Abri Group Limited (202437670)

Decision
Case ID	202437670
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Abri Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	4 February 2026

Background:

1. The resident complained about water entering the property through the windows and balcony door in 2023. In 2024, he also expressed concern about a roof leak that was causing damp within the property, and which was affecting the mechanical ventilation and heating recovery system (MVHR). The landlord has completed external and internal repairs and replaced the MVHR unit. However, the resident is unhappy about the landlord’s handling of the repairs and that the work to the windowsills and window reveals remains outstanding.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof, the windows and the balcony door.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof, the windows and the balcony door.
5. We have found reasonable redress in the handling of the associated complaint.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord has accepted that there were errors in its handling of the repairs, as well as in its communication and complaint handling. It apologised and offered the resident appropriate compensation. It was reasonable that it replaced the MVHR unit and reimbursed the resident for the costs of replacing the MVHR motors. However, internal works to the windows have not yet been completed, therefore we have made an order below for the landlord to carry out these works.

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	Repairs order The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work to the windowsills and reveals is completed promptly and provide evidence of compliance by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or: Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 13 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 February 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. He said he had not received any contact from the landlord’s contractor about the damp patch on his ceiling he had reported to the landlord.
5 June 2024	The resident complained again to the landlord. He said his windows and balcony door were leaking.
29 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised to the resident. It said: It acknowledged it had made errors in progressing the repairs and in keeping the resident updated. Its contractor had carried out repairs to the roof on 15 July 2024. Remedying the water coming in through the windows and balcony door was likely to be a complex repair and it was in the process of identifying suitable contractors to take on the work. It was assessing options and its contractors would contact the resident when they needed to visit the property. It would reimburse the resident the costs of replacing the MVHR motors from January 2023, if he could provide evidence of these costs. It offered the resident £600 compensation broken down as follows: £50 for the complaint being resolved outside of its timescales, £200 for its failure to communicate effectively and follow its procedures, £250 for delays in repairs to the roof and windows, and £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
30 August 2024	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. He said he had had to replace 3 MVHR motors at a cost of over £900. He wanted the landlord to reimburse him for the total cost of these. He had reported problems with the windows since he moved into his property, and the landlord had not addressed this issue.
3 and 4 October 2024	The resident complained to the landlord again. He said the repairs to the roof had not resolved the leak and the damp patch on the ceiling had got bigger. He said he and his wife had been ill as they were unable to ventilate the property due to the MVHR unit being broken.
28 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised to the resident. It said: It accepted that poor communication had led to it not handling his stage 1 complaint correctly. It had not raised a new repair when the resident had told it the repairs to the roof had not resolved the damp. It would contact him to arrange further inspections of the roof and the windows. It would reimburse the resident £315.44 for the MVHR motor he had purchased since January 2023. It offered him additional compensation of £100, broken down as: £50 for not raising a further repair in relation to the damp patch, and £50 for the delayed communication in its stage 1 complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 26 November 2024. He said the leak to the roof had not been repaired and the windows were still letting in water. He said there was mould and condensation in his property, due to the MVHR unit not working.
9 May 2025	The resident complained again to the landlord. He said the landlord’s contractors had fitted extra windowsills, but this had not prevented water from coming in. He said the landlord had repaired a leak from a ducting pipe on the roof. It had repaired his ceiling, but it had not repainted it. A member of the landlord’s staff had told him MVHRs in his block had not been properly fitted.
14 August 2025	The landlord issued a further complaint response to the resident. It apologised to him and said: It had had to cut a hole in his ceiling to investigate the leak from the roof. Its contractors had identified that the leak was coming from the MVHR unit and had carried out repairs. Its contractor had replastered the ceiling on 28 April 2025 and redecorated on 23 June 2025. It acknowledged the repair to the windows had not been effective. It agreed to replace the windows and the balcony door. It would contact the resident to provide a date it would carry out this work. It would replace the MVHR unit on 6 October 2025. It offered the resident £946.32 reimbursement for the cost of all the MVHR motors he had purchased. It offered the resident a further £1300 compensation broken down as follows: £100 for the poor quality of work to the windowsills, £200 for its poor communication, £700 for delays to the repairs, and £300 for any distress and inconvenience caused.

