Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Abri Group Limited (202225982)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225982

Abri Group Limited

16 January 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since October 2020. The property is a house.
  2. On 9 November 2021, the resident reported the loft space was damp and this was causing damage to the rooms below. The landlord raised an inspection for the loft insulation and recorded this as completed the following day.
  3. Six months later, in May 2022, the resident re-reported that the loft space was damp and said this was causing damp and mould on the walls in the property. The landlord carried out a damp survey in early August 2022.
  4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 3 October 2022. She said since the inspection in August 2022, no action had been taken. Flooring in her bedroom had been damaged due to condensation levels causing puddles and the wallpaper was mouldy.
  5. Two days later the landlord asked its contractor for an update on the outcome of the inspection that took place in August 2022. On 6 October 2022, it received the contractor’s report, which noted there was mould in the bathroom and bedroom. There was insufficient insulation in the loft and the existing bathroom and kitchen extractor fans were not suitable/ not working. It recommended replacing the extractor fans, increasing the loft insulation, installing a mechanical ventilation unit and carrying out a mould treatment.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 14 October 2022, which said the complaint was upheld. Following her complaint, it had chased and received the inspection report, and approved the recommended works. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and said it had given feedback to its contractor. Later that month, the landlord completed a mould treatment and in November 2022, it said it replaced the extractor fans and installed a mechanical ventilation unit.
  7. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 13 December 2022. She said the mould was getting worse and the landlord had failed to carry out the recommended insulation works. There were draughts in the property from the windows and external doors. She was a vulnerable person and the landlord did not care about her. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 March 2023, which said the complaint was upheld. It apologised for its handling of the issue and offered £200 compensation, made up of £150 for its handling of the damp and mould and £50 for complaint handling.
  8. The landlord upgraded the loft insultation in February 2024. It completed works to remove and treat mould in the bathroom and bedroom, as well as works to the front door and bedroom windows in June 2024.
  9. The resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint in October 2024. She said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of this issue as she had ongoing concerns about the roof and the back door. The following month, the landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint and said there had been further delays in it carrying out promised repairs. It apologised and offered an additional £500 compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident said she has had a problem with damp and mould in the property since she moved in. Complaints should be brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues while they are still ‘live’ and the evidence is available to properly investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42.c of the Scheme).
  2. In this case, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in October 2022, therefore, the scope of this investigation has included events 12 months prior to this. Anything that happened before October 2021, will be considered for context but not assessed or determined as part of this investigation.
  3. The resident told the landlord that this situation negatively affected her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health.
  4. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of damp and mould

  1. The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in the property in accordance with section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says that the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
  2. It was sensible of the landlord to raise an inspection for the loft space in November 2021, when the resident reported this area was damp. This would enable it to investigate this issue and identify how it could resolve this. While the job was completed, the landlord has been unable to provide evidence to confirm the outcome of this or that an inspection even went ahead. Considering that the subsequent inspection on 2 August 2022 identified that there was insufficient insultation in the loft; this, along with the lack of evidence, suggests that no action was taken in 2021 to address this issue. This amounts to maladministration.
  3. When the resident re-reported this issue on 31 May 2022, the landlord, once again, arranged an inspection. However, on this occasion, it referred this to a specialist contractor to complete. This was appropriate and in line with its damp and mould policy at the time, which said it would investigate the root cause of damp and mould cases.
  4. There was a delay in the inspection being carried out as this was not completed until 2 August 2022, which was 9 weeks after the resident’s report on 31 May 2022. As the landlord was using a specialist contractor, this may have been the reason for the delay, which was understandable. However, there is no evidence that the landlord told the resident this or kept her informed during the period of delay. While the landlord’s use of a specialist contractor suggests it was taking the matter seriously, the delay and lack of updates left the resident feeling that it was not.
  5. Similarly, after the inspection was completed, the landlord failed to follow up with the contractor for its report. It was only after the resident chased this up via a formal complaint, almost 2 months later, that it took action to obtain the report and progress the recommended actions. By this point, it had been almost a year since the resident first reported this issue and other than an inspection, no action had been taken to resolve the problem. This amounts to maladministration and left her feeling let down.
  6. Once the landlord received the contractors report with recommended works on 6 October 2022, it took action the following day to progress these. This was in accordance with its damp and mould policy in place at the time, which said it would act promptly upon recommendations given by damp and mould specialists.
