Aster Group Limited (202346098)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroom house built in 2019. The resident has often communicated through a representative during the complaints process. To avoid confusion the Ombudsman will refer to all actions taken by the representative as by ‘the resident.’

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports about drainage issues in the property.
   2. A leak from the resident’s ceiling.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about drainage issues in the property.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s ceiling.
   3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports about drainage issues in the property.

4. The landlord failed to escalate its actions regarding the reports until a significant amount of time had passed and the issues had been ongoing for some time. Its contractors made the landlord aware of the need for further, more in-depth investigations, but it failed to act on these in a reasonable time.

The landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s ceiling

5. The landlord recognised its failings in dealing with the leak had led to distress and inconvenience for the resident and it offered an appropriate amount of compensation for these failings. The compensation offered by the landlord was in line with the range suggested by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

6. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. The landlord failed to inform the resident of the delays and did not recognise its failings in its complaint responses.

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.

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.

7. The landlord’s repair policy has several different timescales for dealing with repair reports. For critical emergency repairs it says it will attend to make safe within 4 hours. For emergency repairs, those which put the ‘health and safety or security of customer or third party at immediate risk, or adversely affects the structure of the property,’ it says it will attend within 24 hours. It also says these attendances may initially consist of only making safe the issue. For routine repairs it says it will attend within 20 working days. For larger batch repairs it says it will complete these within 60 working days.
8. When raising her complaint, the resident mentioned she had experienced drainage issues in the property for several years. The evidence available to the Ombudsman demonstrates that, prior to her raising a new report about the toilet overflowing in her property on 9 October 2023, she had made no reports to the landlord about this issue since February 2020. Given this, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of these matters since the resident’s October 2023 reports.
9. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that it had fallen short in its handling of reports made by the resident on 9 October 2023. It failed to attend until 27 November 2023. This was outside of the timescales set out in its repair policy for routine repairs. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for this delay. It was good practice for the landlord to identify where it had failed to attend in a reasonable timeframe and to provide compensation to the resident.
10. The resident made another report to the landlord on 4 December 2023. The landlord attended to this on 11 December 2023. Its internal records of this visit do not clearly specify if it was able to unblock the toilets and sink at this time. The records mentioned a potential blockage below ground and the landlord asked its contractors to check the manhole which they reported was clear. The landlord’s actions did not resolve the drainage issues as the resident reported further blockages on 13 December 2023.
11. The landlord attended on the same day, treating this as an emergency. The contractors’ actions caused a leak in the property during this appointment. The Ombudsman has dealt with the landlord’s handling of this leak as a separate section of this investigation. As part of the remedial works relating to this leak the landlord adjusted the gradient of the piping, in a bid to resolve the ongoing drainage issues.
12. Following the remedial works the resident reported new blockages to her sink and toilet on 10 March 2024. She also contacted the landlord to re-report this on 14 March 2024. In her correspondence on 14 March 2024 the resident mentioned the drainage team had told her the landlord had installed the toilet in her property incorrectly and this may have been the cause of the ongoing blockages.
13. The landlord failed to respond to these reports adequately. It raised a new repair job on 22 March 2024 but failed to escalate its actions or consider a larger survey of the system. Considering the length of time the resident had been reporting issues and the suggestion there may have been an underlying cause of these issues it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider alternative steps to resolve the problem. The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it attended the property again on 12 April 2024 to clear blockages although its records do not have any information about this appointment. Considering the number of appointments to clear blockages by this stage it was clear there was a larger issue affecting the drainage system.
14. It took the landlord until 29 April 2024 to escalate its investigations by arranging a formal survey of the drainage system. This is despite the resident reporting issues with drainage for over 6 months. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to initially attend to clear blockages, when the problems continued and there was a suggestion the issues were larger in nature it failed to respond to the resident’s ongoing reports appropriately. The landlord also does not, in the timescale covered by this complaint, appear to have appropriately investigated its contractor’s notes that recommended it perform further investigations into the toilet’s installation. The landlord’s failures to further investigate the ongoing issues represented a failure.
15. The landlord’s record-keeping throughout the complaint was poor. It has not provided evidence of several of the appointments it referred to in its complaint responses. The repair records also fail to often describe exactly what actions contractors took at specific appointments. The landlord mentioned specific actions undertaken in its complaint responses but has not provided corresponding evidence of these to the Ombudsman. The landlord should consider reviewing its record-keeping practices in line with this.
16. The landlord’s communication with the resident about this issue was broadly fair. On the whole it responded to the resident’s communications in appropriate timescales, and its responses were broadly sympathetic.
17. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about drainage issues in the property represented maladministration. Whilst it was appropriate for it to offer compensation for its early delay in inspecting, it failed to appropriately escalate its investigation into these issues until the resident had made a considerable number of reports. For its failings, the landlord should increase its offer of compensation to £350. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range when there has been a failing from the landlord which had an adverse effect on the resident.

