Abri Group Limited (202400573)

Decision
Case ID	202400573
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Abri Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 March 2026

Background

The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of reported anti-social behaviour (ASB). She also complained about damage and misuse of the communal bin shed, and that large personal items had been stored in the communal bike shed and garden.

What the complaint is about

The resident complained about the landlord’s response to:
1. Her reports of ASB.
2. Her reports of issues with communal areas.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the reports of ASB.
There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of issues with the communal areas.
The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord took some reasonable steps in response to the ASB. But it caused delays and its communication was poor. It recognised this. However, we found additional failures. The landlord has not shown it responded appropriately to the ASB and communal issues. It also delayed repairs to the bin shed.
The landlord delayed issuing its stage 2 response and initially failed to link all parts of the complaint. It acknowledged these failures and offered reasonable compensation.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a member of the landlord’s management team. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 23 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 compensation made up as follows: £100 previously offered for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in granting permission for the Ring Doorbell £100 previously offered for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor communication in relation to the landlord’s handling of the ASB £100 previously offered for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor communication in the handling of the communal issues £100 additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by closing the ASB case prematurely This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 23 April 2026
3	Follow-up order The landlord must contact the resident, by the due date, to discuss any current ASB concerns she has. The landlord should respond to any additional reports of ASB in line with its policies and procedures. If the landlord is unable to contact the resident by the due date it must explain why and provide the resident and this Service a revised timescale. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of this by the due date.	No later than 23 April 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pay the resident the £200 it previously offered for the complaint handling failures it identified, if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 August 2023	The resident complained that: the landlord failed to contact her after she raised concerns about ASB 3 weeks prior the landlord had not responded appropriately to her concerns of ASB the landlord had not resolved communal issues, including personal items being abandoned in the garden, damage to the bin shed and misuse of the bike shed
31 August 2023	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, stating there had been a lack of communication from its Housing Officer Team. The landlord said its Housing Partner was not familiar with the resident’s area and wanted to complete an in-person visit. The landlord apologised this was not communicated to the resident.
14 November 2023	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process as she remained unhappy with its handling of the reported ASB and issues with the communal areas. She complained personal items and bulky rubbish had not been removed from communal areas, despite notices being issued. She complained a vehicle had been abandoned in the visitors’ parking area. She also raised concerns about drug use and nuisance dogs.
6 February 2024	The landlord sent its response to the stage 2 complaint. It said it had: offered mediation referred the resident to Victim Support granted permission for a Ring Doorbell and provided a personal attack alarm investigated and discussed reported ASB with the alleged perpetrators issued a joint action plan, tenancy warning, and drug misuse letter carried out a joint site visit with a dog warden investigated the parking issues removed personal items stored in communal areas increased refuse collection and removed bulk waste stored in the bin shed arranged repairs for the bin shed lock The landlord said the above action was appropriate. However, it identified some failures in its response. It said: it had failed to link complaint points raised in-person and by telephone when the resident initially complained it had delayed granting permission for the Ring Doorbell its communication had been poor The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation, broken down as: £100 for not connecting the issues complained about in-person and by telephone £100 for the delay in processing the Ring Doorbell request £100 for the delay in keeping the resident updated on the ASB issues and investigation £100 for the lack of communication regarding housing issues £100 for delays to the stage 2 complaint investigation It also provided its insurer’s details, in response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the complaint to our Service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB. She said the landlord had failed to take her concerns seriously. She told us about the impact the situation had on her health and that she had recently given up employment due to the stress she was under. The resident said she struggled to leave the property due to feeling anxious.

