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

Abri Group Limited (202331960)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331960

Abri Group Limited

1 August 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 response to the resident’s reports of a leak through her kitchen ceiling.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, since April 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom, first-floor maisonette. The landlord has recorded that the resident is vulnerable.
  2. In July 2023 the resident reported damp stains spreading across her kitchen ceiling and concerns about a leak. The landlord attended in August 2023 to inspect the leak and raise repairs.
  3. On 16, 18 and 20 October 2023 the resident raised a complaint. She said she was unhappy with the time taken to repair her leak and said the service she had experienced from the landlord was poor.
  4. On 27 October 2023 the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 1. It agreed to complete repairs to her roof the following week. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £150 for distress, inconvenience and delays. It outlined what it would do differently in future.
  5. On 30 October 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the redress offered and the fact the repair remained outstanding. On 13 November 2023 the landlord offered the resident an additional £50 for further delays, which she refused.
  6. On 6 December 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint and:
    1. offered the resident £600 by way of apology for how long it was taking to complete the repair, the lack of communication, service failures and the distress caused.
    2. outlined the reasons for the delay.
    3. confirmed that the contractor would attend to complete the repair on 11 January 2024 and said any required follow-on works would be raised after.
  7. On 11 January 2024 the repair was completed. The resident told the Ombudsman in February 2024 that, to resolve her complaint, she wanted a higher amount of compensation from the landlord and for it to complete redecoration works in full.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the standard of redecoration works in March 2024, 2 months after their completion and the internal complaints procedure. The landlord inspected and completed further works in response.
  2. These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord in October 2023.
  3. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak through her kitchen ceiling

