Aster Group Limited (202419335)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419335

Aster Group Limited

1 October 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 landlord’s handling of the condition of the property at the time of the resident’s mutual exchange and the subsequent repairs.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house and she moved in following a mutual exchange in December 2023. The landlord is aware that the resident has a physical disability and mental health conditions.
On 28 March 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said the property was in a ‘disgusting state’ and said it should have assessed the condition at the time of the mutual exchange. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 30 April 2024, in which it said:
1. it had declined the resident’s original application for a mutual exchange due to the condition of the property
2. following work completed by the outgoing tenant, the resident was present at a survey and signed a disclaimer form
3. at this survey it agreed to replace flooring in several rooms once the resident had moved in
4. it acknowledged that it had taken too long to change the flooring, as well as to diagnose an issue with a blocked sink
5. it had been unable to reinstate her oven after the flooring change due to the manual being unavailable
6. it offered compensation of £630
The resident spoke with the landlord on 6 June 2024 and asked it to escalate the complaint. She said the repairs issues had left her unable to enjoy her new home and she requested reimbursement of 3 months of rent. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 17 June 2024, in which it said:
1. the resident had raised repairs that the outgoing tenant had not previously raised – it had completed repairs once it became aware of the issues
2. it had conducted appropriate checks before the mutual exchange was completed
3. its response and compensation at stage 1 was appropriate
The resident contacted us on 12 August 2024 and asked us to investigate the complaint. She said that the repairs had exacerbated her mental health conditions and the landlord had not resolved problems with her downstairs toilet. She said she wanted the landlord to pay her additional compensation and rehouse her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

After the landlord sent its stage 2 response the resident raised a further complaint about ongoing repairs issues. The landlord raised a new complaint and responded to this separately. We will investigate these further issues separately under reference 202430598. This includes the resident’s reports of further issues with the drainage reported after the landlord’s stage 2 response of 17 June 2024.
The resident has told us that she has worsening mental health conditions because of the landlord’s inaction and delays. We cannot say if the landlord’s action or inaction has directly caused a detrimental impact on health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court where medical experts can look at independent evidence. We can look at whether the landlord considered the resident and her family’s vulnerabilities, and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.