What we have not investigated

18. Following the landlord’s replacement of her carpet the resident has experienced new issues with this. As this relates to a new issue which took place after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response the Ombudsman has not considered this as part of the investigation. If the resident wishes for the Ombudsman to consider this, she will first need to raise the landlord’s handling of this through the landlord’s complaints procedure.

What we have investigated

19. The landlord’s decant policy has 3 reasons for providing residents with a move. It has emergency re-housing which is necessary ‘when a property becomes uninhabitable due to an unforeseen situation’. It also has planned re-housing which it says is when ‘certain works are needing to be completed to a property, and the nature of these works would make the property unsafe’. It also has permanent re-housing for when a customer’s house is being ‘redeveloped or disposed’ of.
20. The landlord’s decant policy states it ‘will not compensate customers for the loss of personal belongings’ unless it can be proven that it or one of its contractors was ‘at fault for the damage to the possession or belonging’. It goes on to say it would normally expect customers to claim for damaged belongings on their home contents insurance.
21. The landlord’s contractor attended on 13 December 2023 to unblock the resident’s soil pipe with a plunger. Whilst doing this one of the hidden joints came away, causing a leak in the resident’s ceiling. The landlord’s records indicated it attended the following day to make this safe, in line with the timescales for emergency repairs in its repairs policy.
22. The landlord’s records do not highlight exactly what works it undertook during the 14 December 2023 appointment. The landlord did however say in its stage 1 complaint response that its contractor left the toilet operational, with no immediate risk of the ceiling becoming unsafe and it had observed no damage to furniture or the carpet.
23. There is disagreement between the landlord and the resident about whether the landlord offered the resident a move to temporary accommodation on 13 December 2023 and 14 December 2023. The landlord said its contractor offered to arrange this for the resident on the day of the leak and that it offered the resident a move to temporary accommodation the following day. The landlord’s records have no evidence of it discussing or offering the resident temporary accommodation at this stage.
24. Evidence available does not indicate if the damage from the leak was serious enough to suggest the landlord should have moved the resident into temporary accommodation at this stage. The resident spent the Christmas period away from the property and did not return until after 4 January 2024, when the landlord had to rearrange a survey of the damage as she was still away. The landlord performed its survey of the remedial repairs on 8 January 2024, with subsequent repairs due to begin on 29 January 2024.
25. In January 2024 there is no evidence of correspondence between the resident and the landlord where the resident requested, or the landlord mentioned, the requirement for a move to temporary accommodation until the landlord completed the necessary works. Without such evidence the Ombudsman is unable to say there was any service failure by the landlord in failing to offer the resident temporary accommodation in this period. There is no evidence the landlord deemed the house unfit for habitation throughout this period.
26. The landlord moved the resident into temporary accommodation between 29 January 2024 and 6 February 2024 whilst it completed the necessary remedial works. In its complaint responses, the landlord provided the resident with £157 compensation for food expenses whilst she was in temporary accommodation This represented good practice from the landlord, especially considering that its’ decant policy does not mention it covering these costs. The landlord’s actions in refunding this represented good practice and recognition of the impact this had on the resident.
27. The landlord completed most of the repair works by 6 February 2024 which represented good practice and was in line with its timescales for completing batch repairs. However it failed to decorate the boxing in the kitchen which it went back to do so on a later date. It also agreed to complete a clean of the resident’s carpet, however this was rejected by the resident as she wished for a steam clean. The resident believed the landlord had told her it would complete a steam clean however there is no evidence available to the Ombudsman to confirm this. Given the available evidence, the landlord’s actions were fair in offering to complete an additional cleaning of the carpet. There is not sufficient evidence for the Ombudsman to be able to say that this should have been a steam clean.
28. The landlord also agreed to renew the vinyl floor in the resident’s bathroom and hallway, as well as to fit a new carpet to the resident’s staircase. The landlord raised a job to do so as part of its stage 2 complaint response on 26 April 2024. It did not, however, complete this work until 7 August 2024. The landlord informed the resident it aimed to complete this by 24 May 2024 but failed to do so. The survey had not highlighted either of these as requiring replacement therefore it represented good resolution focused practice from the landlord to agree to replace this. However, the failure to complete the follow-up work in its estimated timescale, however, represented a failure in its service.
29. The resident has said that the leak damaged several items of hers. The landlord said in its initial complaint response it had observed no damage to the furniture or her belongings. However, following discussions with the resident it later refunded her £660 for damage to a piano, £147 for her to pay for a steam clean of her sofa, £229 for a replacement TV, and £330 for an electric fire. The landlord’s policy states it will not pay out compensation for items unless there is evidence it was at fault. In this instance it was reasonable for the landlord to take responsibility for any damaged items. This represented a resolution focused approach in its handling of the ceiling leak.
30. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that the resident had experienced distress and inconvenience due to its handling of the leak in the ceiling. It offered her £250 compensation for this failing, alongside the £1523 for damaged items and expenses whilst the landlord placed her in temporary accommodation. Considering the amount of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident this was a reasonable offer of redress made by the landlord. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this region when there has been a failure from the landlord which had an ‘adverse affect’ on the resident.

