Abri Group Limited (202401973)

Decision
Case ID	202401973
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Abri Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 March 2026

Background

The landlord installed new gates outside the resident’s property and replaced the internal radiators. The resident complained that the gates, which were bolted to his bedroom wall, made excessive noise. He said it disrupted his sleep and worsened his mental health. He also said the new radiators did not improve on the previous ones. The landlord was aware the resident has mental health vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. A new gate installation.
2. New radiators.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a gate installation.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about new radiators.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a gate installation

The landlord failed to carry out actions promised in its stage 1 response or consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. It did not identify its failures within its stage 2 response. It also failed to investigate the issue from within the resident’s property in a reasonable time.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about new radiators

The landlord reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns and offered to arrange further assistance with the operation of the radiators.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident at stage 1 and stage 2 in line with its complaint policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 27 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his concerns about a gate installation. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 27 April 2026
3	Specific action The landlord must write to the resident setting out its position on the reinstallation of the gate. This must include details of the improvements it plans to make and an escalation route if he experiences further issues.	No later than 27 April 2026
4	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 27 April 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord writes to the resident offering support and information on the housing options available.
We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to discuss his concerns about the radiators.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 February 2024	Following the installation of new gates that were bolted to his bedroom wall, the resident complained to the landlord. He said each time the gates banged shut, his flat vibrated. He said he could hear the banging noise throughout the day and night, which kept him awake and scared his dog. In addition, he said the new radiators did not retain heat well compared to the storage heaters they had replaced.
13 February 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said it had installed the gates to improve security, positioning them where practical. It said it would speak with relevant teams to investigate the noise and report any issues to the third-party contractor that installed them. It also said that the new radiators were easier to use and had been tested. It provided a user guide.
11 March 2024	The resident escalated his complaint, asking the landlord to visit his home to hear the noise. He said he was constantly disturbed by people entering and leaving the site and had not slept well since the installation. He said the landlord failed to apply any acoustic measures, and that both his and his dog’s health were deteriorating. He also said the new radiators were difficult to use and the user guide was unhelpful. He wanted the gates acoustically fixed or removed and to have either his old storage heaters returned or a newer version of them.
12 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response, reiterating that it would not move the gates as they were in the most practical position. It said it did need to ensure they were not noisy when closing, and that it had attended and confirmed they were working correctly. It said it would continue monitoring, to ensure residents were not unduly disturbed. It also said the new heaters were an improvement and would not change them but offered to arrange further support to operate them if required.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us he was unhappy with the landlord’s responses and wanted it to either resolve the noise issue or remove the gates. He said the ongoing noise from them continued to have a detrimental impact on his sleep and mental health. He also said the new radiators did not retain heat, making his energy bills higher. The resident has since told us that the landlord temporarily removed the gates, but the thought of further issues made him reconsider his housing options.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a gate installation
Finding	Maladministration

The resident complained of being disturbed by excessive noise and vibration when the gates shut outside his property. The landlord said it would investigate further. Prior to the resident’s escalation a month later, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out any investigations or provided him with updates.
The resident asked the landlord to visit his property to better understand the noise issue. He explained how it was affecting his already vulnerable mental health. The landlord attended the site 7 days later but could not gain access. However, it reported that the sound of the closing gates was noisier than previously understood. Whilst the response time was reasonable, it is unclear if the appointment was prearranged with the resident.
The landlord reattended on 27 March 2024. From an external inspection of the gates, it determined they were operating correctly. The records state it met with the resident the same day. However, it is unclear from the records why it did not inspect the issues from inside the property, which the resident had reported.
In his escalation, the resident expressed how the issue was affecting his mental health and ability to sleep. The landlord’s tenancy management policy says it will keep residents safe in their homes. The landlord did not acknowledge his health concerns. This was a failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and not in line with its policy.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would monitor the issue to ensure the gates did not “unduly disturb” residents. However, it gave no plan for how it would do this and did not inspect the noise levels inside the property, where it was impacting the resident.

Events post internal complaints procedure

The resident reiterated the impact the noise was having on his mental health to the landlord. He said no one had entered his home during the investigation to assess the noise. On 9 May 2024 an operative inspected the noise internally. It recognised the noise was excessive and that it would impact the resident. It temporarily removed the gate until it could find a resolution.
It is unclear why the landlord took over 3 months to inspect inside the resident’s property, given he had repeatedly informed it about the noise. The resident told us he was anxious about further issues due to the landlord’s previous delay in inspecting from inside his property.
In summary, the landlord failed to carry out actions promised in its stage 1 response or consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. It did not identify its failures in its stage 2 response and failed to investigate from inside the resident’s property in a reasonable time.
The resident told us that the landlord’s delay in resolving the issue significantly impacted his sleep and the health of himself and his dog. He said it also caused him anxiety over raising issues in the future. We have therefore made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £600 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which had a significant impact on the resident.
We have also made orders to set out its position on the reinstallation of the gate, and on its learning from the failures identified in this report. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles of be fair and put things right.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about new radiators
Finding	No maladministration

The resident complained that the newly installed radiators seemed less effective than his older ones at retaining heat. The landlord reassured the resident that the new radiators were easier to use and had been correctly installed and tested. It provided a user guide to help the resident resolve any issues.
The resident disputed that they were easy to use, adding that the user guide was unhelpful. He asked the landlord to reinstall the old storage heaters or a modern equivalent. The landlord advised it would not change the radiators as the new ones were an improvement and were working correctly. It offered to arrange further assistance in operating them. There is no evidence that the resident requested further support.
The landlord reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns and offered further assistance with their operation. However, as the resident told us he continues to have concerns, we have recommended that the landlord contacts him to discuss this further.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how and when landlords should respond to complaints. This complaint period covers both the 2022 and 2024 editions.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and respond in full within 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to issue its response within 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and provided its stage 1 response in line with its policy. It acknowledged his escalation in 1 day and said it would provide its stage 2 response by 8 April 2024. This was in line with the timescales set by the Code.
The Code says that if a landlord needs more time to respond, it must notify the resident, providing a clear timeframe for the new response date. The landlord notified him of an extension, saying it needed more time and would respond by 12 April 2024, which it did.
The landlord’s acknowledgement and response to the resident at stage 1 and stage 2 was in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

The landlord’s complaint handling was positive, demonstrating good adherence to the Code. However, it failed to identify learning points to address in its complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not provide records to confirm details of attendance at the site of the resident’s property. At times, this has impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

The landlord failed to reasonably communicate with the resident following the stage 1 response. It also failed to acknowledge all his concerns.