Property condition and repairs

The resident submitted a mutual exchange application on 6 October 2023. The landlord conducted an inspection on 10 November 2023. Its internal records of 13 November 2023 show that it did not recommend that a mutual exchange went ahead at that time. It said the property condition was ‘extremely poor’ and listed several areas of concern that needed to be resolved first.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 November 2023 to tell her it could not approve the mutual exchange at that time as there were outstanding repairs/maintenance issues. It said it was working with the outgoing tenant to bring the property up to the required standard. The landlord conducted this inspection in line with its mutual exchange procedures. It was appropriate for it to identify these issues and ensure they were fixed before approving a mutual exchange.
The landlord conducted a further inspection on 8 December 2023, which the resident attended. The inspection form noted a few minor repairs were required and the landlord agreed it would replace the flooring in several rooms once the resident had moved in.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 December 2023 to let her know it would now approve the mutual exchange and her tenancy would start on 18 December 2023. She signed a disclaimer form on 13 December 2023. This set out the repairs that the landlord would be carrying out:
1. downpipe to be reconnected
2. missing spyhole to be replaced in the front door
3. kitchen flooring to be replaced
4. banister to be refixed to wall
5. fireplace in lounge to be boarded up
On 29 December 2023 the resident reported several repairs issues – the kitchen sink was leaking, the back door lock was faulty, the light cord in the hallway was too long and there was a broken socket in a bedroom with exposed wires.
The landlord’s records show it attended the same day to repair the broken socket. This was in line with the same day timescale for emergency repairs set out in its repairs policy. It attended to repair the sink and the light cord on 3 January 2024 in line with its 20-working day timescale for routine repairs. As it completed these repairs in line with its policy, its actions were reasonable.
The landlord’s records show that it completed the repairs agreed at the mutual exchange inspection, apart from the flooring replacement, on 5 January 2024. This was in line with its repairs policy and was therefore reasonable.
On 5 January 2024 the resident reported that her downstairs toilet was leaking. The landlord attended on 17 January 2024 and found that it needed a drainage specialist, who attended the following day and jetted the main drains to clear the blockage. The resident had access to another toilet during that period, and the landlord resolved the issue within its policy timescale.
The resident has told us that the landlord was aware of issues with the toilets reported by the previous tenant and so should have done more at this time. We have not seen evidence of the repairs reported by the previous tenant so cannot comment on this. However, as the jetting of the drains cleared the blockage, we cannot say the landlord should have been aware of a more serious underlying problem. So, its actions at this time were reasonable.
The landlord also attended to repair the back door on 17 January 2024, which was in line with its repairs policy and therefore reasonable. On 4 February 2024, the resident raised further repairs issues – a cracked bathroom basin and the living room light switch being too close to the door. She also raised with the landlord that it had not yet replaced the flooring as agreed.
The landlord replaced the living room switch with a slimmer one on 7 February 2024. It replaced the broken basin on 26 February 2024. It completed both repairs in line with its repairs policy and its actions were reasonable. However, it did not replace the flooring until 27 March 2024. As it had agreed this in December 2023, it did not carry this work out in line with its repairs policy, and this represented an unreasonable delay.
The resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint on 28 March 2024. She raised the following issues:
1. she was unhappy with the condition of the property and said it should have been fully assessed at the time of the mutual exchange
2. a blocked drain had caused flooding in her downstairs toilet and had not been fixed for several weeks
3. she had a problem with her front door and had been locked out of the property
4. there was a broken socket in a bedroom at the time of the mutual exchange
5. she was left without an oven after the landlord did not refit the existing one after fitting new flooring
On 5 April 2024 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and asked to visit the resident to discuss it further, which it did on 18 April 2024. It sent its stage 1 response on 30 April 2024. It acknowledged that the resident had to raise several repairs after moving in, which she found overwhelming. However, it explained that the previous tenant had not raised these issues and they were not evident at the inspection. It said it had completed these repairs once she had raised them.
We appreciate the resident had to report a large number of repairs. She has told us this has caused her a great deal of distress and inconvenience. However, it is important to note that a landlord cannot complete as thorough checks at a mutual exchange as when a property is empty. This is because the inspection has to be conducted with the outgoing tenant’s belongings in situ. We have seen no evidence that the landlord should have been aware at the time of the mutual exchange of any of the issues reported by the resident after she moved in. The landlord’s response on this issue was therefore reasonable.
In its response, the landlord said that it had taken too long to change the flooring. It offered £200 compensation for this issue, which was a reasonable and proportionate offer. It explained that its contractor had been unable to reinstate the oven as there was on manual available. It said the resident had confirmed she had sourced an electric oven and had this installed.
While the landlord said it was correct in not reinstating the gas oven, it said it could have given her advance warning of this. It issued her a £50 supermarket voucher to recognise the period she was without a working oven and offered £150 compensation for any inconvenience caused. The landlord’s explanation of why it could not reinstate the oven was reasonable and its offer of compensation was proportionate.
The landlord also acknowledged that it took too long to diagnose and fix a leak under the kitchen sink, linked to the blocked drainage. It offered £80 compensation for damage to a rug and items under the sink, which was reasonable.
The resident has provided us with screenshots of the text messages the landlord sent in relation to repairs. Some of these were to notify her of appointments and others were to let her know an operative was on their way to her. We appreciate that she felt that the number of text messages was excessive.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will communicate appointment times and repairs updates with residents, and it acted in line with its policy. It did recognise in its stage 1 response that there had been many appointments which will have impacted the level of communication. It offered £200 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by this, which was a reasonable and proportionate offer.
On 6 June 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. She said that she had been unable to enjoy her new home and its actions had impacted her health and her ability to attend medical appointments. She asked the landlord to reimburse 3 months of rent.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 17 June 2024. It acknowledged that she had raised 12 repairs since moving in but reiterated its position from stage 1 that it was not previously aware of the issues. It said it had conducted appropriate checks before approving the mutual exchange. It said its response and compensation offer at stage 1 was appropriate.
While there were some communication failures and repair delays by the landlord, it has acknowledged and apologised for this in its complaint responses. Our view is that the compensation offered by the landlord for its failures was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused, and in line with our remedies guidance and was therefore reasonable.
Taking all matters into account, we find reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the condition of the property at the time of the resident’s mutual exchange and the subsequent repairs.
We have made a recommendation for the landlord to, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, explore alternative ways of communicating with her about repairs that do not result in multiple text messages.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its handling of the condition of the property at the time of the resident’s mutual exchange and the subsequent repairs.

Recommendations

The landlord to pay the resident the compensation of £630 offered in its stage 1 response if it has not already done so.
The landlord to explore alternative ways of communicating with her about repairs that do not result in multiple text messages.