Abri Group Limited (202324968)

Decision
Case ID	202324968
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Abri Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 October 2025

Background

The resident occupied the property with her husband and 5 children. At the time of the complaint, 3 of the children were over 18.
The home resident lived in had been originally classified as a 5-bedroom house. The resident wanted the landlord to reclassify her home as 3-bedroom house in accordance with a re-assessment by the local authority in April 2023. The resident also wanted to move to a 5-bedroom house.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for
1. her home to be reclassified as a 3 bedroom
2. a housing transfer to suit her family’s needs
3. mutual exchange.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and of a leaking soil stack.
We will investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a) her home to be reclassified as a 3 bedroom b) a housing transfer to suit her family’s needs c) mutual exchange.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and of a leaking soil stack.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord tried to inspect the property in order to reclassify it and consider the resident’s application for an exchange. However, the resident did not agree to give the landlord access for an inspection. Once it was able to inspect the property, it reclassified it and adjusted the rent accordingly. It was unable to offer the resident a five-bedroom property as it did not have one. Instead, it did what was in its power and offered a 4-bedroom property which it offered to adapt.
The landlord offered a number of appointments in order to address the damp and mould and disrepair to the soil stack. The resident did not give access to the landlord for repairs. The landlord applied for an access injunctionin order to carry them out.
The landlord handled the complaint in line with timescales and offered a clear explanation of its position.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should reminds its staff to carefully consider whether a resident’s complaint is a duplicate of a previous complaint or is about fresh issues.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 September 2023	The resident made a complaint by telephone. According to the landlord’s Stage 1 response, it was about: The size and amount of bedrooms in her home. The landlord’s actions in response to the local authority. The landlord declined the resident’s application for mutual exchange. Damp and mould issues at the property. Leaking soil stack still outstanding. The landlord had applied for an access injunction.
4 October 2023	The landlord replied with its Stage 1 response as follows: It had replied to a complaint about the size of the property. The complaint had been investigated by our Service on 20 May 2022 under complaint reference 202102900. It had made a number of appointments since to inspect the property but the resident did not give access. The landlord had not refused to agree to a mutual exchange but it required to inspect and repair the property before an application could be considered. Following a letter from the local authority, it had arranged to attend on 6 April 2023 regarding both the property size and repairs. The resident had refused access. It had offered a 4-bedroom property it could adapt. The resident had refused to visit it. It only had one 5-bedroom property in the area which was occupied. It was not able to remove that family. It would consider reducing the rent after it had inspected the property. It gave advice to the resident on bidding for properties on the local authority housing register. The local authority had reported that the soil stack required a repair and there was damp and mould in the property. The first report of the soil stack needing a repair was from the local authority on 3 April 2023. The resident had reported that the ground floor extension did not maintain an adequate temperature. It tried to arrange an appointment on several occasions in January 2023. It did not receive further reports regarding the damp and mould. It had tried again following hearing from the local authority on 3 April 2023. It raised a job but the resident did not give access. Its contractor also tried. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord had a right to inspect properties. It set out the steps it had taken before taking legal action (applying for an injunction) to gain access. It had given longer than its usual procedure given “other issues” which complicated the situation. The landlord was wating for the court to give a hearing date for the injunction. It had replied to a complaint about the damp and mould at Stage 2 of its process on 20 April 2022 so it would not reinvestigate.
19 October 2023	The resident asked to escalate the complaint because the property was unsuitable.
30 November 2023	The landlord replied with its Stage 2 response as follows: The landlord had not disputed this was a 3-bedroom property but had not been able to carry its own inspection. The resident was registered on the local authority housing register as a priority. It asked for access in order to arrange the repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the complaint to this Service as she was unhappy with the outcome.

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 the resident’s request for a) her home to be reclassified as a 3-bedroom b) a housing transfer to suit her family’s needs c) mutual exchange.
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not considered.

We have not investigated the period before 2023 that a) the property was unsuitable and b) the house had been classified as a 5-bedroom house. This is because a) we have already investigated the resident’s complaint the house was unsuitable under reference 202102900 in May 2022 and b) the events around the classification are historical. The evidence showed that the property was classified as a 5-bedroom property in 2016 when the family moved in. The family comprised of 4 children under 18 at the time and had applied for a 5-bedroom house. An extension had been built without the landlord’s permission and, it would appear, before the resident moved into it in 2016. In 2017, the local authority considered it was a 5-bedroom house and not overcrowded. This was outside the landlord’s control and it was entitled to rely on this.
Leaving aside the issue of how many bedrooms the property, in fact, had, the property had become overcrowded with time. This was because the makeup of the family had changed and the children had gotten older. We note the room assessments also had changed. In September 2021, it was not disputed the family had a 5-bedroom need and the property was unsuitable in any event.

