This was in accordance with the timescales set out in the service level agreement that was in place with its contractor. The landlord’s lift contractor attended at 2.13 p.m. and repaired the lifts. This was not in accordance with the timescales set out in the service level agreement.
  4. The landlord told the resident on 17 January 2025 that it had no record of the resident reporting the fire alarm had been activated during the early hours of the morning on 3 January 2025. This provided clarity. It asked the resident on 20 January 2025 for more information after he disputed its claim that it had no record of his report. There is no evidence the resident responded to this request.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 31 January 2025.
  6. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
  7. In this case, the landlord confirmed it could find no evidence of the resident reporting the fire alarm being activated during the early hours of the morning. It said the first report it received was at 7.10 a.m. Its contractor reset the fire alarm at 8.30 a.m. on 3 January 2025.
  8.  The landlord acknowledged it did not initially raise an emergency job to check the lifts. Its lift contractor did, however, attend later that day at 2.13 p.m. and repaired the left-hand lift. It said this was in accordance with its 24-hour response time. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused for the delay in raising a job to repair the lift. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
  9. The landlord noted in its final complaint response on 3 March 2025 that it had received further reports from the resident about the fire alarm being set off on 24 February 2025 and 26 February 2025. It said its contractor attended on each occasion and the fire alarm was reset in a timely manner. It did, however, note that it did not raise a job to check the lifts following the report received on 26 February 2025.The landlord said it would review its processes for checking the lifts when the fire alarm was set off. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the resident’s complaint. The landlord increased its overall offer of compensation from £50 to £100.
  10. In summary, the landlord responded to the resident’s report that the fire alarm had been activated in a timely manner. It acknowledged there was a delay in repairing the lift and offered compensation in accordance with its compensation policy. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the fire alarm going off and the lift being deactivated.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

  1. It is not this Service’s role to establish whether the reported ASB occurred, but to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances.
  2. On receipt of reports of alleged ASB, this Service expects landlords to gather evidence to establish if the behaviour is unreasonable and if it constitutes ASB. This ensures landlords meet their obligations and take appropriate and proportionate action, if required. This should include using the powers available to it, including mediation, signposting to other agencies and enforcement action, where appropriate.
  3. The resident told the landlord on 3 January 2025 that the communal front door was insecure. He told the landlord on 7 January 2025 that another resident allowed drug dealers to access the building and they smoked in the communal areas. Whilst the landlord arranged for the communal front door to be repaired on 14 January 2025, there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns at this point. This was not consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy.
  4. The landlord told the resident on 17 January 2025 that a member of staff would be in contact regarding his concerns about ASB. No timescale was given for doing this. This meant the resident was unclear on what action the landlord was taking to address his concerns. This was a further failure.
  5. The landlord noted on 20 January 2025 that the communal doors were not secure and unauthorised people regularly entered the building. It said it contacted the resident on 23 January 2025 to discuss his concerns, but did not provide this Service with a record of the conversation. This demonstrated poor record-keeping on the part of the landlord. The landlord arranged to visit the resident on 29 January 2025.
  6. The landlord visited the resident on 29 January 2025. This was 3 weeks after the resident first raised concerns. He told the landlord that unauthorised people were accessing the building through the insecure communal door and smoking drugs on the stairwell. He said people banged on his front door and tried to force entry into his home. He also noted that on at least one occasion someone had pulled a knife on him. The resident noted the situation was exasperating his mental health issues.
  7. The landlord completed a risk assessment with the resident. This was appropriate. Risk assessments form part of statutory guidance which accompanies the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014. It says landlords should assess the risk of harm to the victim, along with any potential vulnerabilities, at the time it receives an ASB report.
  8. The landlord set out the action it would take to address the resident’s concerns. This was consistent with its ASB policy. Agreeing an action plan helps landlords to manage residents’ expectations and keep them informed about the progress of the case. This can reduce the stress and anxiety about the situation and provide confidence that the landlord has the matter under control. It also allows the landlord to show the range of solutions it has available to it. Moreover, it supports the landlord to make clear and consistent decisions and ensure staff are aware of the approach it is taking.
  9. The landlord told the resident to report any threats he received to the police. This was appropriate as the police are best placed to deal with reports of criminality. It offered to provide the resident with a ring doorbell to provide an additional layer of security. It also provided details of support agencies. This demonstrated the landlord was sensitive to the resident’s circumstances and wanted to put things right for him. The landlord agreed to provide the resident with updates.
  10. There is no evidence the landlord asked the resident to keep a record of incidents that occurred. This was not consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy. Gathering evidence is essential when conducting an ASB investigation and ensures landlords gain an understanding of the nature and extent of the problem that is occurring. It also enables landlords to manage residents’ expectations and where appropriate, determine which ASB tools to use to try and resolve the problem.
  11. There is no evidence the landlord liaised with the police regarding the resident’s reports of criminal activity. This meant it did not take a multiagency approach and was not consistent with its ASB policy.
  12. The landlord noted on 31 January 2025 that there were marks on the resident’s front door and these were consistent with the incidents described by him. It also said it failed to check if the communal front door was secure during the visit on 29 January 2025.
  13. The landlord noted on 31 January 2025 in its stage 1 complaint response that it was doing all it could to address the resident’s concerns about ASB. It said the resident should report any ASB related issues to the police in the first instance and provide the landlord with the crime reference number. This was not appropriate given the landlord was responsible for carrying out its own investigation and determining if there were any potential risks that it needed to mitigate against.
  14. The landlord acknowledged in its final complaint response on 3 March 2025 that it had not addressed all of the resident’s concerns about ASB in its stage 1 complaint response. It said it should have offered the resident a dictaphone to record incidents that occurred given he was dyslexic and struggled to complete diary sheets. Whilst this demonstrated the landlord took learning from the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not acknowledge the delays in responding to the resident’s initial reports of ASB or the other failures identified in this report.
  15. Whilst the landlord increased its offer of compensation by £50, it has not been possible to establish what proportion was attributed towards the resident’s complaint of ASB. A breakdown would have helped the resident to understand how the figure was reached and enabled them to reach a conclusion as to whether they believed the offer made was fair.
  16. In summary, there were delays in responding to the resident’s initial reports of ASB and it did not ask the resident to record incidents that occurred. It also failed to liaise with the police. The landlord did, however, carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan with the resident. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, for which it is ordered to pay £100 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the fire alarm going off and the lift being deactivated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his reports of ASB. This must be paid directly to the resident.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord pays the £100 compensation previously offered to the resident, if not already paid.