Abri Group Limited (202343974)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property on 28 November 2022. The property was built in 2013. In November 2023, the resident raised concerns with the landlord about damp and mould in the bathroom and said the extractor fan was not connected. The resident has since moved out but remains unhappy with the landlord’s response.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to reports of repairs.
3. The landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of repairs.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlords associated complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord acted in line with the lease, relied on appropriate records, and clearly explained where responsibility for repairs rested.
7. The landlord followed its complaints procedure, responded within published timescales, and communicated its position clearly at each stage.

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.

8. The resident first reported concerns about mould and the bathroom extractor fan on 22 November 2023. She said the fan was not connected and would not have passed inspection at handover. The landlord responded promptly. It explained the property was completed in 2013 and that the defects period ended in 2014. An end‑of‑defects inspection took place in December 2014 and identified no concerns. The previous owner had not reported any issues with the extractor fan. Under the lease, responsibility for internal repairs and maintenance rests with the shared owner.
9. The resident said the landlord initially told her it would repair the fan and paint the ceiling. However, there is no evidence the landlord agreed this, and it went on to make its position clear in its responses.
10. The landlord maintained this position during informal correspondence and at stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaint. We considered whether it acted reasonably by declining to inspect after the resident reported the issue. The extractor fan is an internal fixture within a shared ownership house. Under the lease, responsibility for repairs and maintenance rests with the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord retained responsibility for internal fixtures once the defects period ended.
11. The landlord held records confirming completion sign‑off, including building compliance documentation. There was no evidence of reported concerns during the defects period or the previous 9 years of occupation. In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its records and the lease when responding to the resident.
12. We recognise the resident’s concern that the extractor fan may never have been connected. However, there is no independent evidence to confirm this. A disagreement with the landlord’s position does not, on its own, require the landlord to inspect where it has no contractual obligation to do so. We are satisfied that the landlord’s decision not to inspect was reasonable and in line with the lease.
13. As the landlord was not responsible for the extractor fan, it was also not responsible for associated internal damp and mould works. Its response was proportionate and aligned with the lease and repairs policy.
14. The landlord also explained that the resident had been advised, through the Key Information Pack, to seek independent legal and financial advice before purchase. It is common practice for buyers to commission a homebuyer or building survey, which may identify issues before purchase. While we understand the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that any concerns about the property’s condition at purchase would be more appropriately raised with her conveyancer.

15. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process. Under its policy, it should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The policy allows extensions for complex cases, provided the landlord explains the reason for the delay and gives a clear revised response date. This is consistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
16. The landlord received the stage 1 complaint on 7 December 2023 and issued its response on 19 December 2023. This was within its published timescales.
17. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 21 December 2023. The landlord issued extension letters and explained the reasons for the delay. It sent the stage 2 response on 5 February 2024. This was within the maximum timeframe set out in its Customer Relations Policy which was 40 working days including the extension.
18. The landlord clearly set out its position at both stages, addressed the issues raised, and signposted the resident to us at the end of the complaints process.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. Where landlords ensure historic records relating to inspections and defects periods remain accessible, they are better able to respond to disputes raised long after handover.

Communication

20. This case highlights the value of clear and consistent communication about repairing responsibilities. The landlord’s consistent approach helped explain the limits of its obligations and manage the complaint process.