Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Abri Group Limited (202424721)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424721

Abri Group Limited

1 October 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:
    1. The resident’s concerns about the structural safety of the property, subsequent repairs and her temporary move.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident became a tenant at the property on 12 February 2024 via a mutual exchange. The property is a 3 bedroom semi detached house with a garage. The landlord has recorded that the resident’s son has asthma, ADHD, autism, dyspraxia and hypermobility.
  2. Between February and May 2024:
    1. The resident reported cracks to the lounge ceiling, bedroom wall, and in the kitchen on 12 February. On 21 February, the landlord asked for a surveyor to assess horizontal cracks in the external render. It raised and completed work to fill cracks on 21 March, and again asked a surveyor to attend.
    2. Separately, the landlord arranged to replace the shower tray and enclosure alongside other work in the bathroom from 22 April 2024.
    3. On 15 April, following a call, the resident contacted the landlord to provide a schedule of works for the property from 2013, which included work to address cracking at the time. She raised concern that the property was subsiding, and that the cracks in the property were becoming worse, and causing damp.
    4. On 23 April, work in the bathroom stopped due to structural concerns. Operatives found that the exterior wall on the left side of the building was leaning out, the lintel around a window was coming away, and there were cracks affecting the stairs and fresh plaster in the stairwell. They could not reinstate the bathing facilities due to the need to investigate the issue.
    5. The resident chased a surveyor and explained that she did not feel the property was safe for her and her son. The landlord initially decanted (temporarily moved her) on 24 April. She set out that the temporary property was not suitable for her son’s needs as the shower was too compact for her to assist her son with washing and it was too far from her son’s school. The landlord communicated about her and her son’s needs and said it was not initially made aware of all of the requirements. It asked her to provide documents relating to her son’s needs for context.
    6. The resident sent through documentation and on 25 April, the landlord confirmed that the housing provider had another property, which would accept pets, and it believed was more suitable for her son’s needs. It explained that this was the only other offer it would make. The resident moved to this property from 5 May, following a pre-booked holiday. It initially booked this until 5 June. It also reimbursed her for essential travel costs during this time, but there was a dispute regarding whether some of her travel was essential.
    7. The landlord asked contractors to provide quotes for a schedule of work on 8 May. It brought forward planned work to renew the kitchen and bathroom, and intended to begin works from 22 May. On 23 May, they found that the schedule of work did not include everything, and the landlord said it would need to extend the decant.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 24 May 2024 and explained that she was unhappy the landlord let her and her son move to unsafe accommodation. She said she was signed off work due to the impact on her mental health. She did not feel the landlord explained the situation fully or acted with urgency. She said that if she was unable to move back to the property for another 3 months, she did not want to stay in the current temporary accommodation.
  4. Between her complaint and its stage 1 response in July 2024, the landlord completed an asbestos survey and asked contractors to quote for a revised schedule of works. It arranged to remove and store the resident’s belongings. She moved to 2 further temporary properties in this time.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response on 30 July 2024, the landlord upheld the complaint. In summary:
    1. It set out its record of events from 12 February 2024 and noted occasions where there was a lack of records following appointments and callback requests. It found that it needed to complete significantly more work than it initially anticipated. It had begun work, and the resident was due to return home by 9 August 2024. It had also arranged to renew the kitchen and bathroom, and redecorate.
    2. It did not know why it did not complete repairs in 2013, but recognised that it could have avoided the issues leading to the temporary accommodation had it taken appropriate action at the time.
    3. It noted that she said she had incurred additional travelling costs which were not eligible for the standard decant payment. It identified that there were 99.5 miles that were not eligible. This amounted to £44.78 at 45p per mile. It confirmed that it had taken legal advice regarding the redress it would offer, and agreed to pay for this.
    4. It had fed back internally regarding the poor communication and record keeping to improve its service moving forward. It offered £970 by way of apology comprised of:
      1. £770 – 15% rent reduction from 12 February until 9 August 2024 when she was due to return home. This was in recognition of the condition the property was in when the tenancy started and the following disruption.
      2. £100 – poor communication and poor record keeping.
      3. £50 – additional travel costs.
