Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Abri Group Limited (202447225)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447225

Abri Group Limited

19 August 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:
    1. reports of damp and mould.
    2. front door repairs.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since April 2024. The property is a 1-bedroom flat within a new-build block. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, including mobility issues and fibromyalgia.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 3 May 2024 about mould on skirting boards at the property and that the front door was not staying shut unless locked. The landlord forwarded both issues to the developer as the property was still within the defects liability period.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 September 2024. She said no one was helping to resolve issues of mould at the property and that her front door was still defective.
  4. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 1 October 2024. It set out action it had taken to refer the repair issues to the developer. It identified some record keeping and communication issues which it said had delayed work. It awarded the resident £150 in recognition of this.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 October 2024 and the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 2 December 2024. It said that it had identified a delay in starting repairs and damp and mould related work. It said the developer had attended on 26 November 2024 to inspect the property and had confirmed no issues with extractor fans and vents.
  6. The landlord acknowledged issues with its record keeping regarding repairs to the front door. It said that repairs had been completed to the front door at the end of November 2024 and it was now locking properly. It awarded the resident a further £300 in recognition of its poor record keeping and the inconvenience of ongoing repairs.
  7. Following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the resident continued to raise concerns about damp and mould at the property. The end of defects inspection completed by the developer in March 2025 identified no mould. In May 2025 the landlord’s surveyor inspected issues and noted they had found no mould present and that moisture readings did not indicate penetrating or rising damp.
  8. The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman as she was unhappy with the extent of work completed by the landlord. She declined to have skirting boards refitted in June 2025 as she said she wanted the landlord to arrange an independent assessment of damp issues. The resident told us that the landlord had recently agreed to arrange an independent inspection, which she said was completed in July 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns with us that the landlord delayed arranging an independent inspection of damp and mould. She said that she had requested it do so in January 2025, which was after its stage 2 complaint response. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues that have completed the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service.
  2. Should the resident remain concerned about the landlord’s handling of her request that it arrange an independent inspection of damp and mould, it is open to her to raise this with it as a fresh complaint. Should she remain unhappy about its response she may refer it to the Ombudsman once her complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. This investigation will focus on the issues the resident raised with the landlord up to December 2024.
  3. We note that, following the stage 2 complaint response, the resident experienced additional issues with her front door. The landlord noted in February 2025 that the developer had decided to replace the front door, and this was completed in May 2025. If the resident has any concerns about the handling of front door replacement, it would be appropriate for her to raise this with the landlord in the first instance. Should she remain unhappy with the landlord’s response, she may refer the matter to the Ombudsman once her complaint has concluded the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  4. The resident has raised concerns that damp and mould had negatively impacted on her health. We acknowledge her comments about this. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is a matter which is more appropriately decided by a court. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer. The resident may wish to seek legal advice around this.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will respond quickly to initial reports by completing a mould wash treatment and a ventilation survey. The resident reported damp and mould within her property on 3 May 2024. At this time, the property was still within the defects liability period, so it was reasonable that the landlord referred it to the developer in the first instance. However, it was also appropriate for it to take adequate steps to monitor progress to ensure the issues that had been reported were addressed within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The landlord took timely steps to refer the mould report to the developer. However, it later said the developer referred the matter back to it for action. It is unclear exactly when this happened or why. The landlord should have recorded details of it communication with the developer at this time to detail why the matter had been referred back. It also indicates a lack of clarity between it and the developer around responsibility for the initial response to damp and mould. A clear agreement between it and the developer could have avoided the delay in inspecting the resident’s concerns. We have ordered that the landlord review agreements and guidance it has in place in respect of responding to damp and mould reports when the property is still within the defects liability period.
  3. The landlord set out in its stage 1 complaint response that it had sent an email to the resident on 21 June 2024 to arrange an inspection of damp and mould issues. It said the resident did not respond to its request for her to confirm her details for security during a later email exchange. However, there is also no evidence the landlord took all proactive steps to confirm an appointment with the resident at this time. It should reasonably have made further attempts to call her to book the appointment. That is particularly as her report had been outstanding for more than 6 weeks by this time. That it made no further attempt to arrange an inspection until the resident made contact again in mid-July 2024 was a failing.
  4. In line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould, landlords are encouraged to take a zero-tolerance approach and ensure their responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the situation. The landlord is encouraged to communicate effectively, share the outcome of surveys and act on recommendations of surveys in a timely manner.
  5. The landlord attempted to complete a mould wash in August 2024, which the resident refused as she said she was removing mould herself. However, it is clear from her contact that she wanted feedback following its earlier inspection. The landlord should have taken appropriate steps to update her about action it would take following its inspection.
  6. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised in its stage 1 response for not adding details of the August inspection to its system. Its internal correspondence details this inspection, including findings that skirting boards were holding moisture. It noted it should check extractor fans and put in place dehumidifiers to help dry skirting.
  7. The landlord failed to take appropriate steps to raise these actions. It was only after it attended to inspect issues again in September 2024 that it requested the developer check the extractor fans. It did not act to supply the resident with dehumidifiers until November 2024. That was more than 3 months after its August 2024 inspection had recommended it do so. It was an unreasonable delay which can only have prolonged issues.
  8. When the landlord attended in September 2024, it noted that it had not identified mould. However, it detailed actioned needed that may reduce the environmental conditions for mould. This included replacing skirting boards, checking extractor fans, and an external wall for possible penetrating damp. It also noted drainage near a low airbrick should be checked. It raised this work with the developer.
  9. The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it had agreed to renew skirting boards in the resident’s property after the developer had declined to do so. It said it had attended on 19 November 2024 to remove skirting boards and that the developer would attend to treat an external wall on 5 December 2024.
  10. Records show the resident later cancelled the developer’s appointment of 5 December 2024. But the landlord took inadequate steps to monitor completion of the work to treat an external wall, and other work it had identified in September 2024. We acknowledge it contacted the developer in December 2024 and January 2025 to check on the progress of work. While it recorded then that the developer had booked to attend the resident’s property in February 2025, it did not subsequently record when work was completed.
  11. Records show the landlord contacted the developer again in June 2025 to query if it had completed work to treat an external wall and to check drainage. While the developer confirmed work to the wall was complete, there was no evidence the landlord obtained any confirmation that it had reviewed drainage.
  12. We acknowledge that subsequent inspections of the resident’s property did not find evidence of mould or penetrating or rising damp. However, the landlord should still have maintained adequate oversight of the work it had identified previously. That it did not do so was a failing. We have ordered that the landlord take steps to ensure all work it identified in September 2024 has now been completed. If any work is outstanding, it should take steps to arrange this work. It should then update the resident about this.
  13. So far, the landlord has awarded the resident a total of £450 for failings in its handling of damp and mould and front door repairs. The landlord did not specify what level of this was in recognition of failings in its handling of damp and mould. It would have been better had it done so. However, with consideration to all the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (the guidance) we consider the amount it has already awarded to be fair recognition of the impact of failings we have identified. For this reason we have not ordered an increased award. However, we have made a finding of service failure by the landlord in view of the failings we have identified in its monitoring of all outstanding repair work.
  14. The landlord paid the resident £125 in January 2025 to cover costs of using a dehumidifier. This was in line with its guidance on redress and compensation which outlines that it may provide support for costs incurred using a dehumidifier. The resident told us that the amount the landlord paid her only covered the cost of using a dehumidifier for 4 weeks. She said the landlord subsequently told her she could use the other compensation it had awarded to cover additional costs. We have seen no evidence to confirm what the landlord discussed with the resident about this. However, it would not be reasonable to expect her to use compensation it awarded for failings to cover dehumidifier costs. We have ordered that it contact the resident to review evidence (such as utility bills) of additional costs she incurred in using dehumidifiers.

