Aster Group Limited (202438674)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438674

Aster Group Limited

15 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:
   1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about her rent.
   2. Handling of reports of asbestos.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a 2-bedroom bungalow with her young child. The tenancy began in October 2018 as a 5-year fixed-term affordable tenancy, converting to an assured tenancy in May 2020.
3. On 7 December 2024, the resident complained that the landlord had advertised a neighbouring property at a lower rent and wanted her rent decreased and a refund. Later that month, she said she had not been told in 2018 that she was signing an affordable tenancy and raised concerns about the property’s condition including asbestos.
4. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 7 January 2025 explained affordable rents were introduced by the government in 2011, allowing social landlords to let around a quarter of their properties at up to 80% of market rent. It also set out how rent increases are calculated. It said the resident had signed an affordable rent tenancy. It advised its asbestos team had been out to check lounge and kitchen ceilings for asbestos and none was found, but an asbestos management survey would be done to check the bedroom ceiling.
5. The next day, the resident escalated the complaint, saying she had not been aware that it was an affordable rent property or what this meant, and that the rent had unreasonably increased over 6 years. She queried the survey and said she was concerned about the health of the household.
6. In its final stage 2 response on 26 February 2025, the landlord provided more information on affordable rent, but acknowledged doubts about whether the tenancy type was explained at sign-up, offering £75 compensation for the omission. It shared the survey report, confirming where it had identified asbestos.
7. In her referral to the Ombudsman, the resident said she wanted her rent brought in line with her neighbours’. She also included issues that arose after the end of the complaint process.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

8. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about the level of her rent, noting it was much higher than a neighbouring landlord property. The Ombudsman will not usually consider complaints about the amount of rent or any increase in it. If a housing association resident wants to challenge the amount of rent they pay, they can consider taking their dispute to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). However, we can consider how a landlord handled the resident’s query as to why her rent was higher than her neighbours’. This includes whether it responded to the resident’s queries and gave enough information to explain how her rent was calculated.
9. In her complaint to us, the resident said she had previously contacted the landlord about asbestos when she moved into the property in 2018. She questioned why the matter was only now being addressed. The formal complaint to the landlord about the asbestos was made in December 2024. There are time limits on complaints which the Ombudsman will investigate, which is usually the 12 months prior to the complaint. Because of that this investigation centres on the events in the months leading up to the resident’s complaint in 2024.
10. In her complaint to us, the resident also raised issues which occurred after February 2025. These included staying in a hotel during asbestos works in June 2025, and internal decoration damage. As these issues arose after the end of the complaint process they will not be considered in this report. Any new concerns should be pursued as a new complaint with the landlord, which the resident can then ask the Ombudsman to investigate if she is dissatisfied with its responses.

11. The resident was concerned that possible asbestos exposure affected the household’s health, including causing her child’s asthma. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Because this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her rent

12. The resident complained that a neighbouring landlord property had lower rent than hers, saying she felt “robbed” and wanted a rent reduction and refund. She also requested upgrades to her property, given that new build homes were being let at the same rent, but this was refused. She said she was unaware she had an affordable rent tenancy and wanted to know why her home was designated affordable rent and why her tenancy was converted to an assured tenancy. She also wanted evidence of how her rent was calculated and why her property had not been upgraded despite comparable rents for new builds.
13. The landlord explained why neighbours in similar homes may pay different rent amounts. It confirmed the resident’s property had become affordable rent when it became vacant in 2013 and had been let on that basis since. The tenancy agreement confirmed an affordable rent fixed term tenancy and was signed by the resident in October 2018.
14. The landlord said it had investigated the tenancy records and acknowledged that the sign-up form tick box for having discussed fixed term tenancies with the resident was unchecked, and offered £75 to reflect this.
15. The landlord also provided a thorough explanation of rent calculation, explaining that rent levels were based on an independent valuation and increased annually within limits set by the Regulator of Social Housing. The landlord said it had reviewed and confirmed the rent was correctly calculated at the tenancy start and in subsequent reviews and no reduction was justified. This was reasonable as the resident accepted the relevant terms and conditions when she signed the tenancy.
16. Overall the landlord provided a detailed answer to the resident’s concerns and explained her rent was compliant with policy and regulation, and the disparity with the neighbour’s rent did not constitute unfair treatment. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s perception of unfairness and in its responses provided a significant amount of detail about her tenancy and how the rent was decided. The £75 offered for its procedural oversight at sign-up was reasonable in the circumstances, given that there is no evidence of the resident asking it for clarification about the tenancy until well after it started. The landlord’s actions reasonably remedied that failing.

The landlord’s handling of reports of asbestos

17. The resident raised concerns that asbestos may have been disturbed, affecting air quality, and that she was not informed before moving in. The landlord acted promptly after the resident’s reports, offering to visit, and an asbestos management survey was carried out on 19 December 2024.
18. In its stage 1 response of 7 January 2025, the landlord summarised the survey. The next day, the resident requested a copy of the asbestos survey report and repeated her concerns about not being made aware of its presence and potential hazards.
19. In its final response of 26 February 2025, the landlord provided the survey report which was issued on 21 February 2025. Asbestos was found in the bathroom and both bedroom ceilings, but not in the kitchen ceiling, while textured coating containing asbestos was presumed to be above the skimmed ceilings of the hallway and lounge. No asbestos was detected in samples of the bathroom floor tiles, consistent with a 2018 report. The risks of asbestos in textured coating were assessed as low or very low, and the survey’s recommendation was to “manage and re-inspect.”
20. The landlord’s final response was thorough, appropriately acknowledging that the landlord could not confirm what asbestos information had been given to the resident at sign-up in 2018. It provided detailed answers to the resident’s queries about asbestos and explained it could not comment on medical issues or award medical-related compensation under its complaints policy, and signposted the resident to its insurers.
21. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately by responding promptly, arranging the asbestos survey without delay and sharing the asbestos survey report within a week of issue. Its handling of the resident’s asbestos-related concerns was fair, proportionate, and reasonable.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s concerns about her rent.
23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of asbestos.