From 13 January 2026, we 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.

Aster Group Limited (202321356)

Back to Top

 

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

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321356

Aster Group Limited

14 July 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 reports of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. He had a joint tenancy with his partner. It began in 2014 and ended in 2023. The property is a 2-bedroom, first-floor flat. The family lived at the property with their young children. The resident has a neurodiversity. His partner has vulnerabilities relating to her mental health. One of their children has asthma and some of them were ill while they lived at the property. A representative has helped the resident with his complaint. For readability, this report will refer to the resident, his partner, and his representative as ‘the resident’ unless further clarification is helpful.
  2. Between 2018 and 2021 the resident reported damp and mould to the landlord several times. The landlord completed some related repairs during this period. Subsequently, it completed other repairs that did not relate to damp and mould. Later, the resident complained to the landlord in January 2023. He said his family had been adversely impacted by damp and mould throughout their tenancy. He also said their belongings had been damaged and they incurred expenses in trying to resolve the problem. He said there had been a detrimental effect on his children’s health. The landlord visited the property in March 2023.
  3. In a stage 1 response later that month, the landlord said that mould was visible in every room during its visit. It also said there was evidence of damage to the family’s items and an impact on their wellbeing. It awarded the resident £250 in compensation and arranged an urgent move for the family. Soon afterwards, the family completed a permanent move to a larger property. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint in July 2023. He was unhappy with the landlord’s approach towards his concerns around liability and damages. The landlord issued a stage 2 response later that month. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  4. The resident remained unhappy subsequently. His representative updated the Ombudsman during a phone call in April 2025. They said the health and damage aspects of the complaint had not been resolved. They suspected the landlord had not referred these matters to its insurer. Overall, the resident felt it had not taken sufficient action to address the mould and its compensation award was inadequate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is recognised the situation was distressing for the resident and his family. The timeline shows it was ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or damage to personal belongings.
  2. In his complaint to the landlord, the resident said there was damp and mould in the property from around 2014 onwards. The scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be limited by various factors. This includes the length of time that has passed since the events in question. Residents are also expected to bring their complaint to the Ombudsman within a reasonable timeframe (usually within 12 months after a complaint has exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process). In line with our remit and out of fairness to both parties, our investigation has focused on the events which the landlord considered in its complaint responses. Any events that occurred before November 2018 are out of scope for our assessment.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. On 27 November 2018 the resident reported there was condensation and mould in the property. Repair notes said the problem was affecting the front room and the rear bedroom. Records show the landlord raised an inspection order at this point. Contact records show it called the resident and his partner to arrange the inspection. They also show it left a voicemail for the resident. Later, the landlord considered this period in its stage 2 response. It felt it was not responsible for any failures at this time. This was on the basis the resident did not return its call. The evidence supports the landlord’s assertion about the call.
  2. Damp and mould are potential hazards to be avoided or minimised under the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS is a risk-based approach. It confirms homes should not contain deficiencies that may give rise to hazards. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Inspections are used to assess, monitor, and control hazards. Reinspection is recommended to ensure any potential hazards are avoided or minimised. A proactive approach is consistent with the HHSRS. In this case, it was appropriate for the landlord to raise an inspection order. However, subsequent events suggest it contributed to a delay at this stage.
  3. Records show the resident reported mould again on 19 March 2019. This was around 4 months after his initial report. At this point, the landlord’s notes said it had previously closed an inspection order because it was unable to contact him. There is no indication the landlord had told the resident it would close the order if he did not take action. The evidence suggests it could have been more proactive given his report related to a potential health hazard. The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial report was unreasonable in the circumstances.
  4. The landlord spoke to the resident’s partner on the following day (20 March 2019). She said there was black mould in the front and rear bedrooms, the bathroom, and the front room. Her comments show the mould had spread. The number of affected rooms indicates it was extensive. She also said that extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom were defective. She reported that her baby had recently been treated for sepsis. She said a medical consultant felt that mould in the property was contributing to her children’s ill health. It is likely the situation was distressing for the family. It is unclear if they felt the landlord was directly responsible for any health impacts at this point. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explore their concerns further. This would have helped it to understand them. Having done this, the landlord could have considered whether it was able to offer any support to the family.
  5. The landlord tried to inspect the property 5 working days later. This was a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances. Records show it was unable to gain access. They also show the resident subsequently reported that his partner was at home to facilitate the visit. From the information both parties provided, the Ombudsman is unable to clarify what happened. Ultimately, there is a lack of evidence to support an appointment related failure by the landlord. Subsequently, the landlord completed an inspection on 11 April 2019. It recommended various repairs based on its findings. These included works to:
