Abri Group Limited (202408680)

Decision
Case ID	202408680
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Abri Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	21 April 2026

Background

1. The resident’s property is a mid-terrace house, built in 2014. The resident has medical conditions, including asthma, and is neurodivergent. His complaint concerned repairs in his kitchen and bathroom, and damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs in the kitchen and bathroom.
   2. Damp and mould in the property and mould reported on the render.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the kitchen and bathroom.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property and mould reported on the render.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found that the landlord:
   1. Did not act on the resident’s reported repairs and keep him updated in accordance with its repairs and customer service policies. It later took a reasonable step by agreeing to replace the worktop and offered compensation. It did not complete the kitchen and extractor fan repairs within policy timescales.
   2. Delayed updating the resident about its position on installing aqua boards. It also gave unsuitable advice and slow responses when he reported mould on the render.
   3. Misunderstood an aspect of the resident’s complaint at stage 1. At both stages it did not fully address all issues of the complaint and therefore missed the opportunity to learn from it. Although the landlord offered some compensation, it did not recognise the time and trouble caused to the resident by its delays.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 19 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £225 for the distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom. £175 for the distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. 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 compensation figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 19 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should review its staff training needs to ensure repairs are progressed and proactive updates are communicated to residents within its repairs and customer service timescales.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 January 2024	A ventilation survey was completed in response to the resident’s report of mould in his bathroom.
25 March 2024	The landlord logged a formal complaint and noted that the resident was unhappy that aqua boards were not being installed, as recommended by the ventilation surveyor.
26 March 2024	The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint.
27 March 2024	The resident emailed the landlord. He said he had asthma, his bathroom was windowless, and the surveyor had recommended aqua boards to prevent the mould from returning. He also complained that: The landlord had previously carried out unsuccessful repairs to a chip in the kitchen worktop. The resident said the worktop had now swollen and needed replacing, and the sink sealant had developed mould and needed repair. Extractor fans in both the kitchen and bathroom needed to be replaced, as recommended in the ventilation survey. Mould on the render needed cleaning and cost too much for him to pay for.
24 April 2024	The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It said: It had decided that aqua boards were not necessary. It apologised for its delay replying to the resident’s enquiries. Its inspections showed the bathroom sealant did not need repair. It was due to attend on 2 May 2024 to repair or replace the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans, which it expected would reduce condensation and mould. It had requested an inspection of the kitchen worktop in September 2022. Due to a change in systems, it said its subsequent records were limited. It noted the resident had reported another repair on 23 December 2022, a job was raised on 17 April 2023 after further reports and a chip in the worktop was repaired on 30 October 2023. It apologised for poor communication, incomplete records. It said newly recruited repairs staff and its new case management system would improve its service. The resident reported further damage to the kitchen worktop on 8 March 2024. The landlord apologised that it had not contacted him within 5 working days to confirm the job. It said the repair would take place on 20 June 2024. The extractor fans would be attended on 2 May 2024. It raised a job on 14 May 2024 to inspect mould on the exterior walls, which it abandoned after assigning it to the wrong trade. The landlord apologised, said that it would be rescheduled and had given staff feedback to prevent a recurrence. It upheld the complaint and offered £100 for poor communication and £50 for poor record keeping.
24 April 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. He said: The landlord should have maintained appropriate records. He was unhappy that the landlord was refusing to install aqua boards after he had been told they were required. The landlord should have inspected the worktop in January 2024; on the advice he had received from social services. The render inspection was no longer required as he had arranged and paid for its cleaning. The resident said he was unwilling to wait for the landlord’s planned inspection in May 2024.
25 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged that it had escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
24 May 2024	The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It said that: It upheld the complaint because the resident had been misinformed on 29 January 2024 that aqua boarding would be installed. It apologised and said it would discuss that with its operative and wider team to prevent it happening again. It had visited the resident on 23 May 2024 and had agreed that routine cleaning would manage the small spots of mould on the silicone. It had also agreed during the visit to replace the kitchen worktop. The repairs in the kitchen scheduled for 20 June 2024 would include repairing the kitchen sink seal and re-hanging a cupboard door. It apologised for the delay resolving the issues. It apologised that it did not have full records of the advice given to the resident when he called on 29 January 2024 to report mould on the render. The landlord also apologised that it did not reschedule the appointment to inspect it after its stage 1 response. To put things right the landlord offered an additional £150 comprising: £100 for its poor communication and frustration caused. £25 for poor record keeping. £25 for not rearranging the render inspection.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 3 June 2024 the resident referred his complaint to us as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response.
6 September 2024	In a call with this Service the resident said: He was unhappy with delays to the kitchen repairs and the landlord’s refusal to consider replacements. His concerns about aqua boards were not listened to and he wanted them installed. He wanted the landlord to review its processes to identify training needs and improve communication and service to residents.

