Abri Group Limited (202343084)

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bed flat. The resident does not live in the property and rents the flat to a tenant. We have seen evidence that the resident reported a leak coming into the flat in September 2023. The landlord completed leak works in November 2023 and completed redecoration in April 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a leak.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of a leak

4. The landlord delayed in repairing the leak for 2 months and further delayed completing follow on works for 5 months. It was not proactive in communicating with the resident and the resident repeatedly chased it for updates. Although the landlord acknowledged its failings and the impact caused, it offered compensation only for its delays in completing works. It also took a further 2 months after its stage 2 response to complete redecoration. Therefore, the compensation offered was not sufficient to put things right.

Complaint handling

5. There were failings in the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint process. It incorrectly logged the stage 1 complaint and delayed in providing its stage 2 response. The landlord apologised for these failures and offered compensation that reflected the impact on the resident and was sufficient to put things right.

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.

6. The resident raised concerns about the impact the leak had on her tenant. This investigation will only consider the impact on the resident as a shared owner. Any impact on tenants falls outside our remit. Furthermore, unlike the courts, we do not have the required expertise to assess any impact on health. We will only review events leading to the formal complaint and up to the date works were marked completed after the stage 2 response.
7. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for structural repairs and any fixed electrical installations damaged as a result of rainwater ingress. The resident is responsible for decoration under its policy. The landlord should attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. There is no set timeframe for routine repairs and appointments are scheduled within reasonable timeframes.
8. The landlord’s buildings insurance does not cover leaseholders’ personal belongings. Claims for damaged items should be made through the leaseholder’s contents insurer or through the landlord’s insurers where negligence is alleged. We cannot consider the outcome of any claim because our role is limited to disputes about a landlord’s housing management. However, we will look at the overall response of the landlord to her reports and whether it was reasonable.
9. The resident reported a ceiling leak on 21 September 2023. The landlord’s contractor attended the next day, in line with the emergency repairs policy. They found the cause was likely a blocked or split gutter. They said they could not do a temporary repair and that scaffolding was needed. The landlord did not repair the leak until 15 November 2023 and completed the repair without using scaffolding. During this time, the landlord incorrectly logged the works to the resident’s home address instead of the property address which caused delays. The resident said the ceiling collapsed on 25 October 2023 and she repeatedly chased updates from the landlord.
10. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged that repairs were delayed and communication was poor. It booked plastering work for 11 December 2023 and said it would redecorate after the plastering was done. This was positive, but the plastering was not completed until 10 February 2024 because it did not allocate enough time or workers to the job on 2 occasions. During this period, the resident kept chasing updates, and many of her enquiries went unanswered. The landlord also told her it might reimburse costs for damaged items and lost rent. This likely caused confusion because, as noted earlier, such claims should be made through her own insurance or the landlord’s insurance.
11. The landlord’s stage 2 response correctly told the resident to make a claim through its insurance and gave her the details. However, this advice was delayed and the landlord failed to manage her expectations prior to this.
12. At stage 2, the landlord accepted there were delays with the plastering and said it had learned from this. It also said it would arrange redecoration, but it did not give a clear timeframe. Furthermore, it did not mark electric works as complete until 18 March 2024. The redecoration was not marked as complete until 16 April 2024. This was almost 2 months after its stage 2 response.
13. In this case the landlord took around 2 months to fix the leak and another 3 months to finish the plastering. It then took a further 2 months after its stage 2 response to mark the redecoration as complete. These delays were unreasonable and caused considerable damage to the property as the resident reported the collapsed ceiling. The landlord also failed to keep the resident updated, causing her considerable time and inconvenience as she had to repeatedly chase for information.
14. Under our dispute resolution principles, landlords must act fairly, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord acknowledged some extent of inconvenience and completed repairs. It also showed it had learned from the complaint and explained how it would improve its services. However, it only offered compensation for the repair delays until its stage 2 response. We have seen further delays after stage 2. Additionally, the information and communication provided to the resident was inappropriate and the insurance advice delayed. As such the compensation offered was not sufficient remedy for the failings we have identified in this report. The above orders are made to put things right.

15. The landlord’s complaints policy mirrors our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its policy says it must acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It should respond to stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. If it cannot meet these timeframes, it can extend both stages with explanation.
16. The landlord acknowledged both the stage 1 and stage 2 within its policy timeframes. It extended the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 9 November 2023 after it had incorrectly logged the complaint as local resolution. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 17 November 2023 which was within the extended timeframe. The landlord acknowledged its error and appropriately apologised.
17. The landlord should have responded to its stage 2 complaint by 4 January 2024. However, it requested an extension on 5 January 2024 and said it would respond by 23 January 2024. It responded on 21 February 2024, outside its extended timeframe and outside its timeframes set out in its complaints policy and the Code.
18. The landlord acknowledged its delays and offered £100 compensation. The compensation was sufficient to put things right for the failures we have identified and the impact on the resident. The landlord also committed to take learning from its complaint handling which was appropriate to avoid future occurrence of such delays.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. Good record keeping is essential to evidence the action a landlord has taken which then aids in its service delivery, enabling it to respond professionally when something goes wrong. The landlord’s overall record keeping was good. It highlighted in its responses learning it should take to ensure it allocated appropriate time for its contractors to complete works on time in the future.

Communication

20. The landlord was not proactive in communicating with the resident, who had to request updates. The landlord has said in its stage 2 response it has taken learning and will improve its communication with residents. This is a positive step.