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it operates a 24-hour emergency response to make safe any critical issues. It operates an appointment-based job system for non-emergency repairs, no timescales are provided. The resident’s tenancy agreement says when a resident reports a repair, it will tell the resident when it aims to complete it by.
  2. The landlord published a list of commitments in response to this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould. It said it would act quickly to reports and that it had a team of operatives to complete mould washes whilst it awaits a full survey assessment, with an aim to attend within 48 hours, access dependant.
  3. The landlord’s guidance on compensation includes a ‘redress matrix’. The matrix defines between low, medium and high impact. It includes guidance notes for each and states the following values:
    1. medium impact – £100 to £199.99;
    2. high impact – £200 to £500
  4. On 25 July 2023 the resident reported damp stains on her kitchen ceiling and a possible leak. The landlord’s call handler did not raise a repair inspection or confirm an appointment with the resident per the repairs and maintenance policy. This was a failing.
  5. On 27 July 2023 the resident raised the leak again. The landlord inspected the same day and raised a job for a roofing contractor to inspect and provide a works quote. A target date for full leak repair was confirmed on the system as 26 August 2023. This was reasonable and in line with the repairs policy. However, it is not clear whether this target was communicated to the resident, which is a record keeping failure.
  6. On 8 August 2023 the resident chased the repair and told the landlord there was black mould on her ceiling. She expressed concern about water getting into her electrics. The landlord did not attend to inspect the reported mould or electrical safety within 48 hours, nor offer the resident a mould wash. This was a failing when assessed against its damp and mould commitments.
  7. On 9 August 2023 a roofing contractor attended. It provided the landlord with a quote for roof repair works. On 18 August 2023 the landlord told the resident the quote was pending approval. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have updated the resident on receipt of the quote, to avoid a delay in her understanding of the repair plan.
  8. On 29 August 2023 the landlord approved the quote and communicated this to the resident, which was reasonable. There was then a delay where the landlord had to negotiate to erect scaffolding with the resident’s neighbour, this was completed on 13 September 2023 and an appointment for work completion was scheduled for 4 October 2023. This was communicated to the resident. The delay was unavoidable in the circumstances and the resident was kept updated, which was reasonable.
  9. On 21 September 2023 the landlord attended the property to inspect and measure plastering in the resident’s ceiling but could not gain access for reasons that are not clear in the landlord’s records. Incomplete repairs due to access issues cannot be attributed to the landlord. However, in light of the fact the landlord was on notice of damp and mould since July 2023, it would have been reasonable to have re-arranged an appointment with the resident. By not doing this, it missed an opportunity to address the reported mould sooner.
  10. On 2 October 2023 the roofing contractor attended but the roof tiles required to complete the job had been discontinued locally. They provided the landlord with a new quote. The landlord failed to communicate this to the resident, who chased an update on repairs on 10, 13 and 16 October 2023. She said she wanted to raise a complaint. She said her ceiling was leaking and she wanted to speak to a manager. She said she had autism and that she was not leaving the house due to anxiety. That she had to continue to telephone the landlord for a response was unreasonable.
  11. On 18 October 2023 the landlord undertook an emergency inspection of the resident’s ceiling in response to her concerns that the ceiling would collapse. During this visit it put in a short-term leak diversion. The landlord found no risk of a collapse and a small but dry damp stain. It was reasonable to assess the risk, but the landlord fell short of its own damp and mould commitment by not treating the area, for example by completing a wash, paint or committing to completing this, after repair works. Additionally, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected the ceiling in August 2023 when the resident initially raised it.
  12. The resident continued to contact the landlord for repair confirmation on 20 and 24 October 2023. The landlord responded on 24, 25, 26 and 27 October 2023 to keep her informed on their communication with the contractor. It was unreasonable that the resident had to chase throughout October 2023. However, once the complaint was raised, the landlord’s communication with the resident improved. Though a resident should not need to raise a complaint to receive a response, having a single point of contact likely reduced the distress on the resident from 24 October 2023 onwards.
  13. On 27 October 2023 the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised she had to chase and for the delays. It acknowledged it did not investigate the concerns raised about damp and mould line with its policy or respond to safety concerns sooner. The landlord offered the resident £150 in recognition of distress caused and poor communication. It told her the contractors would book an appointment with her for the week beginning 30 October 2023 to complete repairs. The landlord made attempts to put things right for the resident in recognition of its failings, which was reasonable.
  14. In the stage 1 response the landlord outlined several steps it had taken to reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again. This included an aftercare tracker, automated work queues and a new repair support team with a focus on customer care. This was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to ‘learn from outcomes.’
  15. On 30 October 2023 the resident said she was unhappy with the level of redress offered given that the repair was outstanding. The landlord attended on 3 November 2023 to check the make-safe leak diversion and offer reassurance about the safety of the ceiling. It confirmed the materials had been ordered and she would be contacted with an appointment. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns and shows that the landlord was mindful of the resident’s anxieties arising from her recorded vulnerability.
  16. On 6 November 2023 the materials arrived, and the contractor agreed an appointment of 11 November 2023 with the resident. The works were completed on this date and the scaffolding kept up for a further week to monitor effectiveness. The repair completion was significantly beyond the deadline of 25 August 2023 issued by the landlord when the resident reported the leak. This delay was a failing.
  17. On 13 November 2023 the landlord offered the resident a further £50, £200 in total, for the extra delay in resolving her complaint. This was an attempt to offer more proportionate redress to the resident, which was reasonable. The resident refused and wanted to escalate because she felt the landlord had still not taken enough accountability.
  18. On 13 November 2023 the landlord also raised a job for a plasterer to redecorate the ceiling following the repair. A plasterer assessed the damage on 21 November 2023. It took until 6 December 2023 for the landlord to confirm a work completion appointment for 11 January 2024. The resident told the landlord that these further small delays on work completion caused her distress. Given that the resident reported the leak in July 2023, the ongoing time taken to finish redecoration works with no reasoning for the delay was unreasonable.
  19. On 6 December 2023 the landlord upheld the complaint at stage 2. It acknowledged the increased impact on the resident as a result of her vulnerability. It offered her £600 for the distress caused by how long it was taking to complete the repair, the lack of communication and service failures. This was a reasonable attempt to make things right for the resident.
  20. The landlord’s records show that the complaint handlers conducted thorough investigations of what went wrong for the resident. The changes to processes and focus on improvements outlined in the complaint responses highlight a commitment to learning from outcomes.
  21. On 7 December 2023 the resident reported that the leak had returned. The landlord attended the same day and put in a leak diversion kit. On 9 December 2023 it identified that the new leak reported was separate from the original leak and completed further repairs. It told the resident to contact it if it leaked again and they would strip and replace a side of the roof. The resident has not reported any further leaks. This was a timely and thorough response in line with its repairs policy.
  22. On 11 January 2024 the landlord cut out the damaged area in the resident’s kitchen, replaced the insulation, installed new plasterboard and completed redecoration works. The landlord completed the agreed actions on the date given, which was appropriate.
  23. Overall, we have found that the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its failings. The landlord took appropriate steps to acknowledge and put right the concerns that were raised by the resident. It accepted responsibility for delays, acknowledged its communication failings, apologised to the resident, and took steps to better manage the repairs going forward. We are satisfied that it provided fair and proportionate financial redress to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. Our determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £600 is paid to the resident, if it has not already been paid.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, where possible. It says it will raise a complaint should the customer express dissatisfaction with its response to their service request, even if the handling of the service request remains ongoing. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’).
  2. On 13 October 2023 the resident said she “would log a complaint” due to the delay. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified the resident’s position on whether she wanted to raise a complaint. Failing to do this likely led to frustration and delays for the resident.
  3. On 16 October 2023 the resident called again expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s responses. The resident has since told the landlord that this date was when she considers she formally raised a complaint. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised a complaint at this stage.
  4. On 18 October 2023 the landlord’s records show that it knew the resident wanted to raise a complaint. It wasn’t until 20 October 2023 that it formally clarified this with the resident and opened one. This delay in opening the complaint was obstructive, and it prevented the landlord from putting things right for the resident sooner.
  5. On 24 October 2023 the complaints officer contacted the resident and on 27 October 2023 it issued a thorough response covering all aspects. It acknowledged it had failed to open a complaint at the earliest opportunity and said it had fed this back to individuals and call handlers involved. It tried to put things right and outlined learnings. The stage 1 response was compliant with the Code.
  6. On 30 October 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. This was acknowledged the same day, which was appropriate. It is also evidence that it had applied learnings from the stage 1 failures.
  7. On the day the stage 2 response was due, the landlord requested a 10-day extension and agreed to respond by 11 December 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord informed the resident there would be a delay in her receiving a response. However, the Code states that reasons for any delay must be clearly explained to the resident. The landlord did not provide a reason, which was unreasonable.
  8. The landlord issued the stage 2 response before the new deadline. This was appropriate.
  9. We have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling because it failed to provide reasons for the delay at stage 2, and it did not offer any proportionate redress to put things right for the failure to raise a complaint at stage 1. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by these failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak through her kitchen ceiling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer of £600 compensation offered during its complaint process if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.