What we have not looked at

5. The resident said he reported repairs required to his kitchen prior to his stage 1 complaint and was unhappy with their quality. Complaints should be referred to the landlord within a reasonable time of the resident first becoming aware of the issue. Our investigation is focused on the 12 months prior to the current complaint being logged. Given that the formal complaint was not raised until March 2024, the landlord’s earlier handling of the repairs are not considered further. However, where relevant, the historic context is noted and reflected in our overall findings.
6. In his correspondence with this Service, the resident raised additional issues that were the subject of separate complaints, which had not yet completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. These included repairs to his flooring. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 24 May 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.

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	Repairs in the kitchen and bathroom
Finding	Service failure

7. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete routine repairs within 30 calendar days and minor works within 90 calendar days of being reported. Minor works include cosmetic repairs. The policy says it will keep residents informed of repair timescales and progress. Under its planned repairs policy, the landlord reviews kitchen renewals every 23 years. However, it accepts that components may exceed or fall short of their predicted lifespan. The landlord’s published timescale for responding to customer queries is 5 working days.

Kitchen worktop replacement and sink sealant

8. The resident reported damage to his kitchen worktop on 6 September 2022. The landlord’s records do not show what happened next. He reported further damage on 23 December 2022 and said earlier repairs had failed. The landlord agreed an inspection, but this did not happen. The resident contacted the landlord in January 2023 and said he had cut himself on the chip and that Social Services believed the landlord should repair it. On 17 January 2023, the landlord said it would contact him within 5 working days but based on the evidence seen, this did not happen. In February 2023, it also confirmed to the resident’s occupational therapist that it had raised a repair. However, the job related to unrelated works and did not include the worktop repair.
9. This caused the resident time and trouble as he had to chase the landlord 4 times between March and August 2023. On 23 August 2023, the landlord confirmed the repair had been logged. Its contractor repaired the chip on 30 October 2023 and sent photos to the landlord to assess if replacement was needed. This was 419 calendar days after the resident reported the repair in September 2022 and could not but have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
10. The resident asked for a decision on the follow‑on works on 12 February and 6 March 2024. On 8 March 2024, the landlord said no further works had been authorised. The resident replied that the worktop had since swollen. Evidence seen by this Service shows a section of the laminate had lifted at the seam. The worktop was otherwise in reasonable condition. The landlord said it would reply by 18 March 2024, but it did not do so until a week later. It scheduled an appointment for 20 June 2024 to repair the kitchen worktop and cupboards and to apply sealant around the sink.
11. During the landlord’s visit to the resident on 23 May 2024,the landlord agreed to replace the worktop. It told this Service that this had been agreed as a gesture of goodwill having regard to the resident’s health conditions. Visiting the resident showed the landlord was committed to addressing the resident’s concerns. It did not agree to replace the cupboard. We have not seen evidence of its condition. However, the landlord’s decision to repair the cupboard rather than replace it was reasonable, given the cupboard’s age. Since the property was built in 2014, the decision aligned with its routine and planned repairs policies.
12. The kitchen repairs were completed, and the worktop was measured on 20 June 2024. This was 104 days after the resident reported the repair follow on works, in March 2024. The worktop was replaced on 13 August 2024. The kitchen repairs should have completed within 90 days of first being reported. The worktop replacement should have been completed within 90 days of being authorised. The landlord did not meet these timeframes.

