Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Abri Group Limited (202321477)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321477

Abri Group Limited

21 May 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 the resident’s reports of repairs to the heating and hot water system.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord completed its annual gas safety inspection of the boiler on 27 April 2022. It raised a “non-urgent” replacement of the boiler due to its age. The notes from its inspection state the boiler was “running”.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 June 2022 and said since it safety inspection she was without hot water (apart from an electric shower). The landlord attended the same day. The notes from its visit state the resident said the heating engineer was “not needed” and she wanted the boiler replaced. It is unclear if it inspected the boiler at the time.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord to chase the boiler replacement on 7 November 2022. She also reported she had no heating. The landlord chased the relevant team about the boiler replacement at the time. It did not raise any repairs visits for the boiler.
  5. The resident made a complaint on 27 April 2023. She said she was unhappy with the time it was taking to replace the boiler.
  6. The landlord replaced the boiler on 2 May 2023.
  7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 1 June 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for its handling of the boiler replacement. It said it had attended to her report of a loss of hot water in June 2022 but there were “no notes” about what it found. It accepted it had raised no new repairs when she chased about the boiler replacement in November 2022. It offered £75 for its handling of the boiler issue, and £25 for delays in its complaint handling.
  8. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it top open a stage 2 complaint on 16 June 2023. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 21 August 2023. It upheld the complaint. It accepted there were “communication issues” with its handling of the replacement of the boiler. It made an increased offer of compensation of £175 for its handling of the boiler issue, and £125 for its complaint handling. The offer was inclusive of the compensation offer made at stage 1.
  9. The landlord contacted the resident on 2 July 2024. It said it had decided to offer her a further £500 for its handling of the boiler issue.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the heating and hot water system

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says it carries out cyclical gas safety and servicing gas appliances. The policy says it will replaces boilers every 15 years. The landlord’s website says it will attend to emergency repairs, such as a loss of heating or hot water, within 24 hours. For planned repairs, such as replacing heating system, its website says it will give the resident a say in how and when the work is done.
  3. The information available for this investigation shows the resident reported 4 radiators in her property were not working in June 2024. She said was since the landlord replaced the boiler. We have seen no evidence that shows the resident reported this at the time, or during the complaints process. As such we do not consider this repair within the scope of this investigation as it was raised 9 months after she exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. If the resident remains unhappy about the later repair she may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord. We could then investigate if she remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  4. The evidence shows the landlord was on notice about the need to replace the boiler after its annual inspection in April 2022. The notes from the visit show it was of the view the boiler was working, but due to its age needed replacing. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to log it as a “non urgent” replacement. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its appropriately qualified operatives at the time (that the boiler was in working condition).
  5. When the resident reported she was without hot water in June 2022 the landlord raised an emergency repair, and attended the same day. This was appropriate in the circumstances and in line with its target timeframes for emergency repairs. The notes from the visit reflect the resident told it the appointment was “not needed” and she wanted it to replace the boiler. It is not possible to determine what actions the landlord took at this visit due to the lack of appropriate records, a fact it later accepted. Considering the boiler replacement was a non urgent replacement, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain this to the resident and seek assurances that she had working heating and hot water. We have seen no evidence it took such action at the time. The landlord’s approach was not sufficiently thorough considering the resident had reported a loss of hot water.
  6. The resident chased the boiler replacement again in November 2022, and reported she had no heating. It was appropriate for the landlord to chase the relevant team about the replacement. There is no evidence the landlord raised a repairs visit to inspect the boiler to complete interim repairs ahead of the replacement, at that time. This was unreasonable and a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was evidently distressed at the condition of the boiler. The landlord’s failure to respond to the repair may have increased the distress she experienced.
  7. We acknowledge the resident was not regularly reporting a loss of heating and hot water during this period. This impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond. However, we have seen no evidence it was proactive in satisfying itself she had working heating and hot water. This was unreasonable.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response appropriately gave a detailed history of the issue and accepted its communication was poor. This showed learning and transparency. However, considering the failings we have identified above its offer of compensation did not fully put things right.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response gave a more detailed assessment of its handling of the matter. It showed learning and transparency and appropriately made an increased offer of compensation. Again, we do not consider its offer of compensation made at the time fully put things right for the resident.
  10. We welcome the fact the landlord made an increased offer of compensation in July 2024. It did not revisit its offer of compensation for nearly a year after its final complaint response. This means we do not consider it an offer of compensation made as part of the complaint, this has impacted on the degree to which the offers put right the evident failings. We have therefore determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter.
  11. Our remedies guidance sets out that orders between £600 and £1,000 may appropriate to put things right where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. We consider the landlord’s total offer of £675 in compensation appropriate in the circumstances. We have therefore not made orders for further compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states landlord must send stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response 22 working days after the resident complained. This was outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. It was appropriate the landlord apologised and offered compensation for the delay. It is worth noting any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.
  3. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response 50 working days after she asked it to open a stage 2 complaint. This was an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident. The response was sent well outside of its policy timeframes which was a failing in its complaint handling. The landlord appropriately apologised, showed learning and offered compensation for the delay.
  4. Our remedies guidance sets out that an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. We have decided the landlord’s offer of £125 for its complaint handling was appropriate to put right the errors in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the heating and hot water system.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which our opinion, resolved errors in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident the £675 it offered for errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the heating and hot water system (if it has not already done so).

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £125 it offered for errors in its complaint handling (if it has not already done so). Our finding of reasonable redress by the landlord is based on an understanding that this compensation was/will be paid.