  7. The landlord noted it completed a mould wash 15 days later, on 21 October 2022, which was reasonable timeframe. It said it completed works to the extractor fans and installed a mechanical ventilation unit 36 days later, on 11 November 2022. Considering the specialist nature of this job and that parts were required for this, this was again, a reasonable timeframe.
  8. In addition to the works completed, the contractor’s report recommended the loft insulation was increased. However, this was not progressed at that time. It was only after the resident chased the landlord on at least 6 occasions between December 2022 and March 2023, that it raised a further job in relation to this.
  9. Despite raising a job for this in March 2023, which resulted in an inspection on 20 April 2023 and subsequent recommendations to install additional insulation; the loft insultation was not installed until almost a year later, in February 2024. This was after at least 7 further contacts from the resident, 2 further works orders being raised in November 2023 and January 2024 and 1 further inspection carried out in January 2024.
  10. In total, it took the landlord 16 months to complete the recommended works to install additional loft insultation. This was an unreasonable delay and amounts to maladministration. In addition to this, the resident incurred significant time and trouble in chasing this up on at last 13 occasions, which was frustrating for her.
  11. The extended delay in addressing the damp issue in the loft will have resulted in the damp and mould in the rooms below worsening. This caused significant distress for the resident and she told the landlord on more than 1 occasion that this was negatively impacting her mental health. Despite her telling the landlord this, there is no evidence that it acknowledged or considered this when responding to this issue. This amounts to maladministration and resulted in the resident feeling that the landlord did not care about her.
  12. When the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 in December 2022, she raised some new concerns in relation to draughts from windows and doors that were contributing to the damp and mould. In response to this, the landlord agreed to carry out a further inspection on 21 March 2023, which was sensible in order to investigate these issues. The landlord identified a number of works required during the inspection and for ease, said it wanted these to be done by 1 contractor. This was considerate of the resident as it meant she would not have to give access to multiple contractors on different dates.
  13. Despite sending this job to a contractor on 5 April 2023, no works were completed and the job was returned and subsequently closed. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action in respect of this, which resulted in the resident having to chase this up on multiple occasions, from August 2023 onwards. Despite her chasing this up, it was not until April 2024 that the landlord took action to confirm the outstanding issues and it was May 2024 before it raised further works orders for these works to be completed.
  14. The works were subsequently completed in June 2024, which was 15 months after they were first identified at the inspection in March 2023. This was a further unreasonable delay and the resident incurred significant time and trouble to chase these up, in addition to the other delayed works. This amounts to maladministration and caused the resident to lose all faith in the landlord.
  15. Some of the works raised in May 2024, included treatment and removal of mould in the bedroom and bathrooms, which meant redecoration was required. On 8 May 2024, the landlord told the resident that it did not provide a decorating service as this was the resident’s responsibility; but that once the repairs had been completed, she might be eligible for a decoration voucher. This is in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement, which says that the resident is responsible for keeping the property decorated to a reasonable standard.
  16. While in accordance with the tenancy agreement, considering the extended delay in works being carried out, it was reasonable that the landlord ultimately agreed to carry out redecoration works and completed these in July 2024. Following completion of the works, the landlord carried out a post inspection, which was sensible in order to check that the works had been completed to a satisfactory standard, particularly in light of the previous failings.
  17. The resident told the landlord that her bedroom flooring had been damaged as a result of the damp, mould and condensation. The landlord agreed to look at this as part of its inspection on 21 March 2023, however, it has provided no evidence to show that it did. The resident subsequently said that the landlord told her there was nothing it could do about the damage to her flooring. This was incorrect as it could have given her advice about making an insurance claim in accordance with its complaints procedure at the time. This said if a resident wanted to raise a claim against the landlord’s insurance, it should provide them with the information and contact details.
  18. While the resident did not specifically say she wanted to raise an insurance claim, the concern she raised about her damaged flooring met the criteria to be considered as part of a claim. Therefore, the landlord should have provided her with this information. An order has been made for the landlord to write to the resident with details on how to make an insurance claim for any damaged items.
  19. The landlord identified failures in its handling of the damp and mould. It has apologised, offered a total of £650 compensation and identified learning. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put thing right and learn from outcomes.