Extractor fans in kitchen and bathroom

13. The resident reported on 5 January 2024 that the extractor fans in his bathroom and kitchen were faulty. The landlord raised a job to inspect them during a scheduled ventilation survey on 29 January 2024. The survey recommended both extractor fans be replaced. The evidence seen indicates that the landlord did not promptly raise a follow‑on job to complete the replacements.
14. The resident reported on 7 March 2024 that the bathroom extractor fan was broken and on 18 March 2024 that the kitchen extractor fan was broken. The landlord raised separate jobs to inspect each report. Inspections of both were arranged for 2 May 2024. The inspections were of uncertain merit given the ventilation survey of January 2024 had recommended replacements. Whilst the landlord’s repair policy does not define it as such, we would consider these to be routine (not minor) repairs, particularly as the resident had no windows in his bathroom and had reported issues within damp and mould. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 30 calendar days. The inspection date was 118 calendar days after the resident first reported the faults in January 2024 and an unreasonable delay.
15. The kitchen extractor fan was upgraded on 2 May 2024. The contractor was unable to access the bathroom to upgrade the extractor fan. The resident told this Service that he had a conflicting appointment and needed to rearrange the repair. The resident was aware of the appointment in advance. Therefore, the delay from that point until the repair was completed on 3 June 2024 is not attributable to the landlord.

Summary

16. In summary, the landlord delayed responding to the resident’s reports of repairs to his kitchen and did not communicate effectively with him throughout. It failed to respond to the customer’s enquiries within its customer service timescale. At stage 1 of the complaints process, the landlord offered £150 for poor record keeping and communication linked to delays to the worktop repair. It ultimately took the positive step to replace the worktop instead of completing a repair. That was reasonable. However, it did not complete the worktop and both extractor fan repairs in line with its repairs policy timescales. As a result, the compensation offer was not proportionate to the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs and order it to award the resident compensation of £225.

Complaint	Damp and mould in the property and mould reported on the render
Finding	Service failure

17. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will respond promptly to reports of damp and mould and act on specialist recommendations. It also states that residents should be kept informed on its decisions about required works.
18. The resident reported mould in his bathroom on 5 January 2024. The landlord completed a ventilation survey and mould wash on 29 January 2024. Its operative suggested follow‑on works to install aqua boards but the landlord reviewed the evidence and decided they were not required. This Service has seen images, which show minor mould spotting on limited areas around the ceiling, and in the grout and silicone around the bath. Replacement of the extractor fans, which would help alleviate condensation, was also pending. Therefore, the landlord’s decision was reasonable. However, the landlord did not inform the resident of this decision until 7 March 2024, despite him making 4 requests for an update. It also did not explain its reason for the decision. This was not in line with its policy and resulted in avoidable contact, time and trouble for the resident, who asked the landlord to reconsider its decision.
19. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord carried out a mould wash and further survey on 19 May 2024, which made no recommendations. It attended the resident’s property to discuss the outcome 4 days later. These were proactive steps to address the resident’s concerns.
20. At stage 2, the landlord accepted that its operative should not have confirmed the recommendation for the installation of aqua boards before the works had been considered and authorised. It apologised, offered £100 compensation for its poor communication, and said it had taken learning from this issue. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair and put things right.
21. Throughout the complaints process, the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about delays in repairing the extractor fans. It did not recognise that it had failed to meet its repairs timescales. Therefore, it did not consider the distress and inconvenience caused the resident, who had current concerns about damp and mould. It also did not identify learning.
22. Whilst we have not seen its letter, the landlord’s records state it wrote to the resident on 28 October 2024 advising him to be vigilant of mould returning and to report any recurrence as soon as possible. The resident told this Service that since the landlord’s stage 2 response he had successfully treated mould spots within chemical spray. He does not have any current mould issues.

