Aster Group Limited (202428820)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom house with her children. She has asthma and has told the landlord there are 2 people in the household with ADHD, autism, and severe anxiety.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of reports of damp and mould

6. The landlord failed to act in line with its damp and mould policy and did not take timely action to raise an inspection when the resident reported this in May 2024. The landlord’s offer of compensation and subsequent works put right the failings in its handling of the report. It also made reasonable adjustments for the household vulnerabilities.

The complaint handling

7. The landlord fully addressed the resident’s concerns with resolution focussed responses within reasonable periods and maintained consistent contact throughout the process.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we haven’t investigated

8. The resident has raised concerns about events that occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. These relate to the quality of works done after the final complaint response. We will not investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint about the quality of the works completed during the complaints process. Therefore, we will not investigate the management of those works.
9. Throughout her communication, the resident has referred to how the living conditions impacted her family’s health and well-being. The Ombudsman does not doubt this. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for the courts to deal with or as a personal injury claim. We have considered the distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident and whether the landlord adequately considered the household’s vulnerabilities.
10. The resident has also advised that she is seeking compensation for the damage caused to her personal belongings due to the property condition and the mould. It is not our role to determine liability for damaged possessions, and the resident may wish to make an insurance claim.

What we have investigated

11. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will inspect within 10 working days of a report and complete day to day repairs within 20 working days after the survey. The resident had reported damp and mould in 2023 and cancelled appointments for health reasons. She made a further report of mould on 5 April 2024. She cancelled the survey due to a hospital appointment and said she would contact the landlord again when she was available.
12. The resident raised this again with the landlord on 24 May 2024. The landlord said this was allocated to a surveyor who was on leave and did not call the resident until 25 June 2024. This approach was not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy, and it recognised this service failure in its complaint response.
13. The resident raised her complaint on 2 July 2024 as she believed the landlord had not done anything about her reports of damp and mould. She explained she had asthma, and the mould affected her children’s health. The landlord contacted her within 24 hours and offered to arrange a survey as soon as possible. The resident’s earliest availability was 15 July 2024 and the landlord inspected on this date. This was an appropriate and timely response, and shows the landlord recognised its previous failing and acted quickly to put things right.
14. The landlord’s damp and mould survey showed that there was condensation in the roof space and recommended it fit soffit vents and conduct a mould wash. It noted the extractor fans were not used but there were no damp readings or property defects causing humidity. The survey included a risk assessment of health issues in the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of this survey. It actioned the recommended works as well as issuing appropriate advice to the resident around ventilation.
15. The landlord offered repairs, and treatment works within its repairs policy deadlines but extended these at the resident’s request. It offered to carry out the mould wash in July 2024 and tried to book the roof vents in with the resident. The landlord delayed the work at the resident’s request until October-November 2024. To accommodate vulnerabilities and get work done quickly, the landlord had offered to pay for a family day out. The resident declined this offer stating she would like to be at home to see the work done. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the chemicals used in a mould wash treatment. It offered to send an operative to discuss this with her. This was pro-active and showed a good understanding and consideration of the resident’s concerns and vulnerabilities.
16. Given the resident’s concerns about the fumes from the mould wash given her asthma, the landlord agreed it would move the family to a local Airbnb for the duration of the work. It ensured the length of their stay gave the property time to fully ventilate after the mould wash. It also agreed to delay the external work until after the school holidays, with the resident requesting work begin in October 2024.
17. The mould wash did not take place until November 2024 as this was the earliest availability for the resident’s preferred accommodation. These measures show the landlord was committed to carrying out the work as soon as possible. It also took the household vulnerabilities into account and worked with the resident to manage the repairs with reasonable adjustments.
18. The landlord’s stage 1 response recognised its failure in actioning the May 2024 mould survey. The landlord noted it was unfortunate that the resident had previously cancelled surveys as, although this was unavoidable, that may have contributed to the condition of the property. It offered £50 compensation for the distress the delay had caused. It confirmed the arrangements for works noted in the survey and recognised the vulnerabilities within the home. It also offered to consider compensation for damaged property upon receipt of a list of items and evidence. It subsequently made a goodwill offer of £300 to help towards the cost of new furniture. It also made subsequent offers of referrals to obtain new or good quality second hand furniture.
19. In the stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed the full compensation offer of £350 and its previously noted service failure. It stated it had offered to carry out all subsequent work within its timeframes with additional offers and reasonable adjustments. Further delays had been at the resident’s request and it did not find any further service failure. This was a reasonable response and demonstrated the landlord was willing to put things right and go beyond its obligations to assist the resident.
20. The landlord has provided evidence of continuous communication with the resident throughout the complaints process. This includes its offers of reasonable adjustments and considerations for the family’s vulnerabilities. The stage 1 compensation of £50, alongside the subsequent work it arranged in line with the resident’s requirements, was proportionate to put right the limited failing in May 2024. On this basis, we make a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports.

21. The landlord’s complaints policy says it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
22. The landlord extended its first response stage but wrote to the resident to advise her of this and responded within their extended deadline. Although we do not comment on the landlord’s liability to cover damaged goods, or the amount it offered, the landlord’s decision to do so was reasonable and showed a resolution focused attitude.
23. On escalating her complaint, the resident raised issues not part of the original complaint and asked to move due to the damp and mould. The landlord addressed this in its stage 2 response alongside the original complaint and continued to offer the additional compensation, noting it had not found any further service failure. Its responses were fair and sought to resolve the substantive issues for the resident.
24. In view of these findings, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Household vulnerabilities

25. The landlord demonstrated good practice by proactively identifying and responding to the household vulnerabilities. Staff engaged directly with the residents to understand their specific needs and tailored their approach accordingly. They provided additional support beyond standard procedures.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord demonstrated generally sound knowledge and information management through consistent and clear record keeping. However, gaps were noted in the recording of a phone call made from a staff mobile, particularly where no record was kept of whether a voicemail was left. This can lead to uncertainty for residents and missed opportunities for follow-up. To strengthen practice, staff should consistently log outcomes, including voicemail attempts, to ensure transparency and continuity in communication.

Communication

27. The landlord maintained effective communication with the resident. It provided updates and engaged constructively. However, the delay caused by assigning a survey to a staff member on leave impacted the overall service delivery. This underlines the need for internal coordination to ensure that communication aligns with operational capacity, avoiding gaps that can affect service to residents.