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

Abri Group Limited (202317413)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317413

Abri Group Limited

20 December 2024

 

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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Concerns about being recharged for a bathroom sink.
    3. Reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house, owned by the landlord. It has no vulnerabilities recorded for her.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 21 June 2023. She said that she had been reporting ASB for the past few years and it was getting worse. She felt “bombarded” every day by children screaming and shouting after school, at weekends, and during holidays. She found this unacceptable and said that she and other neighbours felt unsafe, depressed, and locked in their homes. She asked for a full investigation.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 1 August 2023. It explained the actions it had taken since receiving the resident’s ASB reports. It said that the case was still open and its community safety officer was due to contact her to provide an update. It also responded to a further complaint relating to a charge for the replacement of a bathroom sink, which it said its operative had told her she would receive when it attended a crack in the sink. It apologised for its late stage 1 response and offered £50 compensation.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 August 2023, stating that it was not taking her concerns seriously. She said that she had raised a community trigger (ASB case review) to the police and she wanted a “swift and proper response”. She also raised concerns about damp and mould in her home and the recharge for the bathroom sink. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 15 August 2023.
  5. In its stage 2 response on 22 September 2023, the landlord provided an explanation of the actions it had taken for each report of ASB between 2016 and 2023. It said it had closed the case in August 2023, as things had improved and there were no further actions required at the time. It responded to her concerns about mould in her home, listing the actions it had taken, and proposed further work to install felt vents and new extractor fans.
  6. The landlord explained its recharge policy and acknowledged that it had not fully followed its process. It had failed to advise the resident that she would be recharged for the sink prior to completing the work. It confirmed that it had retracted the costs of £168. It set out its learning from the complaint, including giving feedback to its staff to investigate the delay, and offered £100 compensation for the delay in completing work to her home.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She complained that she had experienced unresolved ASB that she had reported for years, which she wanted it to provide a long term solution for. The resident also requested a timely resolution to the damp and mould in her property, and she thought that the landlord should not recharge for natural wear and tear or when it had not told residents they would be recharged.