Mould on the render

23. The resident’s tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord’s repairs policy does not set out responsibility for cleaning external brickwork. Where no defect is identified, routine cleaning of external brickwork is not generally regarded as a landlord repair responsibility.
24. The resident reported mould on the render on 29 January 2024. Whilst the operative did not record their advice to the resident, we have seen evidence that the call recording was later listened to. It shows the operative advised him to raise the issue with a ventilation surveyor already at the property. That advice was not appropriate, as a ventilation surveyor would not usually assess external render. There is no evidence that the render was inspected. The landlord should instead have raised a job for a suitable operative to inspect and establish whether a repair was required. This caused time and trouble for the resident who had to contact the landlord again on 13 February 2024. The landlord did not respond until 18 March 2024, when it confirmed an inspection had been scheduled.
25. The inspection was cancelled on 4 April 2024 after being raised with the wrong trade. It was not rebooked. The landlord accepted this error at stage 1 and said it had taken steps to prevent recurrence. However, it did not acknowledge its delay in scheduling the inspection, in January 2024.
26. Before a new inspection was arranged, the resident chose to have the render cleaned privately. At stage 2, the landlord checked the render during its visit and explained that external cleaning was the resident’s responsibility. It offered £25 because its operative did not record their advice given in the call on 29 January 2024, and £25 for not rearranging the inspection at stage 1. However, the landlord again did not recognise the resident’s inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its initial delay raising the inspection. As the landlord was not given the opportunity to rearrange the inspection or carry out any works, reimbursement of the costs incurred by the resident is not appropriate.

Summary

27. Overall, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations in terms of installing aqua boards. It delayed updating and explaining its decision and this caused avoidable update requests from the resident. The landlord later took reasonable steps by carrying out further inspections and offering compensation for poor communication. However, in its handling of reports of mould on the render, it gave inappropriate advice, delayed arranging an inspection, and cancelled the inspection without rebooking it. Although it accepted some errors and offered compensation, it did not recognise the time and trouble caused by the initial delay. As a result, the compensation offered was not proportionate to the inconvenience, time and trouble the resident experienced. We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. We order the landlord to award compensation of £175.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

28. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says landlords must give clear and complete answers to every issue raised. They should show they have understood the resident’s concerns. While the landlord addressed some parts of the complaint, it did not fully meet these standards.
29. The resident’s initial complaint concerned installation of aqua boards. On 27 March 2024 he added new issues concerning the kitchen worktop and sealant, extractor fans and mouldy render. At stage 1, the landlord misunderstood that the resident required a repair to his kitchen sink sealant and instead investigated it as in issue in his bathroom. It also did not identify that it had mismanaged the resident’s expectations about the aqua board installation. These failings meant it did not respond to all aspects of the complaint and the resident had to escalate the complaint to obtain full answers.
30. The landlord’s responses should be transparent. At stage 2, the landlord did not fully explain its findings about the resident’s calls on 29 January 2024. It apologised that its operative did not record her advice. However, it did not tell the resident it had listened to the call and that he had been given incorrect advice. The landlord also did not recognise that it had missed its policy timeframe for installing the extractor fans. As a result, the resident did not receive full responses, and the landlord did not use the complaint process to resolve the issue and identify learning.
31. Due to these errors and failure to follow the Code there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and we have ordered it to pay the resident £150 to reflect the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused.

Learning

32. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight guidance highlights the need for a proactive approach to preventing mould recurrence. Advising the resident on 28 October 2024 to report any repeat mould demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to supporting early intervention.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. There were enough records to determine the complaint, but earlier repair records were missing. The landlord said this was due to changes to its computer system. This limited our ability to assess the landlord’s actions. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management says landlords should stress test systems before changes to ensure they work together and transfer data securely.