Abri Group Limited (202323612)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323612

Abri Group Limited

12 June 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

The complaint is about the way the landlord handled the resident’s Right to Buy (RTB) application and associated boundary dispute.
This report has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom end of terrace house, which she has occupied since 2003. When she raised her complaint she was an assured tenant of the landlord. On 25 January 2023 the resident applied to purchase her property through the RTB scheme. Although the landlord is a housing association, it is understood the resident had a preserved right to buy following transfer of the property from the local authority.
The landlord accepted her RTB application on 3 March 2023. It then sent the sales documents to the resident’s solicitor on 12 April 2023. On 18 April 2023 a surveyor attended the property to carry out a valuation. The resident wrote to the landlord on the same day to query the boundary between her and her neighbour’s front gardens. She stated that her neighbour had “overtaken both front gardens” and “reduced” hers to a “patch”.
The resident wrote again to the landlord on 18 April 2023 stating that she wanted to make a formal complaint against a member of staff. She stated that:
1. their lack of communication was “unacceptable”.
2. they had “cut her off” during a telephone call.
3. they had twice issued incorrect information in relation to her RTB purchase.
4. they were unable to provide her with an explanation of why they failed to respond to her calls or messages.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 April 2023, after reviewing the plan the surveyor had prepared during the property valuation. She stated that the boundaries were “not correct” and that her neighbour had “encroached” on her land. She added that she aimed on moving forward with the purchase once the boundary issue had been resolved. The landlord responded on the same day to say it would investigate, which could involve a site visit.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 May 2023. It stated that:
1. it acknowledged the cover letter that came with the sales pack was incorrectly addressed. It assured her the sales documents were in the correct names and that it had “immediately” amended the letter and re-sent it. It apologised for the “confusion” caused.
2. her solicitor was yet to acknowledge the sales pack or raise any queries.
3. she had raised a boundary dispute on 18 April 2023, which it had investigated and responded to.
4. due to “increased workloads” it had not always communicated as frequently as expected.
5. its geographic information systems (GIS) specialist was “on leave”. This led to a delay in producing the information it needed in relation to the boundary dispute.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 May 2023 to say it had arranged for a surveyor to attend the site on 25 May 2025. The resident responded on 30 May 2023 to ask why the inspection of the boundary had not taken place. She said she had “once again” had to raise concerns about the landlord’s lack of action. She asked for the details of a manager so she could escalate the matter.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 9 June 2023 and said she needed to raise a formal complaint against the landlord. She stated it had “promised” to deal with the outstanding issues but that the member of staff concerned was on leave until 12 July. She added that she was worried her mortgage offer would be withdrawn. The landlord responded on the same day and stated that “unfortunately boundary disputes do take some time to investigate” and it was not a quick process.
A surveyor carried out a site visit on 14 June 2023 and confirmed that her neighbour had “encroached” on part of the garden belonging to the resident’s property. The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 and 21 June 2023 to explain that it was acting on the surveyor’s findings “as quickly as practicable”. However, it could not complete the purchase until the boundary issue was resolved. It stated that it would have to give notice to her neighbour to reinstate the boundary, which would “take some time”. On 4 July 2023 it told the resident it was taking “specialist legal advice” and required a specialist mapping company to visit the site.
Between 2 August and 24 November 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord several times to chase it for updates on the progress of her property purchase. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 November 2023 to provide her with the outcome of its investigation of the boundary issue. It explained that:
1. it had taken external legal advice regarding its ownership of her and her neighbour’s properties. This clarified that:
  1. they were both registered at the Land Registry under the same title number.
  2. there was “no legal boundary” between them.
2. the tenancy agreements for both properties did not “refer specifically” to any front gardens being included.
3. the areas at the front of the properties belonged to the landlord, and it could choose to do what it wanted with them.
4. it had decided, after “careful consideration”, to transfer the area at the front of her property to her, if she chose to proceed with the RTB. The pathway leading to her neighbour’s back garden would not be included.
5. it had attached the revised plan showing the area it was prepared to transfer to her as part of the sale.
