Aster Group Limited (202404232)

Background

1. The resident moved into the 3-bedroom house through a mutual exchange in 2021. During the complaint one of her adult children moved out. The resident complained about the landlord’s response to being informed about the child who moved out’s vulnerabilities and support needs. She also complained the landlord had not responded adequately to her request to move. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould and ASB, following her report that a neighbour threatened her. She asked us to investigate as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s final response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord responded to:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. A request to move.
   4. Being told of the resident’s adult child’s vulnerabilities and support needs.
3. We have also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in how the landlord responded to reports of ASB.
5. There was service failure in how the landlord responded to reports of damp and mould.
6. There was service failure in how the landlord responded to a request to move.
7. There was no maladministration in how the landlord responded to being told of the resident’s adult child’s vulnerabilities and support needs.
8. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

9. The landlord operated within its ASB policy. As the resident did not wish it to approach the neighbour, it had few options to progress the complaint.
10. The landlord broadly operated within its damp and mould policy. However, when it received the resident’s complaint it should have arranged for a damp inspection.
11. The landlord did not evidence it gave the resident encouragement, support, and prioritised her move in line with its lettings policy.
12. The landlord responded to the adult child’s social worker advising it could not progress their rehousing application.
13. We saw evidence the landlord acted in line with its complaints policy. It provided its responses within the expected timescales, and it was not unreasonable that it did not reconsider previous complaints.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

18. The resident supplied us with incidents from 2021, 2022, and 2023. These have either already been considered under the landlord’s complaint policy or happened 12 months prior to the resident raising her complaint. As such they will not be considered in this report. While we recognise this is a long-standing issue, this investigation considers the period from April 2024 up until the time that the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
19. The landlord contacted the resident on 19 April 2024 about her report of the neighbour threatening her. It apologised for the delay in contact. This was due to the local officer being on leave. While the absence of contact during this time would have been frustrating for the resident, we understand that the landlord may not have been able to pick up on this if the resident’s message was sat in the local officer’s inbox. We have not seen evidence of any follow up from the resident which may have prompted an earlier response.
20. The landlord opened a case and sent an acknowledgment letter to the resident in line with its ASB policy. The policy says it will offer a range of options for tackling ASB. In this case, in line with its policy, it offered the resident the following:
    1. In its acknowledgement letter there was information of support agencies.
    2. Target hardening, it provided personal and window alarms.
    3. Mediation.
    4. Advice to go to police and it liaised with them.
    5. To speak to the neighbour regarding the resident’s reports.
21. The landlord completed fortnightly monitoring calls to the resident. This was in line with its policy.
22. The landlord’s policy is clear the police may investigate criminal matters better. The police advised the landlord that the resident did not inform them who had threatened her. Therefore, the most appropriate agency could not progress the situation.
23. The resident was not sure if she wanted the landlord to speak to the neighbour and she ultimately decided she did not. This left the landlord with few ways to progress the case.
24. The resident said the landlord did not tell her it would close the case. The landlord’s notes show it did not clearly advise her of this. While it would have been good practice for the landlord to ensure the resident was clear, it had advised her what to do if there were further incidents. It confirmed this in the closure letter.
25. Given the resident did not want the landlord to contact the neighbour we believe the landlord did all it could in the circumstances. We are aware the landlord should not keep cases open when there are no viable investigation options open to it. We believe the landlord’s response was appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
26. The landlord adhered to its policy by offering support and to approach the neighbour. It contacted the resident in line with its policy. As such there was no maladministration in how the landlord responded to reports of ASB.

27. The landlord visited the resident in line with the 10 days it gives itself to do so in its damp, mould, and condensation procedure.
28. The landlord completed the repairs it identified in line with its repairs targets, except for the mould wash and the patch plasterwork. The landlord’s records had this job recorded as cancelled.
29. The resident later reported that she had 2 blown double glazed unit which were causing condensation in 2 of her bedrooms. The landlord’s records had this job recorded as cancelled.
30. There is contention around why the landlord had recorded these jobs as cancelled. The resident said she did not want the contractor climbing over her adult child’s bed. She told the contractor this and completed the mould wash herself. The contractor told the landlord that the resident cancelled the job. This was reasonable as this job was not completed as the resident did not want the contractor on the bed.
31. The landlord in its stage 1 response said the resident refused its contractors access when they attended for the blown windows on 23 October 2023. The resident disputed this and said no one had attended. She said she had ‘revised’ this job as she had resolved the issue by turning the heating up. This had worked for the colder months, but not the summer ones. We appreciate it would have been upsetting for the resident to be told she had refused access if she had not. We also acknowledge the landlord must rely on what its contractors report. We cannot determine what happened in this situation.
32. The dispute around this does not detract from the fact the landlord visited and organised to complete the identified repairs in the timescales.
33. We have not seen the resident reported damp and mould concerns to the landlord prior to making her complaint. We note she told us that the new bathroom fan had not solved the problems in her email to us on 7 March 2024.
34. The landlords damp, mould, and condensation policy says it will raise a level 1 inspection if the resident raises a stage 1 complaint. We have not seen the landlord did this. Instead, the landlord asked her to report any continuing issues with damp and mould in both its stage 1 and final response letter. As such there was service failure in how the landlord responded to reports of damp and mould.
35. The resident advised one of the landlord’s operatives said she required additional loft insulation. We have not seen this was addressed. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to complete a further damp and mould inspection and to check if further the loft insulation is required. We have also awarded £50 to recognise this service failure.