Assessment and findings

Reports of antisocial behaviour

  1. The landlord has adopted the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB, which is conduct that:
    1. Has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
    2. Is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
    3. Is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  2. The landlord’s ASB procedure says that it aims to respond to initial reports of ASB within 2 working days for category A reports and 5 working days for category B reports. Category A reports include hate crimes, physical assaults, drugs, and serious criminal activity. Category B reports include noise such as loud music, ASB nuisance or annoyance, and dog nuisance. It also includes confirmation that:
    1. It will agree a course of action with the reporter and may carry out a vulnerability risk assessment. It will send out diary sheets where appropriate.
    2. It aims to tackle ASB through a wide range of preventative methods such as mediation, noise monitoring, warning letters, and good neighbour agreements. In more serious cases, it may consider legal action in the form of an injunction or possession proceedings.
    3. It will work with partner agencies and participate in ASB case reviews.
  3. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman demonstrates that the resident submitted 11 diary sheets from 9 April to 2 June 2023. She reported that children were playing outside for most of the day, often screaming and shouting. She also reported footballs hitting cars and fences, children playing on bikes and scooters, and boys being loud, running around, and swearing.
  4. Not every instance of annoyance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has 2 main duties when ASB is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the ASB. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home, and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation, and whether the actions it took were within its powers and fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  5. In the resident’s complaint, she referred to the children of 4 individual properties causing ASB. She said that she had lived in her home for 15 years and she and her neighbours deserved to be listened to. The landlord had told her that a local liaison officer would help but it had failed to visit her. She found this unacceptable and distressing. She said that the situation had “reached its height” and she had called the police. She asked it to carry out a full investigation.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that, during its telephone call, it had discussed the resident’s reports of ASB from 24 March 2023. It said that it had resolved this at the first point of contact. She made further reports on 29 March 2023, and it had raised her concerns to its housing partnership team. It sent her a diary pack on 30 March 2023 and uploaded this onto its system when she returned it on 29 June 2023.
  7. The landlord said that it received further reports on 16 June 2023 and passed these to its community safety team. It assigned the case to an officer on 23 June 2023, who attempted to make contact on 3 separate occasions. It visited the resident on 30 June 2023 to explain its process and confirm that it would carry out a full investigation and provide an update. It made further attempts to contact her in July 2023. She had stated that she received an update on 24 July 2023 that it had closed the case. However, it spoke to the officer who confirmed that the case was still open and it would provide an update in the next few days.
  8. The landlord’s response was appropriate and set out its actions and timeline of events, which were in line with its ASB procedure’s requirements. It was reasonable for it to visit the resident at home and explain its process. It would have been helpful for it to have agreed a frequency and method of contact from the outset, given that it was having difficulty reaching the resident. In its explanation to the Ombudsman, it advised that it had not completed a risk assessment, as there was no evidence that the resident was at risk. While we appreciate that this may have been the case, it would have been reasonable for it to have carried out an assessment to establish any vulnerabilities, or the impact the situation may have been having on her.
  9. The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 August 2023, stating that she did not seem to be able to get her “serious issues” sorted to her and other residents’ satisfaction. She had raised a community trigger to the police and contacted the Ombudsman. She detailed the ASB issues she had been experiencing and said she had been “promised the earth” with no resolution.
  10. An ASB case review is a victim led process which requires local authorities, the police, housing providers, and local health teams to work jointly to review how a case of ASB has been dealt with. The police contacted the landlord on 26 August 2023 to advise that a case review had been received from the resident on 13 August 2023.
  11. In its stage 2 response, the landlord listed each report made by the resident from 2016 to 2023. This included patrons of the nearby pub parking in the close, untidy gardens, misuse of drugs, dogs barking, children not socially distancing during COVID-19, noise from children, and misuse of communal areas. The actions taken included erecting a resident only parking sign, making visits to inspect untidy gardens, and speaking with neighbours about the use of communal areas. Its responses to each report were reasonable and proportionate, in accordance with its ASB procedure’s requirements. This demonstrates that it responded to each report made and took appropriate action.
  12. In the landlord’s response, it said that, following receipt of her diary sheets, it had visited the resident at home. She had asked it to evict her neighbour due to the level of noise made by the children. It explained that it would not evict her neighbour but would look to provide support to try to resolve the issues. She had shown it a video of the children playing in the communal area, making noise, and hitting a fence with a pole. It explained that it was unable to control the behaviour of children, however, it would discuss this with the parents. It had also agreed to arrange for the removal of goal posts from the communal area for health and safety purposes.
  13. The landlord explained that it had tried to make contact with the resident on 13 July 2023, to see whether there had been any improvement since its visit to the neighbour. It said that it had received no further reports of ASB. It continued to try to contact her until 28 July 2023. On 24 August 2023, she attended its office and said that things had improved but reported that the children were still being noisy outside. It explained that it had closed the ASB case due to the improvement and there being no further action to take at the time. It said that it had responded to all reports of ASB in line with its policy and procedures and would send her a diary pack to log any new incidents.
  14. The landlord’s response was comprehensive, having detailed all of the actions it had taken since 2016. It appropriately spoke with the children’s parents, which appeared to improve the situation. This demonstrates that it listened to the resident’s concerns and took reasonable steps to resolve the matter in line with its ASB procedure.
  15. The police wrote to the resident on 9 October 2023 in response to her request for an ASB case review. They set out the actions taken by each agency, which included house to house enquiries, proactive patrols, ASB perception surveys, home visits, and spot checks. They concluded that there had been no failings in the management of her reports of ASB. They also stated that they would not take action against children playing or being noisy. The evidence demonstrates that the police and landlord continued to liaise for a period of 3 months to monitor the situation, which confirmed no further ASB reports.
  16. The landlord demonstrated that it had followed its policies and responded to the resident’s reports of ASB appropriately. We, therefore, find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Concerns about being recharged for a bathroom sink

  1. The resident raised a separate complaint to the landlord about being recharged for a replacement bathroom sink. It was appropriate for the landlord to incorporate this into its stage 1 complaint response, although unrelated, as outlined in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Paragraph 6.8 of the Code states that, where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related, and the stage 1 response has not been issued.
  2. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that, during its telephone call with the resident on 25 July 2023, she had said that she was not advised that she would be charged for the replacement of the bathroom sink. It explained that its operative attended on 25 November 2022 to inspect the toilet cistern. It raised follow on works due to a crack in the bathroom sink. Its operative said that they advised her there would be a recharge and the sink was installed on 4 January 2023.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 August 2023, stating that the landlord had charged her for work in her “immaculate home” for natural wear and tear. She had asked it to fix her sink, as it had a crack, which was not due to anything she had done. She said it had not told her that she would have to pay for it and received a bill for £168.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the resident had reported her sink not holding water on 23 November 2022. It raised a non-urgent repair and attended on 25 November 2022. Its operative reported that there was a crack in the sink, which it replaced on 4 January 2023. It explained that its chargeable works policy states that, where there is a requirement for remedial works, which was due to neglect or damage, it would recharge residents. Its operative had considered the crack in the sink to be beyond normal wear and tear and therefore reported a recharge would be appropriate. It said that, while this was the right decision, it had not followed the correct process by advising her of the recharge prior to completing the work. It had, therefore, arranged to retract the cost of £168.
  5. It is not disputed that the landlord failed to follow its process. It explained the reasons why it had made the charge, having relied on its operative’s opinion. Its acknowledgment of its error and retraction of the charge was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. For these reasons, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about being recharged for a bathroom sink.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will always investigate the root cause of damp. It will use internal and external expertise, respond quickly to reports, and act promptly on the recommendations.
  2. The resident raised concerns about damp and mould in her home as part of her escalation request. While we appreciate that the landlord has tried to provide a comprehensive response, it should have considered raising a new complaint for this matter. Paragraph 6.8 of the Code states that, where the stage 1 response has been issued, the new issues are unrelated to the issues already being investigated, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as a new complaint.
  3. The evidence shows that the resident reported damp and mould in her loft to the landlord on 24 January 2023. The landlord raised a low priority order to its external contractor the same day. This was appropriate given the resident had not reported any damp and mould inside her home.
  4. The contractor attended in February 2023 and sent its report to the landlord on 3 March 2023. The report identified no signs of damp and mould in the resident’s home at the time of the visit. It did, however, note some condensation on the living room window. It recommended replacing the existing extractor fans and said that the loft would benefit from additional ventilation. It also referred to undercutting the internal doors to help with ventilation. The contractor provided a quote for the work in April 2023.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 August 2023, stating that she had been “left in limbo” with no resolution to the damp and mould.
  6. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the resident had reported concerns of damp and mould in the loft in January 2023. Its specialist attended in February and provided its report in March 2023.It confirmed that no damp and mould had been found in the rooms of her home during the visit. However, it reported that the loft insulation appeared to be mouldy along with the external fascia of her home. The report recommended it install a ventilation unit in the bathroom and felt vents in the loft space. It also stated that the loft insulation would benefit from being replaced, and it needed to further investigate the guttering across 4 properties. It additionally recommended it undercut all internal doors by 10mm to improve ventilation in her home.
  7. The landlord said that it had inspected the fascia boards on 14 March 2023, and its operatives attended on 14 June 2023 to clean the guttering and front and rear fascias. It sent a text message to the resident on 15 June 2023 to advise of an appointment for 11 August 2023 to undercut the internal doors to improve ventilation. She had responded the same day stating that she did not want this work to proceed. She had said that she was advised that extractor fans, in the bathroom and downstairs WC, were to be replaced, as neither extractor fan was working efficiently. Its operative attended on 5July 2023 and reported that both fans were working. It said it had received conflicting information from its specialist and operative and, as a precautionary measure, it would arrange to replace both fans.
  8. In its response, the landlord stated that, on 27 June 2023, its scheduling team sent the resident a text message to advise it would be carrying out roofing work to her home on 18 September 2023. She was unable to keep the appointment and it was rearranged for 14 November 2023. It had given permission to its specialist to go ahead with the installation of the extractor fans along with the felt vents. Its specialist had attempted to make contact on a “few occasions” to schedule the work. The work was cancelled due to lack of contact.
  9. The landlord said that it could see on its system that the resident had made contact to acknowledge the letter she received from its specialist. It apologised that she had to chase the work. It had provided feedback to its customer response supervisor and performance and projects lead to investigate the delays she had experienced further. It had arranged for the installation of the fans, felt vents, and replacement loft insulation, which would take place on 14 November 2023. It offered £100 compensation for the delay in completing the work.
  10. The landlord’s records show that the loft work was completed on 14 November 2023, as arranged with the resident. In the landlord’s explanation, it said that, following a number of attempts to arrange the replacement extractor fans, the work was completed in January 2024.
  11. The landlord acknowledged that it had received conflicting information from its operative and specialist, which led to delays. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we consider whether its apology, offer of compensation, and other actions to put things right, satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint.
  12. The landlord apologised for the delays, demonstrated learning from the complaint, and appropriately re-arranged the work. Its offer of £100 compensation for the delay was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failure in the range of £50 to £100. We, therefore, find that the landlord had made an offer of redress to the resident, prior to investigation, which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about damp and mould.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of ASB.
    2. Concerns about being recharged for a bathroom sink.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should pay directly to the resident the sum of £150 compensation offered in its stage 1 and 2 responses, if not already paid.