Front door repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its aim to attend to make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours. It operates an appointment-based system for non-emergency repairs. The landlord appropriately raised front door repairs with the developer on 3 May 2024. While the developer later told the landlord that it had attended to resolve issues on 13 May 2024, we have seen no evidence that it did so. After the resident told the landlord on 3 July 2024 that the issue remained outstanding, the landlord raised a further repair with the developer. That was appropriate, but it should also have monitored progress of this repair to ensure timely completion. That there is no evidence it did so is a failing given the repair had been outstanding for 2 months.
  2. The landlord later acknowledged in its stage 1 response the repair it raised on 3 July 2024 was not attended by the developer. It set out steps it had taken to raise the door repair again. The landlord subsequently arranged for the developer to attend as an emergency on 15 October 2024 after the resident told it she could not lock the door properly. However, the resident told it at the end of October 2024 that issues with her front door were still not fully resolved. Following this, the landlord took appropriate steps to arrange for the developer to attend to complete further repairs at the end of November 2024.
  3. The landlord’s complaint responses to the resident appropriately acknowledged failings in its communication and record keeping, and resulting delays in work. It noted in its stage 2 complaint response that the door repair completed by the developer had now resolved the issue. However, records we have seen show the landlord was told on 26 November and 2 December 2024, when contacting the resident in advance of sending the stage 2 complaint response, that she was still experiencing issues with the front door.
  4. Subsequently the landlord appropriately informed the resident on 3 December 2024 of further action it was taking to address door issues. The developer completed a further repair in January 2025. However, the landlord should have set out in its stage 2 complaint response what further action it was taking to address this ongoing door issue, rather than give the impression it was fully resolved. Doing so would have provided the resident with clarity and reassurance that the matter was being appropriately addressed.
  5. The landlord acknowledged delays in it addressing door repairs. These would have caused concern and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord made an award to the resident of £450 in recognition of delays in addressing damp and mould reports and front door repairs. We have considered this award and all the circumstances of the case. Overall, we consider the award the landlord has already made to be fair and reasonable, and in line with the remedies guidance. For this reason we have not ordered an increased award. However, we have found service failure in the landlord failure to appropriately set out steps it would take to arrange further repairs to the door.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s procedures set out its aim to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgement and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledgement. It says it will contact the resident to confirm if a response will be delayed. This approach is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The landlord appropriately acknowledged both the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. Each of its responses were outside itstarget response time – its stage 1 response by approximately 2 weeks and its stage 2 response by around 3 weeks. On each occasion it contacted the resident in advance to inform her of this. That was appropriate. However, as outlined above, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response should have accurately set out the position with front door repairs. That it did not amounted to a service failure in its complaint handling. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered that the landlord apologise to the resident for this failing.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of front door repairs.
    3. service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings we have identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident £450 it previously awarded in respect of the failings in its handling of reports of damp and mould and front door repairs.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. contact the resident in order to review evidence (such as utility bills) of additional costs she incurred in using dehumidifiers. It must then refund any additional costs she incurred.
    2. review agreements and guidance it has in place in respect responding to damp and mould reports when the property is still within the defects liability period. It should provide the Ombudsman with details of the outcome of this review within the same timescale.
    3. take steps to ensure all work it identified in September 2024 has been completed. It should then update the resident with an update within the same timescale.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to confirm details of any action it plans to take following the recent survey of the property.