      4. £50 – the length of time it had taken to resolve the complaint.
  6. The landlord acknowledged that the resident wanted to escalate her complaint on 31 July 2024. In summary, she did not feel the compensation was enough given the distress caused and time taken to complete work. She also noted some inconsistencies in the response regarding dates.
  7. On 5 August 2024, the resident wrote to the landlord and set out her dissatisfaction, including:
    1. Further delays.
    2. 2 occasions where she needed to find and send links for accommodation to the landlord when staff could not find anything.
    3. The works were not initially raised correctly and did not start until 10 July 2024.
    4. The level of communication with her, and between staff.
    5. Her time and trouble, confusion around the insurance claim she had made, and the impact on her employment and her and her son’s health.
  8. The landlord arranged for the resident and her son to stay in a holiday park and then a hotel between 23 August and 2 September 2024, when they returned home.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response on 25 September 2024, the landlord:
    1. Found that it handled the stage 1 complaint correctly and agreed with the outcome. However, it had now found some of the information it previously said it was not able to find. It also recognised that it moved her for longer than expected and said it would increase the compensation offer on this basis.
    2. It was satisfied that it kept the resident regularly updated on the works following the stage 1 complaint. It listed its understanding of the repairs, including that once bathroom works stopped in April 2024, it sent trades from its disrepair team to take photos on behalf of its surveying team. It noted her concerns that there was asbestos in the property but found that this was not the reason works stopped in May 2024. It said this was due to the work being more complicated than originally expected.
    3. It confirmed works to renew the kitchen began on 25 June 2024, and it removed asbestos form the soffits and fascias on 8 July 2024. It agreed to additional plastering work in the lounge and bedroom on 19 July 2024. By 22 July 2024, it said it had completed the internal brickwork and was in progress of completing the external brickwork. It also stripped wallpaper in preparation and it found additional cracks to the front of the property that it needed to stitch. It noted it began the bathroom work on 2 August 2024 but there was a delay as it had not moved the soil stack as agreed. On 5 August 2024, it had some concerns about cosmetic issues related to the external brickwork. It initially believed all work would be complete by 23 August 2024, but this did not account for decoration work, and extended the temporary move until 2 September 2024.
    4. It apologised that it moved her multiple times. It listed its understanding of the temporary move and 6 different accommodations between 24 April 2024 and 2 September 2024. It said it was unable to move tenants into its own properties in the area at the time and was limited by the availability of properties with other providers, including hotels and B&Bs. At the time of arranging the first property, it believed this would suit her family’s needs and it did not know the size of the shower was not suitable until she moved in. Once she raised this as an issue, it said it moved her as soon as possible. It said it sourced a kennel for her dog, but she had declined this.
    5. The issues in the second property were external factors outside of its control, including noise and road works. Once it was made aware of the lifts not working, it had reported this to the property landlord and agreed to allow the resident to search for suitable accommodation herself. It noted she stayed in 2 properties she had sourced herself, which it could not extend due to availability. It had arranged a holiday park between 23 and 30 August 2024 before a hotel until 2 September 2024 when she returned home. It was satisfied with its handling of the temporary move.
    6. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the disruption caused. It offered £1,350 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £900 as a 20% rent reduction between 12 February and 2 September 2024 in recognition of the condition the property was in when the tenancy started, and the following disruption caused.
      2. £250 for the impact of her experience.
      3. £50 for poor communication.
      4. £50 for poor record keeping.
      5. £50 for the length of time taken to resolve the complaint at stage 1.
      6. £50 for additional travel costs (rounded up from £44.78).
  10. The resident referred her complaint to us to investigate as she was unhappy with the landlord allowing her to move into an unsafe property, its communication, its handling of the temporary move over 22 weeks, the impact on her and her son’s health, and the compensation offered. In September 2025, she explained to us that cracks in the property had returned in the same place, but the landlord had not yet taken any action.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has detailed that the situation negatively impacted her and her son’s health and impacted her employment. It is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for the courts or a personal injury claim which the resident has pursued with the landlord separately. We have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her son, and whether the landlord’s offer of compensation suitably puts this right.

