Abri Group Limited (202338255)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor property with her two children. The landlord also owns the flat above.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s cupboard and the related damage
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s cupboard and the related damage;
   2. there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of a leak into the resident’s cupboard and the related damage

5. The landlord failed to investigate whether the resident’s flat was affected by the leak when it fixed the leak in the property above. This was despite it being foreseeable that the leak would have affected the resident’s property. The landlord also failed to follow its repairs policy in keeping the resident updated regarding repairs and she regularly had to chase for updates.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord responded reasonably to the complaint. Its communication was adequate around the delays and this was not detrimental to the resident.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. The landlord has not disputed that it was responsible for resolving the leak in the upstairs flat and the related property damage in the resident’s flat. The landlord’s Repairs Policy sets a 24-hour target for emergency repairs and uses an appointment-based system for non-emergency repairs. Although the policy states that it will offer appointments that suit residents and provide updates, it does not include specific time scales for non-emergency repairs.
8. In October 2023, the upstairs neighbour reported an uncontainable leak in their cupboard. The landlord attended this within 4 hours and replaced the faulty pipework and stop tap. The neighbour attempted to inform the resident of the issue, but she was not at home. The landlord met its emergency response time but failed to notify the resident about the potential water ingress into her flat. The landlord should have reasonably foreseen the risk to the resident’s property. Its failure to notify her, or to inspect for any damage, was not appropriate.
9. On 21 November 2023, the resident reported a leak after discovering damp and mould in her bathroom storage cupboard. The landlord raised an emergency repair to attend this leak within its 24–hour response time. The resident had said she would not be available during the school run. Despite this, an engineer arrived at 2:44pm and recorded it as ‘no access’ with a picture of the note on the door stating the resident would be back at 3:45pm. The landlord did not arrange the appointment to suit the resident’s availability or attempt to return when she was at home, in line with its policy. This was not appropriate.
10. On 23 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again to re-raise the repair. The landlord booked an appointment to avoid school run times as requested. It attended on 24 November 2023 and confirmed there was no active leak. The landlord explained that it had waited for the resident to confirm the flat number above before raising the repair. Since the resident had agreed to provide this information, the landlord acted reasonably in this instance.
11. Later in November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to chase a surveyor visit and mould wash. She followed this up on two other phone calls. The notes from her discussions with her complaint handler were not available to other teams, creating unnecessary delays and frustration for the resident.
12. A surveyor attended on 19 December 2023, confirmed the need for a mould wash, and identified some additional repairs unrelated to this complaint. However, the landlord did not upload the survey report to its internal system until after it issued the stage 2 complaint response in late January 2024. The landlord acknowledged this as a potential service failure in its internal communications. We have referred to this in the learning section below.
13. The resident repeatedly asked for a managed move due to the damp and mould. Whilst the landlord was within its policy to refuse this, it failed to communicate this to the resident for several weeks. All members of the team who discussed it were aware of the process but there was a delay in taking ownership and relaying this information to the resident. This was not appropriate.
14. The landlord carried out the mould wash and paint sealing on 2 January 2024. The resident confirmed that she considered the works complete. The landlord’s Damp and Mould Self-Assessment states that it must complete a mould wash within either 10 or 30 days and notify the resident of the appointment within 48 hours. Although the landlord met the longer timeframe, it failed to notify the resident of the appointment. The resident contacted the landlord multiple times to request this information. The landlord did not communicate effectively, and this was not appropriate.
15. Whilst it is not possible to say if the landlord’s communication affected the overall outcome for the resident, it did cause unnecessary distress and inconvenience. We have ordered £100 compensation to reflect the adverse impact caused by the landlords failings.

16. The landlord responded to the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints shortly after the complaints policy deadlines but had requested extensions from the resident on both occasions. This was reasonable and had no detrimental effect on the outcome of the complaint.
17. The landlord rejected the resident’s request for damages caused by the leak and advised her to contact her contents insurer in the complaint response. It stated that it found no evidence of fault or negligence. However, the landlord did not consider that its failure to notify the resident of the leak may have contributed to the damage. This would have been in line with its putting things right policy. Despite this, there was not a detriment to the resident as she was able to make a successful claim on her content’s insurance. It isn’t clear whether the damage was directly caused by the landlord not notifying the resident of the leak as it was a slow leak and had potentially been ongoing before the neighbours report to the landlord.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. While the landlord’s overall approach to knowledge and information management (KIM) appears to be broadly effective, there were specific instances where individual staff members did not follow expected practices. Delays occurred because damp and mould survey results were not uploaded promptly to the system, and key details from conversations with the resident were not recorded. This hindered continuity of service as colleagues were unable to access the necessary information to respond effectively when the resident followed up. These lapses suggest a need for improved staff compliance with record-keeping protocols to ensure that the benefits of a sound KIM framework are consistently realised in practice.

Communication

19. Although some communication took place, the resident had to repeatedly chase updates and wait for call-backs. Internally, teams did not take ownership of certain issues and poor coordination extended response times. Key details from conversations were not recorded, preventing colleagues from picking up and progressing the matter when the resident made contact. This highlights the need for clearer communication protocols and shared responsibility across teams.