31. The landlord’s complaint policy has 2 stages. At stage 1 the landlord says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide its complaint response within a further 10 working days. At stage 2 of the complaints process the landlord says it will provide its complaint response within 20 working days of it logging this complaint. It also says in some cases it may be unable to respond within the timescales set out in its policy but if this is the case that it will inform residents.
32. The timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
33. The resident first raised her complaint on 18 December 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on the same day. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 January 2024. This was 23 working days after the landlord received the complaint, slightly outside of the timescales specified in its complaints policy. This represented a minor failure in service for the landlord.
34. The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 14 March 2024. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 29 April 2024, 31 working days after the resident had escalated her complaint. The landlord did however contact the resident on 15 April 2024 to inform her it required an extension. The landlord has not however provided a copy of this extension e-mail to the Ombudsman, although it mentioned this extension to the resident in an e-mail on 18 March 2024. The landlord’s steps in providing an extension to the resident were reasonable and in line with how it says it will handle delays in its complaints policy.
35. The resident at both stage 1 and stage 2 has stated that she did not receive the complaint responses when initially sent. The landlord has failed to provide evidence of sending these, instead only providing evidence of it later sending these via e-mail following the resident’s requests. The landlord’s failure to demonstrate how it initially sent these is a record-keeping failure. The Ombudsman would expect, when the resident disputes that the landlord has sent correspondence, that the landlord provides a full audit trail demonstrating its communications with the resident.
36. For its failings at stage 1 of the complaints process, as well as in its failure to demonstrate it sent the resident its complaint correspondence, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. For this failing, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused by its delay. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range when there has been a minor failure by the landlord.