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property, including internal and external walls. Its repairs policy confirms that it should attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. It does not provide timescales for routine, or major repairs, but should complete these within a “reasonable timeframe”. It is responsible for updating the resident and providing clear timescales for repairs.
  2. The landlord’s mutual exchange policies and procedures set out that it would inspect the property to ensure that it meets a satisfactory condition before allowing the mutual exchange. It would complete a mutual exchange inspection form and look for damage, cleanliness, mould, alterations, and any repairs.
  3. The landlord’s decant policies and procedures set out that:
    1. It would usually make one offer of suitable accommodation for the expected duration of the works where it needs to decant a resident. It aims to find a property that meets the household needs, but this may not always be possible. Where it is not able to source a similar property, it may arrange hotels, B&Bs, serviced apartments or holiday lets.
    2. It would provide disturbance payments to cover “reasonable expenses”, which may include removals and storage, disconnecting and reconnecting utility services, accommodation for pets, and 45p per mile for any additional travel incurred on essential journeys such as to work, school, or childcare.
    3. Residents are responsible for paying rent for their permanent home and the landlord will fund the temporary accommodation. The resident is responsible for the cost of utilities at the temporary home, and the landlord is responsible for the cost of utilities at the original property.

The resident’s concerns about the structural safety of the property, and the landlord’s subsequent handling of the repairs and her temporary move

  1. It is evident that the situation caused the resident and her son significant distress and inconvenience. The landlord has not disputed that it did not initially communicate effectively and did not hold easily accessible records. It also found that had it completed repairs in 2013, the situation may have been avoided. It offered £1,300 compensation for this aspect of the complaint to recognise distress and inconvenience, and some additional travel costs not initially accepted. We have addressed the different elements of the complaint below.

Structural repair issues identified in 2013, and the mutual exchange

  1. The resident raised concern that the landlord allowed the mutual exchange to go ahead despite being aware of significant structural issues affecting the property from 2013. Within its complaint responses, the landlord admitted that it was aware of the repairs needed from 2013, and had it completed the work at the time, it could have avoided the disruption caused to the resident.
  2. A structural survey in November 2013 detailed work needed to the property and concerns about the structure of the building, movement, and cracks. The schedule of work made an allowance to investigate cracking, rebuild parts of the external walls, and replace lintels in the bathroom and landing, among other work. In its information submission to us in April 2025 as part of this investigation, the landlord said that it completed the work at the time.
  3. It was a shortcoming that the landlord did not identify this at the time of its complaint responses to the resident in order to provide a more accurate response. It has provided a completion certificate indicating the works were practically completed as of 6 March 2015. The value of the work aligns with the figure on the initial schedule of works, but the certificate does not list the work completed, and there is not enough evidence to show what it did at the time. However, whether or not it completed work at the time is unlikely to have a significant impact on the outcome of the complaint as it is evident that significant works were found to be needed once the resident moved in.
  4. In line with its policy, the purpose of the mutual exchange inspection is to identify any issues that may mean the exchange should not go ahead, such as repair issues, alterations, or damage. The landlord would not generally be expected to search for concealed repair issues but should raise repairs where there are faults it is responsible for. The mutual exchange inspection took place on 11 December 2023, and we have not seen that any significant repair issues were identified. The resident also said that there were no obvious cracks when she viewed the property.
  5. The landlord has provided repair records for the property from 2016 onwards. The previous tenant had reported other repairs, but we have not seen evidence to show that they reported any cracks or other structural issues which would have prompted it to investigate or act sooner between 2016 and the start of the mutual exchange process in 2023. At the time of the mutual exchange inspection, there is no evidence to indicate any structural concerns which would have prompted it to take further action. We have not found evidence to support that it should have been aware of the issues, or that it should not have allowed the mutual exchange to go ahead.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