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 repairs
Finding	Service failure

7. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks and water ingress as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily mean there was a service failure by the landlord, provided it was making reasonable efforts to identify the cause and carry out repairs and keeping the resident updated.

Repairs to the leak to the roof

8. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 February 2024 about a damp patch on his ceiling. It is clear from the evidence that the resident had reported this issue to the landlord prior to submitting his complaint. However, the landlord’s repair records do not indicate what date the resident first reported the issue. This indicates a shortcoming in its record-keeping as it failed to maintain a clear audit trail. Good record-keeping is essential for transparency, accountability, and assessing whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable. The landlord may wish to review its record-keeping systems so that it can satisfy itself that it has fulfilled its repair responsibilities by keeping detailed records of the dates residents report repairs to it.
9. On 10 April 2024, the resident told the landlord he and his wife had chest infections, and he was worried this was due to them not being able to ventilate the property. We have not investigated this aspect of the resident’s complaint as it is fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts or liability insurers are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice on the cause of any health issues and how long these will last. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. On this occasion we have not awarded additional compensation as the landlord’s offer of compensation was sufficient, as explained in more detail below.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy does not set out timescales for completing complex or routine repairs. While roof repairs may take longer than routine works because they can require scaffolding or specialist contractors, we would expect such repairs to be completed within a reasonable time. The landlord carried out the initial roof repairs on 15 July 2024, more than 4 months after the resident complained about the issue. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for the delay and offered compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience this likely caused the resident.
11. On 3 October 2024, the resident told the landlord that the roof repairs had not resolved the issue and that the damp patch had increased in size. On 11 December 2024, the landlord’s contractors cut a hole in the resident’s ceiling and identified that the likely cause of the damp was water accumulating in the MVHR unit. On 29 January 2025, the contractor repaired and replaced the cowls on the MVHR ducts. This was reasonable, taking into account that many workplaces close over the festive period.
12. The landlord plastered the ceiling on 28 April 2025. It was reasonable for the landlord to leave the hole in the ceiling in place for a period so it could monitor whether the repairs had resolved the issue. The delay in making good the ceiling was also partially due to the landlord initially advising the resident to make a claim to its insurer for the work to restore the ceiling. However, the landlord recognised that this would cause a further delay and acted reasonably by making good the ceiling without the need for the resident to submit an insurance claim.
13. The landlord decorated the resident’s ceiling on 23 June 2025. It said it had carried out the decoration as a goodwill gesture. However, it had a responsibility to redecorate the area where its contractor had cut a hole to investigate the roof leak. It is positive however that the landlord agreed to remedy the area of damp on the ceiling, as under the terms of the lease this was the resident’s responsibility.
14. The resident told the landlord that he had had to replace the MVHR motor several times. The evidence shows that water ingress into the MVHR unit caused the system to fail. The landlord acted reasonably by reimbursing the resident for the costs of replacing the MVHR motors once it identified that a missing cowl had caused the failures. It was also reasonable for the landlord to agree to replace the MVHR unit in response to the resident’s concern that a member of staff had told him there might have been issues with the original installation.