The landlord wrote again to the resident on 27 November2023 to say it had escalated her complaint to stage 2.It stated that its investigation would consider its lack of communication during the RTB process. It asked her to let it know if there was anything she wanted to add to this. Following this, there is no evidence the resident contacted the landlord to raise any additional concerns.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 December 2023. It stated that it:
1. acknowledged it should have kept the resident better informed while dealing with the boundary dispute. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by her having to chase for updates.
2. would review its approach and communication with residents when handling RTB cases. Especially when there were unforeseen circumstances that would lead to delays.
3. recognised the outcome of the boundary dispute was not what she had hoped for. However, it acknowledged that, despite this, she still wanted to continue with her property purchase.
4. wanted to offer the resident £1,600 “as a gesture of goodwill” to reimburse her for costs she had incurred since her mortgage had expired.
The resident spoke to the Ombudsman on 10 January 2024. She said she was unhappy with the outcome of her complaint because:
1. the landlord did not “properly” progress her RTB application for 8 months. This resulted in her losing her mortgage deal before the interest rates went up, costing her “around £24,000”.
2. she had also lost her solicitor that she has paid a retainer for, and had to find a new one.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has also raised concerns about outstanding roof repairs and ASB. As these issues did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that we can investigate at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get these matters resolved. She may then approach the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied.

RTB application and associated boundary dispute

The Ombudsman cannot make a finding about where a boundary should lie. This is a legal matter that should be properly determined by inspection of the land and, ordinarily with reference to any documents held by the Land Registry. It follows that we cannot determine whether the landlord reached the correct conclusion with regard to where the boundary should be. However, we have assessed how the landlord dealt with the matter, and what steps it took to investigate the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s home purchase policy states that, in all cases, it will follow the prescribed sales process relating to the right to buy scheme, adhering to any requirements in respect of timescales, and the provision of information.
The government’s Right to Buy guidance states that the landlord must:
1. issue the resident an RTB2 notice, telling them whether or not they have the RTB. It must do this within 4 weeks of receiving the resident’s application.
2. send the resident an offer notice, giving the purchase price and the terms and conditions of sale. It must do this between 8 to 12 weeks after issuing the RTB2 notice.
3. complete the sale “as soon as” all the details have been settled. There is no set time limit for this, but the resident can use the delay procedure if they think the landlord is holding up the purchase.
The evidence shows that the landlord sent the resident the RTB2 notice around 5 weeks after she had sent her application. Although this was outside the 4 week timescale, the delay was not significant. Furthermore, there is no indication this caused the resident any detriment.
On 9 March 2023 the landlord queried alterations the resident had made to her property without seeking its permission. It advised her that, before progressing with her RTB application, it would have to grant her retrospective consent for those works. The landlord acted reasonably and promptly by notifying her 5 days later, on 14 March 2023, that it had granted this. The landlord sent the resident’s solicitor details of the purchase price and the terms and conditions of sale on 12 April 2023. This was within 8 weeks of issuing the RTB2 notice, in line with the RTB scheme. Furthermore, the landlord acted appropriately by promptly arranging the valuation survey, which took place on 18 April 2023.
The resident’s stage 1 complaint focused on the conduct of a staff member who was handling the resident’s property transaction. She stated their communication was poor and that they had put the wrong names on cover letters to her solicitor. The evidence shows that, from 3 March to 18 April 2023, the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s enquiries. Furthermore, once she had made it aware it had incorrectly addressed a letter, the landlord amended it and re-sent it on the same day. Furthermore, it apologised twice to the resident for the error. This was appropriate. We have assessed the landlord’s handling of the complaint in the next section of this report.
It is not disputed that there were significant delays in progressing the sale from 18 April 2023. The delay in progressing the sale followed a query the resident had raised about the boundary between her and her neighbour’s front gardens. On 28 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that, after having looked at the surveyor’s plan, she was of the view that the boundary was incorrect. She added that she was prepared to move forward with the purchase once the matter had been resolved.
