We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Abri Group Limited (202332172)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332172

Abri Group Limited

30 September 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 reports of repairs following a leak at the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat within a block.
  2. On 31 July 2023 the resident’s home was flooded by a significant leak caused by the neighbour in the flat above falling asleep in the bath. A plumber and electrician attended and made safe the property. The landlord arranged temporary accommodation for the resident overnight. On 1 August 2023 the landlord arranged for electrical testing and installed dehumidifiers. On 2 August 2023 the landlord certified the electrics safe and advised the resident that she could return to the property. On 5 August 2023 she reported that her electrics had tripped again. The landlord repaired the electrics the same day. It also raised follow-on works to replace the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 17 August 2023. She explained that the flooding had caused considerable damage to her belongings, including carpets and furniture. She raised concerns about the impact of the flooding on herself and her son’s health. She referred to previous leaks from her neighbour’s flat and said she did not believe the landlord had taken sufficient action to prevent a recurrence. She asked for compensation, reimbursement of electric costs from running dehumidifiers, and redecoration of affected rooms. She also asked the landlord to move the neighbour to a different property.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 31 August 2023. It upheld the complaint and acknowledged service failures. It recognised that the plumber had not raised follow-on works at the first attendance. The landlord confirmed it had raised further remedial works and would arrange an inspection between 3 and 4 September 2023 to check the condition of the property. It offered £470 compensation, made up of £120 for additional utility costs, £150 for distress, £100 for inconvenience, and £100 for the resident’s efforts in clearing the water. It also provided its insurers details for the resident to make a claim for health and stress impacts.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the stage 1 complaint outcome. She said the compensation did not reflect the disruption, health impact, or financial losses she had suffered. She remained concerned about the repeated leaks from her neighbour’s property and asked for a higher award of compensation. On 5 September 2023 she escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 October 2023. It upheld the complaint, accepted that the inspection promised for early September had not taken place until 14 September 2023. It apologised for this failure. It explained that the error was due to an internal calendar problem and confirmed that it had provided learning and feedback to staff. The landlord confirmed that follow-on repairs were progressing and increased its compensation offer by £130, bringing the total to £600.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. She brought her complaint to us wanting the landlord to recognise the full scale of the damage to her belongings, distress, and health impacts and to increase its compensation offer. She also wanted reassurance that the landlord has taken effective steps to prevent further incidents from her neighbour’s property. The resident confirmed the landlord has completed the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In communication with us, the resident said this situation had had a detrimental impact on her health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of reports of repairs following a leak at the property.

  1. According to the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including installations for water, gas, electricity and sanitation. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe. The landlord’s internal records confirm that the expected timescale for routine, non-emergency repairs is 90 calendar days.
  2. When the resident reported the leak on 31 July 2023 the landlord acted promptly. Its out-of-hours team attended that evening, made the electrics safe, and arranged temporary accommodation overnight. This was appropriate and in line with its repairs and maintenance policy. The resident reported further tripping of her electrics on 5 August 2023. The landlord attended the same day, confirmed no safety issue, and raised follow-on works to replace the damaged extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. Again, this was appropriate and in line with its policy. On 11 August 2023 the landlord raised a further follow-on to replace water-damaged internal doors.
  3. While the landlord was right to raise specific jobs after the incident, it would have been reasonable for it to have promptly completed a full inspection of the property given the scale of the flooding.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 31 August 2023, it acted reasonably in acknowledging the failing in relation to the plumber not raising follow-on works at the first attendance. It acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused and offered £470 compensation. This compensation included £120 for additional utility costs. It also commented on previous reports of leaks the resident mentioned in her complaint. The resident stated she reported issues relating to leaks from her neighbours flat in 2020, 21 March 2021 and 18 May 2023.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy says it may not accept complaints where the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over 6 months ago. However, where the problem is a recurring issue, it may consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint if this will help to resolve the issue.
  6. In this instance it was reasonable of the landlord to consider the resident’s previous reports as the situation with leaks from the neighbour’s flat appeared to be a recurring issue. The landlord accepted it had not responded correctly in 2020 to the resident’s concerns about faulty electrics resulting from a leak. It demonstrated learning from how it responded in 2020 and committed to improving its service. Regarding the resident’s reports on 21 March and 18 May 2023, it said it had no records of the resident reporting that the leak affected her flat. The landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with its policy.
  7. The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that its customer response supervisor (CRS) would inspect the property between 4 and 8 September 2023. However, this did not happen until 14 September 2023 after the resident enquired about the missed appointment. This was unreasonable and would have caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience. The landlord raised jobs on 18 September 2023 to stain-block and paint affected areas, wash and treat mould, and install a higher cooker splashback.
  8. It was reasonable of the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the missed September 2023 appointment in its stage 2 complaint response. It also reasonably increased its compensation offer by £130 to reflect the additional time and trouble caused by the delay in completing the inspection.
  9. By its stage 2 complaint response on 17 October 2023 the landlord had completed the extractor fan replacement on 8 September 2023 and majority of the door renewals on 26 to 27 September 2023. It completed snagging by December 2023. It completed the decoration and mould treatment on 25 October 2023, and the cooker splashback repairs on 21 December 2023. While not all works were complete at the time of the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord had identified the outstanding jobs, raised them in its system, and confirmed to the resident that they were progressing. The landlord completed the majority of the repairs within its 90-day time limit, with only the cooker splashback and snagging falling slightly outside this target, partly due to the resident’s availability.
  10. We note the resident’s concern that the landlord did not fully repair the doors until February 2024. The landlord’s records show that the landlord completed the main door renewal works between 26 and 27 September 2023. This was within the landlord’s 90-day target for routine repairs. It completed follow-on snagging and caulking works in December 2023 and January 2024, with records showing some delay was linked to the resident’s availability. While the resident may have felt the repairs were ongoing for a longer period, we are satisfied that the landlord progressed and completed the works within a reasonable timescale.
  11. In its correspondence the landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns about recurrence of leaks from her neighbour’s flat. It explained, in general terms, that it was doing what it could to reduce the risk of further leaks, while noting it could not share personal details about the neighbour because of data-protection duties. Its records show it was aware of the neighbour’s vulnerabilities and was exploring preventative steps. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide reassurance in this way while protecting confidentiality.
  12. The resident reported that the flooding had damaged her personal belongings, including carpets, shoes, and furniture, and that it had affected her health. Under the landlord’s customer relations procedure, the landlord is responsible for insuring the structure of the building. It expects residents to arrange contents insurance for their own belongings.
  13. As the flooding was accidental and not due to the landlord’s actions, it was appropriate of the landlord to advise the resident to claim under her own content’s insurance for her damaged items. It was also appropriate that the landlord provided details of its liability insurers in relation to the resident’s concerns about health impacts. The records show the resident did not pursue a claim with the landlord’s insurers. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s actions in this regard were consistent with its procedure and were reasonable.
  14. In summary, while there were failings in planning, poor communication, including the late inspection, and the initial failure to raise follow-on works promptly. The landlord acknowledged the failings, apologised and took reasonable steps to put things right. It completed the repairs, offered reassurance about reoccurrence, demonstrated learning, and increased its compensation to £600. Additionally, the £600 compensation was in line with amounts set out in our remedies guidance and was proportionate to the likely distress and inconvenience the situation would have caused the resident. The landlord’s actions therefore amount to reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs following a leak at the property.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend that the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident the £600 compensation previously offered in its stage 2 complaint response on 17 October 2023 if it has not already done so.
    2. The finding of reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs following a leak at the property is dependent on the payment of this sum.