36. The resident wanted to move into a 2-bedroom property as one of her children was in the process of moving out. In the landlord’s final response letter, it said it had explained to the resident she should register with the local authority to transfer or consider a mutual exchange to move. The landlord’s current lettings policy states it lets most of its properties through choice-based lettings schemes or local authority nominations. Therefore, it was correct in giving this advice.
37. The resident supplied us with the landlord’s lettings policy from 2017-2019. As it does not cover this complaint period we would not normally consider it. However, the most recent lettings policy has the same sentiment. This says the landlord “will encourage, support, and prioritise our existing customers to move to smaller homes if their current accommodation is larger than they need or can afford.”
38. The landlord’s policy does not say how it might do this. Aside from the landlord offering the advice to register with the local authority or consider a mutual exchange, we have not seen evidence the landlord considered how it could support the resident downsizing.
39. The resident highlighted to us an additional paragraph which says the landlord will work with other organisations to offer a wide range of housing options to those considering a move. We recognise the resident hoped this meant the landlord would liaise with other organisations on her behalf. However, we believe this is more strategic where the landlord enters into agreements with local authorities to accept other housing association residents and vice versa.
40. We have not seen evidence the landlord encouraged, supported or prioritised the resident in her efforts to move. As such there was service failure in how the landlord responded to reports of a request to move.
41. We have awarded the resident £50 for this service failure. We have ordered the landlord to review whether it can offer any further support to the resident in her desire to move. We recognise the landlord must operate within its agreements with local authorities, so it may not be able to offer what the resident wishes.

42. The resident provided us with letters from her adult child’s doctor from February 2023. It is reasonable to accept these were not written directly to the landlord to support rehousing. We have not seen evidence these were sent to the landlord, and they fall out of the timeframe for this complaint. Therefore, we will not consider these in this report except for noting the links between the adult child’s living conditions and his desire to move into supported accommodation.
43. On 23 February 2024, the landlord advised the resident her child’s social worker had recently made contact. We have not seen a copy of the social worker’s email.
44. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if she was happy for it to contact the social worker and explore options. We have not seen evidence the resident gave her permission. However, we believe she did, as she mentioned the landlord told the social worker there was nothing it could do regarding her adult child’s housing situation. We have not seen the landlord’s response to the social worker.
45. In the resident’s escalation request, she asked the landlord to explain why it had ignored the social worker’s email. From information provided by the resident, the landlord responded to the social worker, advising it could not progress her adult child’s housing situation. While we recognise this may not have been the response the resident wanted, the landlord did respond.
46. In the landlord’s final response letter, it commented it had received an email from the social worker and it understood her child had been offered a property.
47. The resident said her child moved out as the landlord did not deal with the ASB. We cannot determine on this point. We are not assessing the ASB which caused them to want to move out and we have not seen sufficient evidence of the impact of this or that the landlord was made aware.
48. Considering the information in the complaint element above, the landlord allocates most of its properties through the local authority, and the adult child required supported accommodation. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to rely on the local authority to provide the most comprehensive rehousing options.
49. We find there was no maladministration in how the landlord responded to being told of the resident’s adult child’s vulnerabilities and support needs.

50. We have seen the resident and landlord were in email discussion concerning a variety of issues in February 2024. One of these issues was that the resident suspected her neighbour was a rogue trader. The landlord advised the resident she should report any suspicions to trading standards. The resident reraised this allegation in her complaint. We have not seen the landlord formally responded to this in either its complaint responses. We acknowledge while the resident had been provided with the correct advice, the landlord should have reiterated this in its formal responses.
51. The resident also raised the management of the car park which the landlord had already considered in previous complaint responses.
52. The resident brought a complaint to us on 7 March 2024. It was the first time we have seen the resident identified that the damp and mould had returned. This was before the ASB incident in April 2024.
53. Once we contacted the landlord, it appropriately wrote to the resident asking for the details, while being clear it would not revisit previously considered complaints. It opened a new complaint for the elements addressed in this report. The landlord then responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complains policy.
54. While we were involved prior to the landlord opening the complaint, we have not seen evidence the resident raised the new issues with the landlord prior to coming to us. Therefore, this was not a failing on the landlord’s part. We have found a failing where the landlord should have formally responded to the resident’s query on rogue traders, however as she had already been provided with this advice we do not believe this meets the threshold for a service failure failing. Especially when the resident did not raise this in her escalation request or in her communication to us. As such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.