Abri Group Limited (202348261)

Decision
Case ID	202348261
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Abri Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	9 April 2026

Background

The landlord installed new windows and doors at the resident’s property as part of a planned works programme. The resident complained to the landlord about the quality of the works afterfinding various issueswith the new windows and doors.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about window and door installations.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about window and door installations.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about window and door installations

Whilst there were delays to the installations and subsequent repairs, the contractor acted on the resident’s concerns and made attempts to resolve the issues. The landlord acknowledged its failures, apologised and offered reasonable compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord addressed a delay to its stage 2 response and provided reasonable compensation. Any shortcomings identified in its complaint responses were of little to no detriment 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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Our finding of reasonable redress for the handling of the resident’s concerns about window and door installations is made on the basis that the £250 compensation is paid to the resident.
Our finding of reasonable redress for the handling of the resident’s complaint is made on the basis that the £100 compensation is paid to the resident.
We recommended that the landlord reviews the shortcomings identified in its complaint handling to ensure they can be prevented in the future.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 to 16 November 2023	The landlord’s external contractor attended the resident’s property to install new windows and doors. It was unable to complete the installations due to ordering incorrect doors and bad weather.
17 November 2023	The resident complained to the landlord that the contractor failed to return to complete the works. She said the windows were not sealed correctly causing a draught, and she could hear more external noise than before. She said she had to wait until 2024 for the correct doors. She was unhappy to be left in the cold for so long and noted the contractor also left a dirt mark on her throw.
15 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised that the contractor failed to attend twice. It said they had explained the door issue to her, leaving temporary ones in place. As they could not seal the windows externally at the time, they ensured all were internally sealed. They planned to complete the windows when fitting the new doors. It acknowledged further reports that the front door struck another door when opened and allowed rainwater onto her floor. It said the contractor would investigate these issues and the resident’s reports of noise. It apologised and offered £100 compensation (£50 for the standard of work and £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused).
22 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She disputed that the windows and doors were sealed, saying she still felt a draught and rainwater still came in. She wanted an urgent resolution and further compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused to her.
22 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for delays in repairing some patio door glass. It said its surveyor confirmed the property was not too cold, and neither they nor the contractor found concerns with external noise. It recognised service failures and offered £670 compensation. However, this included redress for another complaint, and it was unclear how much related specifically to this case. The breakdown included: £100 for the late response, £20 for a damaged throw, £150 for poor complaint handling and communication and £350 for distress and inconvenience linked to these installations and a separate complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident initially contacted us as she was unhappy with the outcome of the complaint and wanted the doors replaced. She later confirmed the landlord had resolved the issues but wanted to ensure they would not recur.

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 handling of the resident’s concerns about window and door installations
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident reported that the contractor had not completed the window and door installations. The landlord apologised and arranged for the contractor to call the resident. It is unclear from the records if the contractor contacted the resident.
The resident complained about the quality of the works. The landlord raised the concerns with its contractor on 21 November 2023, who said it had communicated with the resident about the issues. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident, to ensure she understood the contractor’s plans.
The contractor completed the installation of the windows and doors by 12 December 2023. The landlord apologised the following day, explaining that a door gasket would not arrive until after Christmas. Given the resident’s reports of cold and water ingress, it could reasonably have considered interim measures, such as a heater or doormat. That it did not, likely caused distress to the resident.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the standard of work. It offered redress for the distress and inconvenience caused, in line with its compensation guidance for failures of a medium impact.
On 18 December 2023 the contractor investigated the reported noise and door issues. While it was positive it completed the actions it promised in its stage 1 response, the investigation was 21 working days after the resident raised her noise complaint. There is no explanation for this delay, which likely caused the resident distress.
The resident disputed that her windows and doors were correctly sealed, stating she still felt a draught and rainwater still came in. She chased the landlord for updates at least 3 times in February 2023. The records show that the landlord frequently contacted the contractor regarding the issues. However, there is no evidence that it proactively updated the resident. The lack of communication likely caused inconvenience to the resident.
On 4 March 2023 the contractor reported it could not identify a draught. However, it would continue to investigate. Regarding the water ingress, it advised it could not prevent rainwater dripping from an open, wet door onto her floor. It suggested a door mat. The landlord relayed this to the resident the next working day. It was reasonable for it to rely upon the advice of an appropriately qualified contractor.
On 7 March 2023 the contractor updated the landlord on actions it had taken to resolve the resident’s concerns. Despite not identifying a draught, it had adjusted the door, installed new draught excluders and replaced the gasket. It carried out a water test, and water did not drip from the door.
The resident called the landlord on 14 and 21 March 2023 for updates on the completion of the works. Whilst the landlord replied, it would have been reasonable to have proactively provided updates instead of the resident having to chase. The landlord’s lack of communication likely caused the resident further inconvenience.
As the resident continued to raise concerns about the contractor’s work, on 8 April 2023 the landlord sent one of its own surveyors attend. The survey did not identify any draught or water ingress issues. It also evidenced that the property was retaining heat sufficiently.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delay. It said the contractor and surveyor found no draught or external noise issues and confirmed the glass replacement was still outstanding. It completed that the following month. As the appointment was arranged between the contractor and the resident, it is unclear if the time taken to replace the glass was due to delays or the resident’s availability.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £20 as a goodwill gesture for the damage to her throw. It would have been reasonable to have also given its insurance details, in line with its putting things right guidance. However, this was likely of minor detriment to the resident as there is no evidence that she contested the £20.
Whilst there were delays to the installations, and subsequent repairs, the contractor acted on the resident’s concerns and attempted to resolve the issues. The landlord acknowledged its failures and apologised. It offered the resident £500 compensation for poor communication, and distress and inconvenience caused by the delays to the installations. However, the redress also involved another complaint.
It was not clear how much of the £500it attributed to each complaint. Therefore, for the purpose of the investigation, we have attributed this equally, with £250 considered to be for each complaint. The £250 offer is in line with our compensation guidance for failures that have no permanent impact. We have therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns, providing it reoffers the compensation, if it has not already paid it.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. This complaint period covers both the 2022 and 2024 editions.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 2 working days after receiving it. Its complaint policy at the time gave an acknowledgement time of 1 working day. Although this was a shortcoming, it did not impact the overall complaint response time.
The Code states that landlords should respond to complaints within 10 working days. If it needs more time, it should give the resident a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. On 29 November 2023 the landlord informed the resident it required further time and would respond by 15 December 2023, which it did.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation the same day she requested it. On 16 February 2024 it said it required an extension and would respond by 4 March 2024.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 April 2024. There is no evidence that it requested any further extensions. However, in its stage 2 response, it addressed the delay and offered £100 compensation, in line with its compensation guidance.
The 2024 Code states that landlords must clearly confirm the complaint stage in their responses. In its stage 2 response, there was no heading to show it was formal complaint response. Instead, the heading described it as a complaint update. However, the landlord did address all complaint points and provided escalation details to our service. Therefore, the shortcoming in its complaint headings was likely of no detriment to the resident.
In summary, the landlord addressed its stage 2 delay and provided reasonable compensation. Any shortcomings in its responses were of no detriment to the resident. Its offer of redress was above the amount recommended in our compensation guidance for failures of a minimal impact. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord’s complaint responses highlighted some learning. However, there were slight shortcomings in its complaint handling. We have recommended that the landlord reviews these shortcomings to ensure they can be prevented in the future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not provide details of all appointments made with the resident. At times, this has impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

The landlord failed to reasonably communicate with the resident at several stages throughout the duration of the issue. It did not keep her updated about the repairs whilst they were outstanding which demonstrated a lack of oversight of its contractors.