The records show the resident became increasingly anxious about the affect the boundary issue was having on the progress of her purchase, and the delays it was causing. This was because she had secured a time limited mortgage deal. If the resident felt the landlord was delaying the RTB process, it could have advised her about the RTB scheme’s delay procedure. However, we recognise this option may not have been appropriate in this case.
The records show that, overall the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the boundary issue. It consulted Land Registry records. However, it is unfortunate this did not provide any information that would allow the landlord to make a clear decision about where the boundary should lie. In the absence of such information, it was appropriate for it to inspect the area, seek legal advice and make a decision accordingly. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of suitably qualified professionals. Although it stated that a specialist mapping company would need to attend the site, there are no records to show whether a visit took place. However, from the evidence available, the landlord took the most appropriate steps in the circumstances with a view to resolving the dispute.
It is acknowledged that boundary disputes can be lengthy and often take a long time to resolve. They can also involve input from various parties such as legal professionals, surveyors and mapping specialists. We are therefore satisfied that delays progressing the property sale due to the boundary dispute were largely unavoidable, and beyond the landlord’s control. However, when such delays occur in situations like this, we expect landlords to communicate appropriately with residents, and provide them with regular and timely updates.
It was appropriate that the landlord tried to manage the resident’s expectations while investigating the boundary issue between 18 April and 24 November 2023. For example, it explained to her on 9 June 2023 that boundary disputes did “take some time to investigate” and that it was “not a quick process”. However, we have identified a number of examples during this period where the landlord’s communication was lacking.
On 24 May 2023, the landlord told the resident that a surveyor would attend on 25 May 2025 to inspect the boundary. It is unclear why the appointment did not go ahead. There is no evidence it had informed the resident it had been cancelled. Despite her requesting an explanation of why the surveyor had not attended, the landlord failed to provide her with a satisfactory response. Furthermore, it did not inform her the appointment would be re-scheduled until 2 days before the surveyor attended on 14 June 2023. The landlord’s failure to be proactive in its communication would have likely resulted in avoidable frustration. It would also have caused her the inconvenience of having to chase it for updates.
On 21 June 2023, following the re-scheduled surveyor’s visit, the landlord told the resident it would “formally” write to her neighbour asking them to “immediately put the boundary line back to where it should be”. It added that, if the boundary was disputed, this would need to be dealt with by way of legal process. There is evidence the landlord contacted the neighbour about reinstating the boundary. However, there is no indication the landlord later updated the resident to advise her whether it would have to go down the legal route. This would have caused her ongoing uncertainty over when her sale was likely to progress.
On 4 July 2023, the landlord told the resident that it was “taking specialist legal advice” and that it was “working to resolve the issue…as soon as possible”. On 28 July 2023, it told her it was still waiting for a response from its solicitors and that it would keep her informed. Following this, there is no evidence the landlord had provided her with any further updates until 24 November 2023. This was when it sent the resident its letter explaining the outcome of its investigation into the boundary issue.
Furthermore, the landlord has not provided any internal records to show it made efforts to prompt its legal advisors for a response or hurry the process along. The resident was left to repeatedly chase the landlord for information for around 4 months. This should not have been necessary given the landlord was aware of the resident’s anxieties around her property purchase. Its poor communication during this time demonstrated a lack of customer focus. The lack of reassurance would have caused her additional distress and inconvenience during an already stressful process.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged its communication had been unsatisfactory. It explained that this was due to an increased workload. We recognise that social landlords have limited resources and that an increase in demand and staff absence can stretch these and interrupt its service delivery. However, they should take reasonable steps to ensure these issues cause minimum impact to the resident. The landlord should have made sure staff handovers were in place for when the resident’s main point of contact was on leave. It could also have set reminders to contact the resident, even if there were no significant developments to report. This would have helped reassure her it was taking steps to resolve the matter.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. We apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged its poor communication and apologised for the inconvenience this caused to the resident. It gave details of the learning from the complaint and actions it planned to take to improve its service in similar circumstances. It offered her £1,600 compensation in recognition of the costs she had incurred as a result of the delay in the RTB process.