    1. Treat mould and stains around a window.
    2. Repoint cracking on a wall.
    3. Overhaul a heater in the lounge and a fan in the bathroom.
  6. The landlord completed mould treatment works in June 2019. It completed other repairs the following month. In its stage 2 response, it said it had followed its relevant procedures at this time. In contrast, repair records confirm some of its recommended repairs were delayed. For example, the expected and actual completion dates in its repair history show its mould treatment works were delayed by 2 weeks. The landlord has not explained the reason for the delays. The evidence shows it did not adhere to its relevant timescales and there was an error in its stage 2 response. Given the potential health effects and the family’s vulnerabilities, the landlord should have reasonably prioritised the mould treatment works. This may have helped to mitigate their situation. In addition, there is no indication it completed any monitoring after it completed its repairs. This was contrary to the HHSRS approach. Given the extent of the repairs it completed and the family’s vulnerabilities, it was also unreasonable.
  7. On 6 December 2019 the resident reported mould again. The landlord’s notes said there was a lot of condensation on the living room wall. They referred to black mould that returned after cleaning. It is noted there were less affected rooms at this point. This suggests the landlord’s repairs had improved matters. Records show the landlord called the resident around 8 times over the next 6 weeks to arrange an inspection. It also left him several voicemails. Based on these records, it made reasonable efforts to progress matters at this stage. In contrast, the landlord had made a limited number of calls in November 2018.
  8. Records show the following events occurred between 25 February and 10 March 2020:
    1. The landlord raised an inspection order. This suggests it may have spoken to the resident on this date.
    2. Two days later, the resident asked the landlord to change the time of a prearranged inspection.
    3. The landlord was unable to access the property on 3 March 2020.
    4. The resident subsequently told the landlord he had been at home all day.
    5. The landlord later inspected the property.
  9. Records from 11 and 12 March 2020 show the landlord identified several problems during its inspection. Among other issues, it referenced cracked render and a wet wall. It said intrusive testing was needed under the front and rear bedroom windows. It assigned some repairs to an external contractor. In its stage 2 response, it said these were suspended after COVID-19 restrictions were imposed in late March 2020. It also said the resident did not chase the repairs subsequently. Overall, the landlord felt that it must have overlooked some outstanding repairs when the pandemic restrictions were eventually lifted. Repair records from July 2020 show there is some evidence to the contrary.
  10. These records confirm the landlord’s contractor completed the intrusive testing at this time. They also show it completed some pointing repairs. It is unclear if the contractor recommended any follow-up works. The landlord should have reasonably clarified whether further works were needed. If it did do this, the landlord did not clearly record the contractor’s response in its notes. This is concerning and points to a record keeping problem. Similarly, there is no indication it arranged any additional monitoring of the damp and mould issues at this stage. Again, this was not consistent with the HHSRS approach. Given the above, there is evidence that it contributed to further delays at this point.
  11. Between 26 February and 19 March 2021 the resident obtained several documents from third parties. These show he wanted to move to a larger property. Medical letters said his partner was pregnant and experiencing depression and anxiety. They referenced mould and a lack of heating in the property’s lounge. The Ombudsman has seen other letters from a family member and a local school. It is unclear how the landlord responded to the resident’s letters at this point. This is concerning and points to further record keeping problems. Ultimately, there is no indication it attempted to address the reported issues at this stage. This was unfair. It is further evidence of delays by the landlord. Subsequent events show it was aware of the resident’s letters.
  12. On 22 July 2021 Citizens Advice wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The letter shows the landlord had declined his request for a management move (an urgent move to another of the landlord’s properties). The letter referenced mould and disrepair at the property, along with the family’s vulnerabilities. It said the landlord had failed to act on important information that the resident had given to it. The evidence supports this assertion. The landlord’s case evidence to the Ombudsman in 2024 included a screen shot. It shows the landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s partner on its systems. This is concerning. It should have been aware that she was vulnerable from at least July 2021 onwards. The landlord’s record keeping was inappropriate following the Citizens Advice correspondence. The landlord provided correspondence dated 24 August 2021 which referred to correspondence issued dated 21 May 2021 explaining the resident did not meet the criteria for a management move however this does not affect the above.
  13. The landlord raised an inspection order on 22 July 2021. It subsequently failed to attend a scheduled appointment on 26 July 2021. This was due to staff sickness. It did complete an inspection 3 days later. It has not supplied a first-hand account of its inspection findings. This is further evidence of inappropriate record keeping. Within days of the inspection, it raised a repair order to replace the property’s kitchen and bathroom fans. Records show these works were completed around 24 working days later. The landlord’s applicable repairs policy says it should complete routine repairs within 20 working days. The evidence shows it was responsible for a short delay at this stage. Following its repair works, there were no references to damp or mould in its records for a significant period of time.
