Abri Group Limited (202401395)

Decision
Case ID	202401395
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Abri Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	5 June 2026

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about its response to a text message he sent it. The landlord had responded to his concerns advising that it did not condone racism. The resident denied that his message was racist. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. A text message sent by the resident.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint about its response to a text message sent by the resident.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord apologised for the tone of its text message to the resident. It took appropriate learning from the failing.
6. The landlord acknowledged that its actions had delayed the complaints process for the resident. However, it failed to take steps 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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. 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: 3 July 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The resident told us that he is experiencing antisocial behaviour from his neighbours. The landlord should contact the resident to take further details from him and take steps to investigate the report in line with its policies.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 February 2024 to 7 March 2024	The resident contacted the landlord on 3 occasions, saying he was unhappy with its response to a text he had sent. He said the landlord had accused him of being a racist, which he denied.  As the landlord did not respond to his complaints he contacted the Ombudsman.
10 April 2024	We wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process.
29 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It should have logged a complaint when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with its handling of the issue. It would give staff additional training around identifying complaints. The comment made by the resident was racist as it was a comment made in a derogatory way about someone’s heritage. As such, it did not uphold this element of the resident’s complaint.
Around 9 May 2025	The resident asked the landlord to consider his complaint at the second stage of its complaints process. He said he wanted the landlord to apologise for calling him a racist and award him compensation.
27 June 2024	The landlord responded at the second stage of its complaints process. It said: It reiterated its position on the resident’s text. It would not tolerate racism and asserted its right to challenge discrimination. The tone of its text to the resident did not align with its service standards. The text could have been considered accusatory. It would raise the tone of its text with the member of staff who sent it. It would not be able to give the resident the outcome of this conversation, due to data protection requirements.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the complaint to us for investigation. He feels the landlord should offer him compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the issue.

 

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 response to a text from the resident
Finding	Service failure

7. On 22 February 2024 the resident sent the landlord a text message about its allocation of a property. He said that the landlord had allocated a designated over-55s property to residents who did not meet the allocations criteria. In the text message, he used a term relating to the perceived ethnicity or heritage of his neighbour. The landlord responded, saying that it did not allocate properties ‘without good reasoning’ and it did not ‘condone racism’. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, which he felt was accusatory. He says his message was not racist.
8. In its equality, diversity and inclusion policy the landlord commits to challenging discrimination. The ethnic group referred to in the resident’s message is protected from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. As such it was reasonable for the landlord to challenge the resident when it felt that the language used in his text message was discriminatory.
9. However, individuals may not intend offence or be aware that a term might cause offence. This is particularly the case where a term may have been used historically or in other contexts without challenge. The landlord should have considered this, and could then have better explained its position that:
   1. The ethnicity of a resident was not relevant to its allocation of a property. Mentioning race or ethnicity when it is not relevant may reinforce stereotypes.
   2. The word used refer to the resident’s neighbour may cause offence to some people.
10. The landlord appropriately acknowledged at stage 2 of the complaints process that the tone used in its response to the resident’s text message was inappropriate. It accepted that the tone could be seen as accusatory.
11. The landlord told the resident that it would raise the tone of the message with the individual member of staff. It was positive that it took learning from failures it identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It correctly explained that, due to data protection requirements, it could not share further information about this with the resident. The landlord has a duty to keep employment information about its staff confidential.
12. Although the resident did not complain to the landlord about its handling of his allocation query, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to address the query in the complaints process, as it had identified failings in its initial text message. While it could not share specific personal data, it could have provided a fuller general explanation. For example, it could have clarified if the property was within a designated over-55s scheme and whether its allocations policy allows discretion in applying age criteria. This would have been a more thorough response to the issues raised, and it was a shortcoming that no such response was provided.
13. In our opinion, the landlord’s apology and the learning it has taken from the failings it identified in its handling of the issue amount to reasonable redress for this element of the complaint. As such, no compensation has been awarded.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

14. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our approach to complaint handling. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint handling policy and procedure documents align with those in the Code.
15. The Code allows landlords to extend complaint deadlines if a case is unusually complex. In this case the landlord extended the timescales for its complaints responses at both stages of the complaints process. It met its revised timescales. However, its records do not show that the extensions were needed because of complaint complexity. For example:
    1. At stage 1 of the complaints process there was a delay in information being provided to the complaints team by a different department.
    2. At stage 2 of the complaints process the landlord contacted the resident to take details of the outstanding issues 30 working days after acknowledging his complaint request. This was an unexplained delay in the complaints handling process.
16.  Landlords should ensure they meet the timescales set out in the Code wherever possible. Although the delays were not excessive, and the landlord mitigated their impact by keeping the resident informed, they will still have caused frustration and inconvenience
17. After we contacted the landlord to ask it to respond to the resident’s complaint, it accepted appropriately that it had failed to log 3 complaints made by the resident about the issue. This caused an avoidable delay of around 6 weeks in the complaints process. It will have caused the resident frustration and undermined the landlord-tenant relationship.
18. As such it was appropriate that the landlord apologised for the failing and upheld this element of the resident’s complaint. It was positive that it identified learning from the resident’s complaint and provided feedback on complaint handling and additional training for relevant members of staff. Had it not done so, we would have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
19. The landlord did not award the resident compensation. To recognise the impact of the failings discussed above, we have awarded the resident compensation. The compensation awarded aligns with our remedies guidance (available on our website). The guidance says awards in this range are appropriate where the landlord has acknowledged failings, but actions it has taken to put things right are not proportionate to the findings of our investigation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord kept robust records of its decision making in this case.

Communication

21. The landlord attempted to call the resident after he had asked to be contacted only by email. This was a communication failing. The landlord should ensure it always records and adheres to contact preferences it agrees with residents.