We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Acis Group Limited (202413228)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413228

Acis Group Limited

8 August 2025

Updated 6 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 the resident’s requests for compensation for damage to personal belongings and for cleaning costs.

Background

  1. The resident is a former assured tenant of the landlord. The resident’s tenancy ended in January 2024. The resident has vulnerabilities known to and recorded by the landlord.
  2. On 19 December 2023, the resident raised concerns with the landlord about damage to her gate and supplied a photograph of it. She said that she owned the gate, and she did not give the landlord permission to install a spike strip to the top of it. She said she removed the device but there was resulting damage left from the screws.
  3. The resident informally raised concerns in correspondence of 18 April 2024 and 3 May 2024 in response to another complaint she had with the landlord. She said that the landlord had not dealt with her complaint about damage to her personal belongings and cleaning following repair works.
  4. On 26 and 29 April 2024, the landlord requested evidence of damage to her personal belongings and receipts for the items. The landlord said it was having difficulty finding evidence in support of the resident’s requests, especially given there was a high volume of correspondence between them. The resident responded on each occasion saying that she had previously sent the evidence to the landlord.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 May 2024. It apologised for lack of service and said there was evidence of damage to the gate and a slash to the resident’s bag. It also offered £50 to the resident for impact to her.
  6. On 15 May 2024, the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. She raised concerns with the landlord that it had disregarded that her belongings were damaged and about the cleaning fees she incurred from its contractors not cleaning after the repair works. She also said she had already supplied an invoice for cleaning of the property to the landlord.
  7. On 28 May 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said it was unable to find evidence of damaged items other than what it had recognised already. Although it upheld the complaint as it was unable to evidence that it had informed her that it would not reimburse her for the cleaning costs. It increased its compensation offer to a total of £100 to recognise its poor communication in relation to the cleaning costs.
  8. When the resident approached us, she said she wanted the landlord to acknowledge its failure and to provide compensation for her damaged items and cleaning fees.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident reported that her health had been impacted by the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The Ombudsman does not dispute or underestimate her concerns; however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the landlord’s actions and the health impacts described. Instead, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s handling of the issues in this case may have caused. A determination relating to damages to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts or a personal injury claim.
  2. We note the resident has another Ombudsman complaint (reference number 202340801) about damp and mould issues which also refers to issues about damaged belongings. These belongings include a set of draws and a chair. As this is subject to another investigation, these items will not be assessed by this investigation. For clarity, the belongings that will be reviewed by this investigation include the resident’s gate and bag. We will also look at the issue of cleaning costs.

The landlord’s handling of requests for compensation

  1. The landlord’s customer feedback policy says it will not pay compensation when any loss or damage cannot be evidenced as being its fault. It also records where there is damage to personal possessions it can consider if reimbursement as an option. Where reimbursement is considered, it is based on the value of the goods at the time of their loss or damage.
  2. The landlord made efforts to ascertain the evidence in support the resident’s requests for compensation for her damaged belongings. It asked the resident on 2 occasions in April 2024 for evidence of receipts of the damaged items so it could consider these against its policy. It explained it had looked for the information but was having difficulty locating the information she referred to because of the volume of correspondence between them.
  3. On these occasions the resident said that she had already supplied the information back in December 2023. However, she did not supply a copy to the landlord after these requests or clarify what had been damaged. In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to request receipts to evidence the value of the items so it could consider the evidence in accordance with its policy. It was also reasonable to only consider the items for which it had evidence of damage.
  4. At stage 1 the landlord acknowledged damage to the gate because of its installation of the spike strip, and a slash to the resident’s bag. This was based on photographic evidence the resident sent to the landlord on 19 December 2023. It also said it had reviewed the correspondence and spoken with members of the team who oversaw the work to come to its decision. This was an appropriate response based on the information it had and the resident’s concerns at the time. In reaching its decision it consulted colleagues and investigated the situation further to establish the cause of the damage. Therefore, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the damage to the 2 items and offered £50 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident.
  5. It was appropriate at stage 2 for the landlord to recognise that it caused confusion to the resident about the cleaning costs. It acknowledged that the resident had been impacted by its communication. It confirmed its previous position that it would not cover the cleaning costs. However, it acknowledged it did not keep record of this statement. The landlord also advised that it did not have a copy of the cleaning invoice the resident referred to in her escalation request of 15 May 2024.
  6. The landlord also requested the resident supply a copy of the cleaning invoice in its stage 2 complaint response. In reply to the landlord’s stage 2 response the resident advised that she had supplied this invoice in December 2023. However we have not seen evidence of this being supplied to the landlord by the resident. In the circumstances it was appropriate of the landlord to request this invoice to reasonably consider it against its policy. Without the invoice the landlord was not able make an evidence-based decision.
  7. As a result of the poor communication about the cleaning costs and its inability to evidence its previous advice the landlord appropriately increased its offer of compensation by £50 (£100 total). The total amount of compensation offered recognised the inconvenience to the resident in that she had 2 damaged items and was inconvenienced by the landlord’s poor communication. For service failures of this nature the compensation was proportionate and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This is because the failings were minor, not permanent, and the landlord recognised these and compensated for them during its complaints process.
  8. Despite having limited information, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the damage it had caused to the resident’s gate and bag. It acknowledged its poor communication in respect of the cleaning costs. Without further proof of fault or the monetary value of the items and services the resident requested compensation for, the landlord could not reasonably consider any further compensation in the circumstances. Overall, the landlord acted fairly in assessing the evidence it had. It also acted in accordance with its customer feedback policy and took actions to put things right for the resident.
  9. Therefore, this investigation considers that the landlord recognised the impact on the resident and took proportionate steps to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of the resident’s requests for compensation for personal belongings and for the costs of cleaning.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord to pay the resident £100 offered during its complaints process (if not paid already).
  2. The landlord should consider reviewing its process for recording all resident interaction, unless it has already done so since this complaint. The landlord should make reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (available on our website) which states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission”.