  14. The resident complained to the landlord on 15 January 2023. He said there had been damp and mould in the property since his tenancy began. He also said the damp and mouldy conditions had damaged various belongings including furniture, clothes, and toys. In addition, he said his children’s health had been adversely impacted. He wanted the landlord to cover the cost of his damaged items and reimburse some related expenses. He said he had bought dehumidifiers as well as anti-mould products. His comments show he held the landlord responsible for the reported impacts. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was distressing for him.
  15. The landlord visited the property on 14 March 2023. This was around 2 months after the resident complained. Subsequently, it issued a stage 1 response on 30 March 2023. It referred to the visit in its response. It said “condensation and mould was visible” in every room. It also said it had seen the impact this was having on the family’s wellbeing. It noted some of their items were affected and it was evident they had been cleaning the mould. It acknowledged they were using dehumidifiers. The landlord said it should have resolved the mould previously. It awarded the resident £250 in compensation for related distress and inconvenience. It also said it would move the family to another home in the area. These were positive steps by the landlord.
  16. The landlord told us it rehoused the family on 24 April 2023. Its records show the move was permanent. Later, the resident told the Ombudsman their new home was “substantially larger” than the property. Based on the period between 30 March and 24 April 2023, it took the landlord 16 working days to rehouse him. This was swift and effective action by the landlord to fulfil its commitment. It is noted the landlord had previously declined the resident’s request for a management transfer. In general, there is a high threshold to qualify for this type of move. Where they approve them, landlords are not obliged to provide a larger home. It is important to recognise that, by swiftly moving the family to a home with more bedrooms, the landlord took an exceptional step in this case. It is reasonable to conclude this involved a financial cost to the landlord.
  17. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint around 10 July 2023. This is based on the landlord’s related records and internal correspondence. It did not provide a copy of his escalation request. This is more evidence of record keeping problems. In its internal correspondence, the landlord said it had moved the family “due to the severity of the mould”. It also said the resident wanted compensation for their damaged goods. It confirmed he had provided a list of items and proof of purchase. It said it agreed with some of the items that were on the list, but it was “very long”. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the amount of reported damage when deciding how to respond.
  18. Where a resident holds a landlord responsible for health impacts or damage to their personal belongings, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to signpost them to its insurance team or process. It is noted that insurers specialise in resolving liability matters. Alternatively, landlords can address some issues through their own internal complaints procedure. This approach could be applied to a small number of damaged items. The landlord’s compensation procedure says it will compensate residents if their belongings are damaged due to its actions. It will take its own insurance policies into account when considering damage claims. The procedure also says all health and injury related claims should be handled through its injury claim process. It is noted the landlord’s expectations are broadly consistent with the Ombudsman’s.
  19. On 27 July 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It was issued by one of the landlord’s senior managers. The landlord said it had been unable to contact the resident to discuss his complaint. It also said it had been difficult to contact him to arrange repairs over the years. It said this had caused delays. It also said some delays were caused by the pandemic. The landlord felt it lacked control over these issues and the associated delays. It also felt it had largely complied with its service standards following the resident’s reports. It said that following its repairs in 2021, the resident did not make any further damp and mould reports until he complained in 2023. Ultimately, it did not uphold the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The landlord’s other key points were:
    1. It was unclear what had caused the mould in the property. Overcrowding may have been a factor as the family grew in size. There was no indication of an inherent repair issue at the property.
    2. It had previously awarded the resident £250 in compensation. It had also arranged a move for him. It felt these actions were sufficient to address his distress and inconvenience, regardless of what had caused the mould.
    3. It would not compensate the resident for his damaged items. His belongings were his responsibility. He may be able to claim through his own contents insurance.
  20. There were problems with the landlord’s response. It overlooked some of the delays we have identified above and the landlord’s contribution to them. It also placed undue emphasis on the resident to resolve matters. As mentioned, the landlord has obligations under the HHSRS. Its response did not acknowledge that the landlord should be proactive when it comes to potential health hazards. The evidence shows its lack of proactivity in this case contributed to the overall duration of the mould issues. The landlord also adopted a concerning approach to the resident’s concerns around damages. This approach was contrary to its own procedures and the Ombudsman’s expectations. These were significant failures on the landlord’s part. Its response was unfair and inappropriate.
  21. The resident’s representative updated the Ombudsman during a call in April 2025. They acknowledged the landlord had completed some repairs. However, they said it had not responded to the health aspect of the resident’s complaint. Similarly, they said it had not fairly resolved the related issues around damaged items. They reiterated that the family had bought dehumidifiers to mitigate the damp and mould in the property. They believed the landlord should have supplied this equipment. Some of these concerns were understandable in the circumstances.
  22. The representative’s comments show the resident’s concerns around health impacts, damages, and costs have not been adequately addressed to date. Based on the period from 15 January 2023 onwards, this represents a delay of at least 26 months. Insurance claims can be time sensitive. It is best practice for a landlord to refer the reporting resident to its correct process as soon as possible. In this case, there is no indication the landlord did this. The delay was inappropriate and it represents a significant procedural failure by the landlord.
  23. In summary, it is acknowledged that the landlord had problems contacting the resident at times. It did complete some repairs, and the severity of the damp and mould issues varied over time. There was also a lack of reports from the resident following its works in 2021. In addition, the landlord took the exceptional step of moving the family to a larger property using its urgent transfer process. It is reasonable to conclude this involved a financial cost.
  24. Despite this, the landlord was responsible for some serious failures in this case. Contrary to the HHSRS, it did not adopt a proactive approach towards a potential health hazard. This contributed to the prolonged damp and mould timeline. Its record keeping was inappropriate. It failed to handle the resident’s concerns about health impacts, damages, and costs fairly. It is likely these failures added to his distress. The landlord identified some of its delays and failures, but it did not recognise their full extent. As a result, it did not do enough to put things right given the related impact to the resident.
  25. Having carefully considered these factors, as well as the restrictions placed on landlords by the COVID-19 pandemic, we find there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. This finding is consistent with the evidence and the Ombudsman’s guidance on outcomes, which can be found on our website. Significantly, we do not agree that rehousing the resident was equivalent to financial compensation as it did not address the retrospective impact. The move served simply to provide more suitable housing for the resident’s family from the point they were rehoused onwards. It was the landlord’s decision to provide a larger property as part of its stock management. While this may have the beneficial effect of lessening any consequences of overcrowding, the increase in property size is not accepted by this Service as a form of redress.
  26. The landlord’s compensation procedure shows it can make discretionary payments to address service failures. It will consider various factors including the duration and impact of the failure. It will consider each case on its own merits and awards should be proportionate. The procedure refers to the Ombudsman’s own guidance on remedies. Our remedies guidance shows awards can exceed £1,000 where serious failings by a landlord have resulted in a severe long-term impact to a resident. Since the relevant criteria apply to this case, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen, the individual case circumstances, the landlord’s compensation procedure, and our remedies guidance. It is based on the landlord’s own calculation plus an additional amount for distress and inconvenience. It reflects the landlord’s accumulated failures.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident complained on 15 January 2023. The landlord logged and acknowledged his complaint on 19 January 2023. This was 3 working days later. This timescale was consistent with the applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). On 1 February 2023 the resident chased the landlord for its response. It updated him around 3 weeks later. It said there was a delay but it hoped to respond by 8 March 2023. It subsequently issued a stage 1 response on 30 March 2023. This was 10 weeks after it logged the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to complaints within 10 working days of logging them at stage 1. This shows there was an inappropriate delay. It is reasonable to conclude that chasing the landlord was both avoidable and inconvenient for the resident.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 1 response. It awarded the resident £100 in related compensation to address it. Given the extent and impact of the delay, it was appropriate to compensate him. The landlord’s calculation was consistent with the guidance in its compensation procedure. It was also reasonable. However, there were issues with the landlord’s response. It did not include a timeline of events. This information may have increased the accuracy of the landlord’s findings, helped it to calculate a proportionate amount of compensation for the substantive complaint issue (about damp and mould), and helped the resident understand its actions. Similarly, the response did not include a clear complaint outcome (upheld or not upheld). Section 5.8 of the Code, as published in March 2022, confirms a compliant response must include a decision in “plain language”. The response was not compliant. Overall, the resident may have benefited from some additional clarity.
  3. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s stage 1 response around 10 July 2023. As mentioned, the landlord has not supplied a copy of his escalation request. It acknowledged the request around 3 working days later. This was a reasonable timescale. The acknowledgement said the resident was seeking compensation for his damaged items. Subsequently, the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 27 July 2023. This was around 13 working days after the resident’s escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy shows it will respond to complaints within 20 working days of an escalation request at stage 2. It responded in line with its applicable policy timescale. This was appropriate complaint handling.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response was more detailed. It also included a timeline of events. This was a reasonable approach given the complaint was complex. However, there was a similar issue around the clarity of the landlord’s findings. Initially, the landlord said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It then said it had already awarded him “reasonable redress” for any distress and inconvenience he had experienced. There is a difference between not upheld and reasonable redress findings. Ultimately, it was not entirely clear whether the landlord felt it was responsible for any failures or not. The inconsistency in its stage 2 response may have caused some confusion for the resident.
  5. In summary, the landlord identified its initial complaint handling delay and addressed it accordingly. It took appropriate steps to put things right for the resident at this point. However, there were other issues with its responses. They relate to the clarity of its findings and its compliance with the Code. The landlord has not acknowledged these issues. Ultimately, the lack of clarity in its responses may have caused some confusion for the resident. Given its additional failures and their impact, we find there was service failure in respect of its complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident some additional compensation. Again, our award reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies.

Review of policies and practice

  1. The landlord failed to comply with its stated approach to health and damage claims at either stage of its complaints process. A senior manager issued its stage 2 response. Arguably, there may have been a similar failure in March 2019. The evidence points to problems with its approach to these issues. Since liability claims against landlords are fairly common, we have decided to issue a wider order. This is for the landlord to review its related policies and practice. We have done this because its related failures may give rise to further complaints about the matter. We have set out the scope of the review below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a relevant member of its executive team to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology must acknowledge the key failures that are identified in this report. It should also reflect the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance, which is available on our website. The landlord must provide evidence of its apology to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,400 in compensation within 4 weeks. Our calculation replaces its previous award. If it has already paid the resident, the landlord should deduct the £350 it awarded during its internal complaints procedure (or any part of it that has already been paid). The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It comprises:
    1. £1,250 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to his reports of damp and mould.
    2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to contact the resident about his unresolved concerns (damage to health and belongings, and costs incurred). This is to ensure they are addressed accordingly. It should signpost the resident to its insurance team or process. It should also gather details of his expenses. It must then assess them and respond in line with its compensation procedure. Since it was responsible for a significant procedural delay, the landlord should avoid imposing onerous evidence requirements on him. During this contact, the landlord must check to ensure it has accurate information about the family’s vulnerabilities on its systems. It must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  4. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to review its policies and practice around insurance/liability matters. The review must be conducted by a team that is independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The landlord must share the review’s findings within 16 weeks. It must also report the findings to its governing board or body. The review must include (but is not limited to):
    1. An exploration of why the failings identified in this report occurred and whether the landlord has sufficient policies, procedures, guidance, and processes in place to deal with liability matters fairly and appropriately.
    2. An exploration of whether any additional complaints (for other residents) have been impacted by similar procedural failures.
    3. Details of the overall number of cases that are impacted along with details of the number of residents that are affected.
  5. Following the review, the landlord should:
    1. Produce a report setting out:
      1. The findings and learnings from the review.
      2. The steps it will take to prevent similar failings from recurring.
    2. Implement the recommendations from the review. This includes cascading any identified improvements to its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.
  6. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to share a summary of this report’s other key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It must share a copy of its relevant internal communication with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.