Repairs to the windows and balcony door

15. The resident said he had been reporting issues with the windows letting in water since he moved into the property in 2015. Our Scheme states that we may not investigate complaints that were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. There is evidence that the resident reported the issue with the windows to the landlord prior to his report of 10 January 2023, however, there is no evidence he raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when he became aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence that he was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. We have therefore only considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about his windows and balcony door from January 2023 onwards.
16. The resident reported to the landlord on 10 January 2023 that his windows were letting in water. On 16 May 2023, the landlord identified that the windowsills were tilted and were not allowing rainwater to drain away as intended. The landlord has not explained why it took over 4 months to inspect the windows and identify why they were letting in water. We would expect it to have done this within 28 working days of the resident reporting the issue. The fact that it did not do so was a failing which left the resident without answers to his concerns.
17. It was reasonable for the landlord to initially decide to repair the windows rather than replace them, as landlords are not required to replace items such as windows where repairs can resolve the issue and ensure value for money for residents. However, the landlord did not undertake any repairs to the windows until 10 February 2025, more than 2 years after the resident had reported the issue in January 2023. This was an unacceptable delay and likely caused the resident considerable time, trouble, and inconvenience.
18. The resident told the landlord on 11 February 2025 that the contractors had carried out the window repairs to a poor standard. On 21 March 2025, the resident reported that water was still coming in through the windows. The landlord said it would ask its contractors to address the poor quality of their work and would arrange a further inspection of the windows by a buildings surveyor. The resident said he did not want any further works carried out until the surveyor had completed the inspection. It was understandable that he made this decision, however it was reasonable for the landlord to offer to arrange for its contractors to return to remedy the issues he had reported, while it considered what further steps it could take.
19. On 13 June 2025, the landlord told the resident that it would replace the windows rather than carry out further repairs. This was reasonable, particularly as the repairs had not resolved the issues and the resident had reported concerns about the windows over several years. The landlord’s contractors took measurements of the windows and the balcony door in August 2025 and installed these on 13 November 2025. This was reasonable as windows and doors can take around 3 months to replace as they may need to be specially manufactured.
20. The landlord has acknowledged that there were errors in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property. Our remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance states that compensation of £1000 and above may be appropriate where a resident has been significantly affected by the landlord’s errors, often over a long period of time. The landlord’s offer of compensation of £1900 for the lengthy delays in it progressing the repairs and the distress and inconvenience this will have likely caused the resident, is reasonable and is in-line with our remedies guidance. The landlord has also acted reasonably in reimbursing the resident £1261.76 for the full cost of the replacement MVHR motors he purchased.
21. The resident has told us the landlord had initially scheduled work to the windowsills and window reveals for 27 and 28 January 2026 but has now contacted him to advise that it would not be able to carry out this work on these dates due to staff illness. We accept that staff absence is outside of the landlord’s control, and that it has reorganised these works for 3-4 March 2026. However, we would have expected the landlord to have scheduled these works sooner, given that it had fitted the windows on 13 November 2025. We have therefore found service failure and have ordered the landlord to confirm to us and the resident that it has carried out this work, by the date set out above. We have not awarded additional compensation as the landlord’s overall offer of compensation is sufficient for its errors in this case, taking into account this further delay.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

22. The landlord’s complaint policy in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint, states that it will acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days. The policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint. The policy also states that, if the landlord needs more time to investigate, it will respond to stage 1 complaints within a maximum of 20 working days from acknowledgement, and stage 2 complaints within a maximum of 40 working days.
23. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), published on our website, sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. Both the landlord’s complaint policy and our Code state that a complaint must be defined as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’.
24. The resident submitted a complaint on 26 February 2024 about the leak to the roof. This was a clear expression of dissatisfaction and met the definition of a complaint as set out in both the landlord’s complaint policy and our Code. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to this complaint within 10 working days.
25. The resident expressed further dissatisfaction on 5 June 2024. The landlord contacted the resident several times to advise him it needed more time to respond to this complaint. However, it did not issue its stage 1 response until 29 August 2024, which was nearly 2 months beyond the maximum extended timescales set out in its policy. This delay likely caused the resident considerable time, trouble, and inconvenience, as he was kept waiting for a response for longer than he should have been.
26. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 30 August 2024. On 26 September 2024, the landlord told the resident it needed more time to respond. It issued its stage 2 response on 28 October 2024, which was within the extended timescales set out in its complaint policy.
27. The landlord issued a ‘putting things right’ letter to the resident on 14 August 2025 and offered him additional compensation. This was positive and demonstrated that the landlord was taking steps to address further failings after the end of its complaints process.
28. Our remedies guidance states that where there are errors by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 compensation may be appropriate. The landlord has apologised and has offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay in it responding to his stage 1 complaint. This offer is sufficient to recognise the impact of this delay. The landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard, as its offer is in line with what we would have awarded had the landlord not already made an offer and it is reasonable redress for this aspect of the resident’s complaint, as we have not identified any additional failings.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord may wish to review its record-keeping systems so that it can satisfy itself that it has fulfilled its repair responsibilities by keeping detailed records of the dates residents report repairs to it.

Communication

30. The landlord has accepted that its level of communication in its handling of the resident’s complaint, was poor. It is positive it has committed to providing feedback to relevant members of its staff to improve its future communication. It has also said it has carried out a process review to ensure that it manages complex works more efficiently in future.