  20. Considering the full circumstances of this matter and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the compensation offered is insufficient. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and a finding of maladministration is appropriate. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £800 compensation for its handling of the damp and mould, inclusive of the £650 already offered, if not done so already. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  21. In recent contact with this Service, the resident has confirmed that the damp and mould has not returned, which is positive. However, she is concerned that it will as she believes there are issues that have been left unaddressed, including a possible hole in the roof and draughts from the back door. The resident has told this Service that the landlord agreed to inspect the roof but has failed to do so. The Ombudsman has not formally investigated these recent events so cannot make any further comment on this, however, it is important that the landlord takes action to investigate any potential issues that could lead to the damp and mould recurring.
  22. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to inspect the property, including the roof and back door, to identify any repairs required. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming the outcome of the inspection, as well as any works it will carry out, with a timeframe for these to be completed.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 5 October 2022, which was 2 working days after the complaint was received. This was slightly over the committed 1 working day timescale for complaint acknowledgements set out in its complaints procedure at the time. As this was only 1 working day over the committed timescale, this was a minor delay and not a failure.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response in 10 working days. This was in accordance with its complaints procedure at the time, which said it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
  3. When the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 13 December 2022, the landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement 5 working days later, on 20 December 2022. However, this mistakenly acknowledged the complaint at stage 1, rather than stage 2. It was not until 10 days later, when the complaint was reviewed, that this error was identified and the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint, on 4 January 2023. By this time, 14 working days had passed. Therefore, it did not acknowledge the stage 2 complaint within the committed 1 working day timescale set out in its complaints procedure at the time.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response in 63 working days. This was significantly over the committed response time of 20 working days set out in its complaints procedure at the time. On 30 January 2023, the landlord told the resident that the investigation was taking longer than expected. It provided an extended deadline of 15 February 2023, but failed to meet this. It was a further month before the landlord provided the stage 2 response on 14 March 2023; during which time the resident chased the landlord on at least 3 occasions, including once via this Service. The delays and lack of updates amount to maladministration and left the resident feeling ignored.
  5. The resident made a second complaint to the landlord on 14 August 2023. This included concerns about the inspection carried out in March 2023 and the lack of action taken since then. From the evidence provided, this was never formally logged as a complaint and 4 days later, the landlord noted that this matter had already been responded to at stage 2 of its complaints procedure.
  6. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said that it may not accept a complaint if the matter had already been considered under its complaints policy. In this case, while some of the concerns raised in the second complaint related to the historic handling of this matter, the resident also raised concerns about more recent actions, namely the inspection carried out on 21 March 2023 and subsequent actions.
  7. As the stage 2 response for the first complaint was issued before the inspection, these concerns were new matters that had not previously been considered by the landlord’s complaints policy. Therefore, it should have raised a further complaint and investigated the resident’s concerns as such. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
  8. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said that where a matter had already been considered under its complaints policy, it could refer the resident to this Service. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord did this, or that it told the resident why it was not formally investigating her concerns as a complaint. This amounts to maladministration left the resident feeling ignored.
  9. An order has been made for the landlord to provide training to all staff involved in complaint handling on how to identify a new complaint and exclusions in line with its current complaints policy. This order will be considered complied with if the landlord can provide evidence that such training has been delivered in the last 12 months.
  10. It was positive that the landlord carried out a review of the complaint in November 2024. However, it appears this was only done following contact from this Service, with notification of our investigation. Landlords should take proactive steps to put things right for residents where failures have occurred in all cases. This shows that it is truly committed to providing meaningful redress to all residents, not only those that escalate their complaints to this Service.
  11. The landlord identified failures in its complaint handling, apologised, offered £50 compensation and identified learning. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes.
  12. Considering the full circumstances of this matter and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the compensation offered is insufficient. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and a finding of maladministration is appropriate. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation for its handling of her complaint, inclusive of the £50 already offered, if not done so already. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Damp and mould.
    2. The formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident with details on how to make an insurance claim for any damaged items.
    2. Pay the resident £950 compensation, made up of £800 for its handling of the damp and mould (inclusive of the £650 already offered, if not done so already), and £150 for its complaint handling (inclusive of the £50 already offered, if not done so already).
    3. Inspect the property, including the roof and back door, to identify any repairs required. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming the outcome of the inspection, as well as any works it will carry out, with a timeframe for these to be completed.
  2. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 4 weeks.
  3. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide training to all staff involved in complaint handling on how to identify a new complaint and exclusions in line with its current complaints policy. This order will be considered complied with if the landlord can provide evidence that such training has been delivered in the last 12 months. Evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service, within 8 weeks.