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 reports of anti-social behaviour, including poor communication.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident complained about the impact the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB had on her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it may last. We’ve not investigated this point further. We can decide if the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Reported issues of ASB

The resident raised concerns about ASB in July and October 2023, and in January 2024. Her reports in July 2023 related to general conflict between a number of residents in the estate. Her reports in October 2023 related to specific reports of ASB, involving a resident shouting at her and chasing her up a stairway, and children behaving in a rude and threatening manner. The resident’s report in January 2024 related to several children allegedly ringing her doorbell and running away.
The landlord’s policy categorises ASB as either category 1 or 2. Category 2 refers to ASB that requires a less urgent response. It may include issues like substance misuse, nuisance dogs, and nuisance and annoyance in communal areas.
The landlord’s policy says it aims to respond to reports of category 2 ASB in 5 working days. The landlord does not dispute that it did not call the resident in response to her concerns in July 2023. It said this was because its Housing Partner was not aware of the area, so thought a visit would be more appropriate. However, this was not in line with the landlord’s policy, and the landlord did not communicate its intentions to the resident. The poor communication was not fair or reasonable, and it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise this in its complaint responses.
The landlord opened an ASB case for the resident in late October 2023. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s timeframe for the ASB reported in July 2023.
The landlord’s policy says it will keep in regular contact with the reported victim of ASB and inform them of any action taken against the alleged perpetrator. However, the landlord accepts there was further poor communication after it opened the ASB case, particularly between October and November 2023. The poor communication likely contributed to the resident’s concerns that the landlord had not taken her reports of ASB seriously.
In November 2023 the landlord offered mediation services, in line with its ASB policy and following a recommendation from the police. While the resident declined this, the offer was fair and appropriate. The landlord also referred the resident to Victim Support, which was in line with its policy. This was fair and reasonable.
Also, in November 2023 the resident requested permission to install a Ring Doorbell. The landlord gave permission for this. However, due to an administrative error, the landlord did not grant permission until 24 January 2024. It is appropriate that the landlord has apologised and offered compensation for this delay in its stage 2 response.
The landlord says it spoke to the perpetrator of the October 2023 ASB on 5 December 2023. The landlord’s ASB procedure says it will aim to speak to the alleged perpetrator within 1 week of the reported ASB. It is not clear from the evidence provided if the landlord spoke to the perpetrator before 5 December 2023. Therefore, we are not satisfied the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB in appropriate time.
The landlord’s records indicate the perpetrator stated they had shouted at the resident because they were angry the resident had filmed their children. The landlord offered mediation services, which was in line with its policy. Later, in its ASB closure letter, it advised the resident to limit her recording of other residents within the block to reduce tension amongst residents. The landlord also advised the resident to report any further incidents to the police. As this appears to have been an isolated incident, we are satisfied the landlord’s response was proportionate in the circumstances.
The landlord provided a joint action plan to all residents on 16 January 2024. This set out what actions it had taken in response to several issues, including the broader conflict in the block. The landlord said it had referred several residents to mediation to help resolve matters. This was reasonable and in accordance with its policy.
The landlord has said in addition to the joint action plan, it has issued 7 tenancy warning letters and 5 acceptable behaviour agreements. However, the landlord has not provided clear evidence of this. Therefore, we cannot say the landlord has shown it took this action.
On 16 or 17 January 2024 the resident reported further ASB. She told the landlord several children hadrung her doorbell before running away. The landlord’s ASB procedure says if further incidents of ASB occur the landlord will discuss these with the alleged perpetrator and agree a course of action.We note the landlord said it would discuss the children’s behaviour with the relevant residents. It is not clear from the evidence provided whether it did this.
While the nuisance door-knocking was somewhat low level ASB. It remains a policy requirement for the landlord to discuss the matter with the alleged perpetrators and agree a course of action. Without evidence to show it did this, we cannot conclude the landlord responded fairly and reasonably to this.
Despite her objections, the landlord closed the resident’s ASB case on 25 January 2024. It did not mention the most recent reports of ASB. The landlord’s procedure says it may close an ASB case when it is satisfied the matter is resolved or when all options have been exhausted. The landlord has said that it was unaware of who was involved in the ASB. But apart from speaking to a neighbour, who said their children were not involved, the landlord has not clearly shown what other action it took in response to the January ASB. Therefore, we are not satisfied that it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to close the resident’s ASB case.

