Abri Group Limited (202506411)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident asked why his windows had not been replaced in February 2025 as expected. The resident has informed the landlord of his families vulnerabilities. The windows have since been replaced on 19 August 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a scheduled window renewal and its response to the resident’s reports of the condition of his windows.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of a scheduled window renewal and its response to the resident’s reports of the condition of his windows.
5. We have found no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the complaint.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord should have informed the resident of the delay to the replacement windows and the reasons why. However, the landlord acted reasonably in looking to replace the windows and make repairs. The landlord should have taken action  ore promptly to carry out the repairs to the windows.
8. The landlord handled the resident’s complaint appropriately.

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.

9. The resident contact the landlord in February 2025 to ask why a scheduled window replacement had not taken place. The landlord’s records showed the windows had been scheduled to be replaced in April 2024, though this date was in place after being pushed back from April 2018. There is no evidence that the landlord had contacted the resident about the delay to the April 2024 window replacement. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will keep resident’s informed of the timescales and progress of planned maintenance work. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to keep the resident updated, especially since it had already pushed the replacement back at least once. Its lack of communication is a failing.
10. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that the delay to the window replacement was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and budget constraints. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will replace windows every 30 years, but that components may exceed their lifecycle. The Decent Homes Standard says that windows should be replaced every 40 years. Given this, extending the timeframe for the window replacement was within a range of reasonable responses open to the landlord
11. As part of looking into the matter and scheduling the complaint response, the landlord arranged for an operative to go and inspect the resident’s windows in April 2025. The operative noted a number of issues, including some window handles and restrictors needing replacing. Because of this assessment, the landlord brought the window renewal forward. This was an appropriate response of the landlord and shows it following its policy and reacting to ensure a resident’s safety. However, as the landlord had responsibility for maintaining and repairing the windows it should have taken steps at that stage to carry out the repairs it had identified at the inspection in April 2025 promptly. It should not have needed the resident to chase it about this given the health and safety implications.
12. Following the stage 2 escalation request, the landlord inspected the windows to see if there were any repairs that could be carried out before it replaced the windows. A surveyor came to the resident’s property and assessed for defects on 23 May 2025. The landlord completed these repairs on 30 May 2025. This was a total of 52 days after the identification of the repairs. The landlord’s repair policy does not give timescales for non-emergency repairs. However, given this was a potential health and safety issue the time it took was not reasonable.
13. The landlord’s lack of communication caused frustration to the resident. If it had proactively communicated with him in line with its repairs policy then it might have lessened the likely distress and inconvenience caused to him. The landlord said it had been unable to assess the additional energy costs from the resident’s bills but offered him £500 compensation. We consider that to be reasonable.
14. However, the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for its lack of communication. Nor did it recognise that it should have acted more quickly to carry out the repairs identified in the inspection of 8 April 2025. Therefore, while the landlord did acknowledge and put right some of its failures, it has not put right all of the issues identified here. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue. Considering our guidance on remedies, we believe that additional compensation of £200 would be appropriate for the likely inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

15. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. Its policy does not put a timeframe on acknowledgements, but our Complaint Handling Code says that complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
16. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint in 2 working days, so within the timeframes set out in the Code. We have not been provided with a copy of the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
17. The landlord wrote to the resident to extend the deadline for its stage 1 response. This is not a course of action mentioned in its policy, but it is allowed for in the Code. The landlord provided a new deadline to the resident and called him to explain. The landlord acted reasonably here, but it should be mindful that its complaint policy should match the Code.
18. The landlord sent its stage 2 response in 16 working days. This was within the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. The landlord followed its own policy and the Code when responding to the resident’s complaint. We have not identified any failings and so have made a finding of no maladministration.

Learning

19. The landlord demonstrated learning in its compliant responses. This aligns with our disputed resolution principles. While it defended its position in delaying the window replacement due to budget concerns, it still fed back the resident’s experience internally. This shows a positive complaint culture from the landlord.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord’s record keeping was appropriate throughout the complaint. However, in a call to us the resident has mentioned that he had been chasing the landlord for an update on the windows. We have not been provided with the record of these communications. The landlord should be mindful to store and maintain information appropriately, so it does not have an impact on any cases in the future.