The resident’s request for reclassification of her home and a move.

The landlord acted reasonably by working with the local authorityand by offering a 4-bedroom house which it could adapt to 5-bedrooms. The resident visited the property from the outside in June 2023 and decided it was too small.
The landlord was unable to offer any alternatives as it only had one 5-bedroom property in the area and it was occupied. The local authority commented that 5-bedroom properties were few and far between and supported the proposal of the 4-bedroom property.
The landlord was unable to reclassify her existing home until it had inspected it. The evidence showed that the resident had refused to give access in February 2022 onwards. The resident offered a video meeting and provided room measurements. However it was reasonable that the landlord needed to inspect the property for itself both in order to reclassify it as a 3-bedroom property and to agree to an exchange. The resident refused access on several occasions in April 2023 and throughout the year until the landlord issued an application to the court for an injunction order that the resident give access.
Once the resident permitted access on 21 February 2024, the landlord reclassified the property. While it was not clear why it took a few weeks for the landlord to formalise the decision, it adjusted the rent as from March 2024.
We find no maladministration for this complaint because:
1. The landlord tried to inspect the property in order to reclassify it but the resident did not agree to give the landlord access.
2. Once the landlord was able to inspect the property, it reclassified it and adjusted the rent accordingly.
3. The landlord it had not refused an exchange. It explained it needed to inspect the property and carry out the repairs in order to agree to the resident’s application.
4. It was unable to offer the resident a five-bedroom property as it did not have one available. Instead, it did what was in its power to do and offered a 4-bedroom property which it offered to adapt.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and of a leaking soil stack.
Finding	No maladministration

The damp and mould

We have not investigated the complaint about damp and mould prior to September 2022. This is because the landlord had responded to the resident’s complaint about damp and mould at Stage 2 in April 2022 and a further complaint at Stage 1 on 8 September 2022. The resident did not refer those complaints to us. For context, we note that the resident refused access for fans to be installed in March and April 2022. Shehad also refused access for the landlord to inspect the boiler and the heating system in June, July and August 2022.
The resident declined a mould wash and inspection the landlord offered in January 2023. According to the landlord’s Stage 1 response, there were no further reports until the local authority’s inspection in April 2023. Following that report, the landlord offered to arrange a visit to the property.
The landlord did not gain access to the property until February 2024, having applied for an injunction in order to carry out the repairs. An inspection carried out on 21 February 2024 found no evidence of damp or mould. However, the landlord carried out redecoration. It was still prepared to upgrade the extractor fans. On 4 July 2024 the landlord offered all residents in the block a retrofit programme to improve ventilation and insulation.
In the circumstances, we find that the landlord acted reasonably in addressing the resident’s report regarding damp and mould. This is because the landlord made reasonable attempts to gain access and it carried out works when it did get access .

The soil stack

Following the local authority’s report of 3 April 2023, the landlord acted reasonably in raising an inspection to the soil stack. It offered a number of appointments in April and May 2023. The local authority reported to the landlord in April 2023 that the resident did not want the landlord to carry out repairs. The resident later suggested a date in August 2023 but did not give access. After several unsuccessful attempts, the landlord applied for an injunction to compel the resident to give access. Eventually the resident allowed access for the repairs a few days before the hearing for the application was due to take place on 1 February 2024. The works were completed on 21 February 2024.
We find there has been no maladministration in relation to this complaint. The landlord responded appropriately by attempting to arrange inspections and repairs. When access was not provided, it acted reasonably by seeking an injunction, in line with its duty to carry out the necessary works.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within its policy timeframes. It provided a clear explanation of the events and its reasons for not upholding the complaint
The landlord did not address the resident’s complaint about damp and mould in its response, as it considered the matter had already been investigated. There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether this was a fresh complaint. However, as the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in any event, we have not identified any adverse impact on the resident. We will recommend that the landlord reviews its approach to potentially duplicate complaints, particularly where new reports of the issue have been made.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We did not have any concerns about the landlord’s record keeping in this matter.

Communication

We did not have any concerns about the landlord’s communication in this matter.