Reported issues with dogs

The resident complained that several dogs had been allowed to roam the estate without a lead. The landlord has said it responded by visiting the relevant residents with a dog warden. It said the dog warden gave guidance and advice on how to keep the dogs under control.
The landlord’s Neighbourhood Procedure says issues with dogs will be handled in line with its Pet Policy and Pet Procedure. The landlord has not provided either of these. We have accessed the landlord’s current Pet policy on its website. This refers to a separate Pet Procedure which we do not have. However, the Pet Policy says dogs must be kept on leads while in communal areas. It also says the landlord may involve other organisations, such as the local council, if there are issues with pets.
The landlord’s decision to visit the relevant residents alongside a dog warden seems, in principle, to be fair and reasonable. However, the landlord has not provided clear evidence of when the visits went ahead, what advice or guidance was offered, or whether the situation improved.
It is for the landlord to show it has acted fairly, reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures in place at the time. On the evidence provided, we are not satisfied it has done so.

Reported issues with drugs

The resident complained that a neighbour had been dealing drugs within the block. The landlord has said in response it looked for drugs during its visits to the site and issued a tenancy warning to a resident. The landlord also said it had written to all residents about the drug issues and set out its response to this in the joint action plan.
The landlord’s policy states it will consider non-legal remedies to resolve ASB. The landlord’s joint action plan set out that a tenancy warning had been issued to a resident for the use of cannabis. This also said the landlord would take further action if it identified further misuse of cannabis. The landlord also wrote to all residents warning not to use cannabis and it detailed how to report the misuse of cannabis to the police. These actions were fair, reasonable and in line with its ASB policy.
While the landlord has not provided evidence of the tenancy warning letter, it has evidenced the joint action plan and cannabis letter to all residents. Overall, this is sufficient to satisfy us that the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in respect of the drug use.

Putting things right

The landlord handled some elements of the resident’s reports of ASB fairly and reasonably, and it has identified some failures. However, we have identified further failures, as set out above.
The resident has told us about the distress and inconvenience the landlord’s handling of the ASB had caused her, including that she had to leave her job due to stress. We cannot establish whether stress caused the resident to leave her employment. However, we are satisfied the resident was caused distress as a result of the landlord closing her ASB case without clearly addressing the January 2024 ASB. This contributed to the resident’s concerns that the landlord had not taken her reports seriously.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by closing the ASB case prematurely. The amount aligns with our remedies guidance, which applies where a failure caused some distress and inconvenience, but no lasting impact. The guidance also applies where the failure did not change the overall outcome.
We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any current ASB concerns she has. We would expect the landlord to respond to these in line with its ASB policies and procedures.
We have made a finding of maladministration. This recognises the landlord has not evidenced it responded to the nuisance dog issues and January 2024 ASB in line with its policies and procedures. It also recognises the landlord closed the resident’s ASB case prematurely without demonstrating it considered all options.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to reports of issues with communal areas.
Finding	Service failure

Reported issues with parking

The landlord said it was aware a vehicle had been left for a significant period of time. However, at the time of its last check the car had a valid MOT and Road Tax and therefore did not fit the criteria for the local authority to remove it.
The landlord’s Nuisance Vehicle Procedure sets out how it will respond to reports of an abandoned vehicle. Under its procedure, the landlord must check the road tax and MOT status of a vehicle reported as abandoned before acting. The landlord will not act if the reported vehicle is taxed. We are therefore satisfied the landlord acted fairly, reasonably and in line with its procedure at the time.
The landlord has told us the vehicle’s MOT has expired since the stage 2 response letter, and it had since acted to remove the car under its Nuisance Vehicle Procedure. This is positive and shows the landlord continued to take the resident’s concerns seriously after it responded to her complaint.

