From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Abri Group Limited (202420324)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420324

Abri Group Limited

14 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the property, which is a 3-bedroom house, built in 2010. The resident purchased the property in July 2023.
  2. The resident lives at the property with their partner and daughter and is pregnant with their second child.
  3. The resident first reported mould in the property in January 2024. They had discovered that there had been a leak in the loft, which had caused the mould. The landlord said it was the resident’s responsibility as they are a shared owner.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 May 2024 to report that they had been clearing out the loft and discovered mould all over their belongings. The landlord told them that all repairs were the resident’s responsibility, and the property had been sold as seen.
  5. As the resident was unhappy with the response, they raised a formal complaint on 31 May 2024. They said:
    1. The landlord had not helped with repairs since they moved in.
    2. They pay a service charge and thought the landlord should refund this, to go towards the repairs.
    3. They had been to hospital with their 11-month-old daughter due to the damp and mould.
    4. There was mould on clothes, toys and bedding and they were seeking compensation for the items they have had to get rid of.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 June 2024. It said:
    1. The resident would be responsible for repairs due to being a shared owner. When the resident purchased the property in 2023, it was sold as seen and it was their responsibility to instruct any survey reports. The landlord confirmed that the service charge paid by the resident is to cover the building insurance.
    2. It completed a damp and mould wash on 14 June 2024. This was in error, and it apologised for the mixed messages this caused.
    3. It upheld the complaint, and the landlord decided that it would be unreasonable to charge the resident for the damp and mould wash, despite the fact it should not have gone ahead.
  7. The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 on 20 June 2024. They felt the landlord had reached the wrong outcome and that it should assist with the damp and mould issues. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 August 2024 and said it handled the stage 1 complaint correctly and reached the correct outcome. It said the resident is responsible for repairs as they are a shared owner. The resident referred their complaint to the Housing Ombudsman on 16 August 2024. They said that their loft is full of mould, and their daughter has been in hospital with a bad chesty cough.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has asserted that the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould has negatively impacted on their family’s health. While the Service does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, they should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy, its legal obligations and fairly in the circumstances.
  2. The resident has told the Ombudsman that their vent is almost fully covered from the outside, which has restricted air flow and caused the damp and mould. From the evidence provided, the resident did not raise this issue as part of their formal complaint. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues that have completed the landlord’s formal complaint procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they should escalate the complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint process and then refer it to the Service.

The landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould

  1. The resident has complained about the landlord’s response to their reports of damp and mould after bringing it to the landlord’s attention on 28 May 2024. They feel that as they own 50% of the property and the landlord owns the other 50%, they should share the responsibility of dealing with the damp and mould repairs.
  2. The resident is a shared owner of the property and the shared ownership house lease states that the resident is responsible for keeping the property in a clean and good condition, substantially repaired, maintained and decorated. The landlord has also provided the Key Information for Shared Owners document, which states that although the resident does not own the property outright, they have the normal responsibilities of a full owner. It says that the resident is obliged to pay 100% of the outgoings relating to the property and keep it in good and substantial repair and condition.
  3. The Service has seen evidence that the leak in the loft was likely caused by solar panels fitted for heating water by the previous owner. The resident has said they believe the damp and mould issues were present before they bought the house. The landlord had advised the resident to arrange a homebuyer’s report, as it was a previously owned property. This was reasonable as the landlord provided the correct guidance about the resident’s responsibility to check the condition of the property before completing the purchase. The Ombudsman notes that by purchasing the property, the resident took full responsibility for the property as it was sold, including any amendments made by the previous owner.
  4. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has acted reasonably and provided accurate information. The terms of the lease mean that the landlord did not have any responsibility to carry out repairs for the resident. The landlord responded promptly and investigated the issue without delay, to find out who was responsible for the damp and mould issue. It then notified the resident of their responsibility as a shared owner, gave a clear explanation, answered any queries and said it could support them in raising a stage 1 complaint.
  5. Despite the landlord giving the correct information to the resident, it arranged for a damp and mould wash to take place on 14 June 2024, which went ahead before it could be cancelled. The landlord has acknowledged it should not have raised this job, and it apologised for the mixed messages. The Ombudsman agrees that this would cause confusion for the resident, about who is responsible for resolving the damp and mould issue. However, we are pleased to see that it took responsibility, apologised, provided feedback and retrained its staff members, to ensure an issue like this would not happen again. It also did not charge the resident for the damp and mould wash, as this went ahead due to the landlord’s error.
  6. Overall, the information the landlord gave to the resident about its responsibility with the damp and mould was accurate and in line with the terms of the lease. It has also taken accountability for the repair works raised in error. The Ombudsman considers that as the landlord did not charge the resident for the damp and mould wash; there has been no negative impact on the resident. As such, there has been no maladministration by the landlord.

The associated complaint

  1. The Service’s Complaint Handling Code sets out the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. The resident raised their formal complaint on 31 May 2024, and the landlord acknowledged it on 4 June 2024. It therefore acted reasonably, as the Code states that the landlord must acknowledge, define and log stage 1 complaints within 5 working days of receiving them.
  2. The Code says that landlords must issue a full stage 1 response within 10 working days of its complaint acknowledgement. On 14 June 2024, the landlord sent a letter to the resident, advising that it was still investigating and would aim to provide a full response by 2 July 2024. The landlord therefore informed the resident of the need for an extension on day 8 of the 10 working days. The Service recognises that the landlord wanted to fully investigate the complaint, and we are pleased to see that it notified the resident of the extension need and provided a date that it would respond, to manage their expectations. The landlord then sent its stage 1 complaint response on 20 June 2024, sooner than anticipated. As the landlord was only 2 working days over the timeframe set out in the Code, we do not consider this to be unreasonable or to have caused a significant negative impact on the resident.
  3. In its stage 2 acknowledgement, the landlord said it would try to respond within 20 working days, and this is the same requirement set out in the Code. However, it informed the resident on 17 July 2024 that it needed an extended deadline, and it would provide a full response by 16 August 2024, which it complied with. Under the Code, the landlord had until 25 July 2024 to provide its stage 2 response, but it acted reasonably by being open with the resident that it needed an extension. The extension meant that the landlord delayed the stage 2 response by 16 working days but as this was made clear and the resident’s expectations were managed, we do not believe that the delay resulted in a negative impact on the resident.
  4. Overall, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted reasonably in keeping the resident updated as to when they could expect to receive a response. Whilst there were delays in providing the responses, it was open about the extensions needed and this transparency helped in ensuring there was not a significant negative impact on the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.