We note the resident told the landlord she would incur additional costs of £24,000 as a result of having to apply for a new mortgage. There is no indication she had provided evidence of those costs during the complaint process. However, our assessment has found that the landlord was not responsible for all of the delays. Furthermore, the Ombudsman does not award damages in the same way a court would. We will identify a suitable remedy to reflect the landlord’s failings given the circumstances of the case, and in line with our Remedies Guidance.
We are therefore satisfied the landlord’s offer is fair and proportionate redress for the failings identified. It is also above what the Ombudsman would normally award for similar failings. For the reasons stated, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy defines a formal complaint. as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service by the landlord affecting a resident. The policy sets out a 2 stage formal complaints process. This states that it will:
1. Acknowledge all complaints within 2 working days.
2. Respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
3. Respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The same policy states that, if the resident is dissatisfied with the stage 1 outcome, or the way the landlord handled their complaint, they have the right to proceed to stage 2. The landlord will contact the resident to understand the reason they believe the complaint is unresolved. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that requests for stage 2 must be acknowledged, defined and logged within 5 working days of the escalation request being received.
The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 2 working days. It then issued its response within 7 working days. This was in line with its complaints policy and the Code.
However, the evidence shows that, on 30 May 2023, the resident had expressed continued dissatisfaction to the landlord and asked for a manager’s details so she could “escalate for action”. She then wrote to the landlord again on 9 June 2023 asking to make “an official complaint” about the delays in progressing the property sale. It was not until 27 November 2023 that the landlord acknowledged her continued dissatisfaction, and escalated her complaint accordingly.
It is unclear why it had not contacted the resident at the outset to clarify whether she wished to progress her complaint. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have established the resident’s outstanding concerns at an early stage. It should not have taken the resident to chase the landlord for 4 months before it escalated her complaint. This would have caused her unnecessary inconvenience and made the complaints process more protracted than it should have been. This was a departure from the landlord’s own complaints policy, and the Code. We note that, after it had acknowledged the escalation request, the landlord issued its stage 2 response within 18 working days. This was appropriate.
The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about a member of staff by reviewing the relevant records. It suggested that delays were down to the fact it had been waiting for her solicitor to acknowledge the sales pack and raise any queries. It also explained the reason why it had twice incorrectly addressed the cover letter to her solicitor. The landlord appropriately reassured her that all the sales documents were in the correct names.
However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about being cut off during a telephone call, or why the member of staff had not responded to her calls and messages. The Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. The landlord should have interviewed or taken a statement from the member of staff so it could provide a full and thorough response. The evidence shows the landlord did not properly address the resident’s concerns about the staff member’s behaviour. This also demonstrates a failure to engage with the complaint in a meaningful way, or to be thorough in its assessment of the staff member’s conduct.
We note that, in its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it had investigated and responded to the resident’s boundary dispute. This was incorrect and misleading. Its investigation into the boundary issue was ongoing at this point and the landlord issued its outcome letter on 24 November 2023. The landlord should have reviewed its own information and ensured the details it was giving were accurate. This error would have caused the resident unnecessary confusion. The landlord should always ensure its responses are properly checked before issuing them to avoid providing inaccurate information.
The landlord’s stage 2 response made no mention of the time it took to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request. That it failed to progress her complaint within a reasonable amount of time caused her avoidable inconvenience, and unnecessarily delayed the process for her. Taking this, and its failure to properly address all aspects of the resident’s complaint into account, we have made a finding of maladministration. We will order the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by these failings, and review its complaint training.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its handling of the resident’s RTB application and associated boundary dispute.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and a senior member of the landlord’s staff should make it.
2. pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of receiving this determination the landlord must review its complaint training to staff, with emphasis on ensuring escalation requests are appropriately followed up in line with its complaints policy, and the Code. Staff must also be reminded to address all aspects of a complaint and check responses for accuracy prior to issuing them. The landlord must share the outcome of its review with us within the timescale mentioned above.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of receiving this determination, if it has not already done so the landlord should pay the resident the £1,600 it offered her in its stage 2 response.