Reported issues with the bin shed, bike shed, and garden

The resident complained about other residents disposing of large items in the bin shed and the misuse of the communal bike shed and gardens.
The landlord has said large items were disposed of in the bin shed after the lock was broken in 2023. The landlord has said that in response it raised a repair order for the lock, collected waste weekly, and removed large items.
It is not clear from the evidence provided when the lock on the bin shed was damaged. The repair was raised on 9 October 2023. By the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response this repair had taken 120 days and remained unresolved.
The repair policy the landlord has provided does not set out specific timeframes for non-emergency repairs. This means there is no policy requirement for the landlord to complete non-emergency repairs within a specific timeframe. But we would still expect the landlord to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
We recognise the landlord has said it was waiting for parts to complete repairs. However, it is not clear when it placed these on order, how proactively it contacted the manufacturer, or whether it considered sourcing the parts from other suppliers. Ultimately, while some of the repair timescales may have been outside of the landlord’s control, the landlord delayed unreasonably in dealing with the bin shed lock/door repair.
It is clear the landlord did not keep the resident informed and updated on the progress of the repairs or the reason for any delays. The landlord has acknowledged this poor communication. The lack of communication around this issue likely contributed to the resident’s overall feeling that the landlord did not take her concerns seriously.
Regarding the bike shed and gardens, the landlord said that in summer 2023 residents’ children started using the shed for games. The landlord has said it did not object to this. However, it has said the situation changed when residents started to misuse the bike shed and store large personal items in both the bike shed and gardens. The landlord has said it put notices on personal items and removed these when they were not collected.
The resident complained about the time it took the landlord to remove the large items. She said it took more than 2 weeks to remove items after notices were issued. The landlord said it cannot determine when the large items were removed. But at the time of its stage 2 response, all large items had been removed. The resident has not disputed this. Nevertheless, this indicates poor record keeping by the landlord.
The landlord’s Items in Communal Areas Procedure states it aims to remove items within 24 hours of issuing a notice and within 5 working days. The landlord has not shown it acted in line with its procedure, in respect of the time taken to remove the items.
We note the landlord has said it raised jobs to remove bulk waste on 19 July 2023 and 19 October 2023, and both of these were completed in the 30-day timeframe. But the landlord has not provided clear evidence to demonstrate when the bulk rubbish was removed. This is a record keeping failure by the landlord.
Overall, based on the evidence provided, we cannot be satisfied the landlord has acted fairly and reasonably in response to the resident’s concerns about the communal areas.
The landlord has apologised and offered £100 for its poor communication in respect of the communal issues. The landlord’s compensation policy gives examples of the awards it may make when it has identified a failure. This says the landlord may pay between £100 and £199.99 where a failure has caused distress, unreasonable inconvenience or both. We are satisfied the landlord’s offer of £100 is fair and reasonable for the poor communication.
However, the landlord has not clearly recognised the overall delay in completing the repairs themselves. Nor has it demonstrated it removed items in line with its policies and procedures. Therefore, we have made an overall finding of service failure.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for these failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance, where there has been a failure which the landlord has not fully recognised, and which has caused some minor distress and inconvenience.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process which aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This sets the standards and best practice a landlord must follow when responding to a complaint.
The landlord must acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. Complaints at stage 1 must be answered within 10 working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 8 August 2023, within the required timescales. However, it responded within 17 working days, which is outside of the required timeframe.
The landlord informed the resident it would need more time to answer the complaint. The landlord ought to have advised the resident of the expected timeframe. However, it failed to do this. This was a minor failure by the landlord, and it is not clear it adversely impacted the resident. So, we have not asked the landlord to take further action in respect of this.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response 52 working days after acknowledging the stage 2 complaint. This was a delay by the landlord.
The landlord offered £100 compensation for the delay in sending its stage 2 response. In line with our remedies guidance, an award of up to £100 may be fair where there has been a complaint handling failure, such as a delay, that has adversely impacted the resident. We have not received evidence to show the resident was caused a level of distress or inconvenience that would justify increasing the compensation already offered. So, we are satisfied the £100 is fair and reasonable for the delay.
In line with its policy, the landlord should accept complaints made via any method of contact. All the landlord’s staff must be aware of the complaints process and be able to pass details of the complaint to the appropriate person or team. In this case, the landlord did not link complaint points the resident raised in person with those she raised over the telephone on the same day.
The landlord has offered £100 compensation for not linking the complaints. We have not been provided evidence to suggest further compensation would be justified. So, we are satisfied this is fair and reasonable.
We are satisfied that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint. We have made no orders in respect of this.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was poor. The landlord may wish to review our 2023 Spotlight report on knowledge and information management which makes several record-keeping recommendations.

Communication

The landlord’s communication was poor. Landlords should set clear timeframes, provide updates, and ensure comprehensive recork-keeping of reported incidents. When delays occur, updates and new timescales should be provided at the earliest opportunity. The landlord may wish to review our 2023 Spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights.