Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Aster Group Limited (202430598)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430598

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a drainage issue at the property.
    2. Repairs to the roof.

Background

  1. 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.
  2. The resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint about ongoing drainage issues on 22 August 2024. She told it she did not have use of a toilet at that time, which she said was a health and safety issue. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 13 September 2024, in which it said:
    1. the resident had reported issues with the toilets 4 times since the start of her tenancy
    2. it had mostly attended and carried out work in line with its repairs policy, however a recommendation for a CCTV drain survey had been missed on one occasion
    3. it offered £100 compensation for the missed CCTV survey and a further £100 for the overall delay to resolving the drainage issue
  3. On 26 September 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint as she said its response was not acceptable. She said she was unhappy with roof repairs carried out in July 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 1 November 2024, in which it said:
    1. it agreed there had been a large number of repair requests, but it could not have foreseen these problems at the mutual exchange inspection
    2. it offered to book a hotel room for the resident to use during the daytime while roof work was carried out, but she declined this
    3. the resident should not withhold rent due to repairs issues and would need to make a payment arrangement to clear her arrears
    4. it had an open job to replace a toilet but was waiting for the resident to arrange an appointment
    5. it offered a visit on 4 November 2024 to make a comprehensive list of outstanding issues
    6. it offered to fit bathroom flooring and cut back the garden
    7. it offered additional compensation of £100
  4. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and on 11 November 2024 asked us to investigate matters. She said she had spent many hours over a 10-month period waiting in for appointments and the issues remained unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident raised a previous complaint about the property condition which included earlier drainage issues. We investigated this under 202419335. This investigation will therefore only look at issues raised after the landlord’s previous stage 2 response of 17 June 2024.
  2. Following the stage 2 response of 1 November 2024 the resident has raised additional issues. These relate to the actions of the landlord’s contractor in March 2024, the landlord’s handling of a proposed decant, and the training of its staff to deal with residents with disabilities, mental health problems and victims of domestic abuse. The landlord has raised these issues as a new formal complaint. We will therefore not consider these matters as part of this investigation.
  3. 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’s vulnerabilities, and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.
  4. The resident has recently told us that she feels that the landlord’s actions have breached her human rights. We cannot decide if someone’s human rights have been breached as that is a matter for the Equality and Human Rights Commission but, in reaching our findings, we have considered whether or not the landlord has acted fairly towards her.

Drainage problems

  1. The resident reported drainage issues that we investigated under 202419335. We concluded that when it sent its previous stage 2 response on 17 June 2024 it had done everything it thought necessary to resolve the issue. There was no evidence that at that time it should have been aware there was a more serious underlying problem.
  2. The resident told the landlord that both of her toilets were blocked and a manhole outside was overflowing on 25 July 2024. The landlord’s repairs records indicate that it attended the same day and jetted out the drains, restoring water flow to the toilets. It responded in line with its repairs policy timescale of 24 hours for emergencies, so acted reasonably.
  3. On 6 August 2024 the resident reported that she was again having problems with a toilet. The landlord’s contractor attended the next day, in line with its repairs policy. The contractor changed some parts on the toilet and noted that the manhole to the back of the property was still not clear. They recommended that the landlord conduct a CCTV drain survey to look for a blockage further down the line.
  4. On 11 August 2024 the resident reported that water was leaking ‘everywhere’ in the bathroom. The landlord’s records show it raised this as a routine repair with a 20-day timescale, which does not seem appropriate given what the resident had reported. A contractor attended on 13 August 2024 and recommended that the landlord complete extensive jetting before carrying out a CCTV drain survey. The landlord completed jetting on 19 August 2024, which represented an unreasonable delay, given how often the resident was reporting drainage issues.
  5. On 21 August 2024 the resident again told the landlord that both toilets were blocked and full to the top. On 1 September 2024 she reported again that they were both blocked, with one spilling over. The landlord carried out a CCTV drain survey on 2 September 2024. It would have been reasonable for this to have been carried out sooner given the contractor’s recommendation to do so in early August 2024.
  6. The drain survey showed that the drainage line was blocked with tree roots and was damaged. The landlord completed work to dig out the roots and repair the drainage line on 3 September 2024, which was in line with its emergency repairs timescale.
  7. On 4 September 2024 the landlord raised a job to change the upstairs toilet pan due to a build-up of limescale it believed could be contributing to issues. The resident cancelled this job. In its stage 1 response of 13 September 2024, the landlord said it had tried to book an appointment for 26 September 2024, but the resident had declined this, saying she was not happy to wait in for further appointments. We appreciate the resident was frustrated with the number of appointments she had to arrange. However, the landlord could not carry out this work without her agreement.
  8. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in it completing a CCTV drain survey and it offered £200 compensation for this and the drainage delays. However, it failed to acknowledge the number of times the resident had to report both her toilets being blocked. Its response, and compensation offer, were not proportionate to its failings.
  9. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 26 September 2024 and the landlord met with her in person to discuss matters on 17 October 2024, which was a positive action. On 22 October 2024 the resident reported that her upstairs toilet was blocked again. The landlord responded the same day to reiterate that it planned to replace this toilet when she would allow for an appointment.
  10. The resident reported that she was unable to use both toilets on 29 October 2024 as one was blocked and the other had a broken bolt. The landlord attended on the same day to carry out repairs to both toilets, in line with its policy for urgent repairs.
  11. On 1 November 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 response, in which it apologised for the considerable number of repairs requests she had to raise. It acknowledged that she had to spend a lot of time waiting in for appointments. It said that it still had an open job to replace the upstairs toilet and asked her to book an appointment. It increased its compensation offer to £300, which was reasonable.
  12. The resident told the landlord on 25 November 2024 that the toilet was blocked again. It attended the same day to unblock this. It wrote to her that day and asked her again to agree to an appointment to replace the toilet. The landlord subsequently carried out work to overhaul the toilet on 25 April 2025.
  13. While there was a delay by the landlord in carrying out a CCTV drain survey, and the resident did have raise issues with blocked toilets many times, it has acknowledged and apologised for this in its complaint responses. It offered £300 compensation to recognise a month-long delay in carrying out the survey. Our view is that this compensation offered by the landlord recognised the impact on the resident taking into consideration her vulnerabilities. It was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused, and in line with our remedies guidance and was therefore reasonable.
  14. Taking all matters into account, we find reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a drainage issue at the property.

Roof

  1. The resident did not raise an issue with how the landlord handled roof repairs at stage 1. At stage 2 she told it she was unhappy with the roof works it had carried out in July 2024. She said the scaffolding had caused her problems and it had been noisy.
  2. In its stage 2 response of 1 November 2024 the landlord said that it was satisfied it had managed the roofing contract professionally. It said it had offered to book a hotel room for her to use during the daytime while it was completing work, which she had declined. This was a reasonable offer from the landlord and we have seen no evidence that it did not complete the roof repairs in an appropriate manner.
  3. For these reasons, we do not consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the roof.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of a drainage issue at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the roof.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to pay the resident the compensation of £300 offered during its internal complaints process if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.