  1. The resident began to report cracks in the property from 12 February 2024. While it reported completing work to repair cracks on 20 and 21 March 2024, the landlord had initially asked that a surveyor visit to assess horizontal cracks affecting the external render and internal walls on 21 February 2024. Despite evidence to show that it chased this internally on 21 March and 19 April 2024, it did not take steps to survey. The resident had reported the cracks were worsening, and causing damp in this timeframe, and it was unreasonable that the landlord did not take steps to address her concerns.
  2. The extent of the structural problem did not become apparent until the landlord removed the shower cubicle and exposed the bare wall of the bathroom as part of separate works from 22 April 2024. While it should have surveyed the property sooner, it is unclear whether it would have been able to identify the significant structural issues affecting the side wall of the property had it done so. Once the repairs were halted on 23 April 2024, it took approximately 2 and a half months to begin works to the property in July 2024.
  3. We have found that some of this delay may have been avoidable. It is unreasonable, given the structural concerns, that the landlord did not initially survey the property in person from 23 April 2024. In its stage 2 complaint response, it confirmed that operatives took photos on behalf of the surveying team to establish the initial schedule of works. While it asked contractors to provide quotes based off a schedule of works from 8 May 2024, we note that once started, the work was halted on 23 May 2024 due to them being “significantly more than anticipated”.
  4. The landlord may have had the opportunity to avoid further delays had it accurately confirmed the work needed from the outset. Completing a survey would have allowed it to have a clear understanding of the cause of the problems affecting the structure of the property, and it was unreasonable to rely solely on photos in view of the reports that the side wall of the property was coming away form the main building. Its failure to gain an accurate schedule of work from the outset meant that it needed to spend additional time asking multiple contractors to re-quote given the likely cost of work and caused a delay in putting things right. This also contributed to the length of time the resident and her son spent in temporary accommodation. It did not recognise this as a failing within its complaint responses despite recognising this within internal communication, which was a shortcoming.
  5. Given the initial inaccurate schedule of works, it was appropriate for a surveyor to visit the property before compiling the revised schedule and to supervise works once started. However, we would have expected to see evidence of a surveyor’s report to show how the landlord satisfied itself that the second schedule of work was accurate.
  6. We note that as part of the major work to rebuild the side of the property, the landlord also brought forward the bathroom and kitchen renewals which were planned for 2025. This was in part due to the gas supply and cooker no longer meeting regulations. It was resolution focused for the landlord to bring forward the planned work, rather than only complete work to the gas supply at the time, to avoid the resident experiencing further disruption the following year.
  7. Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that work began in the kitchen on 25 June 2024. Its records indicate that it completed a pre-inspection on this date, but the evidence is unclear as to whether it completed any work. It did not raise the individual works for the kitchen until 2 July 2024. Its repair records show that asbestos containing materials were removed on 10 July 2024, not 8 July, due to problems with the scaffolding. This aligns with the resident’s comments that this was when works began.
  8. The landlord then took from 10 July to 2 September 2024 to complete work to remove and rebuild the side wall of the property both internally and externally, install new lintels above windows and reinstate the windows, install heliairs to cracked areas, renew sections of the downpipe, remove and rebuild an internal wall, renew the kitchen and bathroom, render and plaster, and decorate.
  9. This was within 2 months which is not an unreasonable timeframe given the extent of work required. Some of the delay in completing work was outside of the landlord’s control. We note that additional work was found to be required to stitch cracks once it removed wallpaper, and it would not have had the opportunity to identify this sooner. In addition, we note that it required the plaster to dry before redecorating (near the end of the decant) which extended the overall timeframe.
  10. The landlord has not disputed that it did not communicate effectively with the resident prior to its stage 1 complaint response on 30 July 2024. We have seen limited evidence to support that it kept her up to date with the works or when they would begin, which was likely to add to the overall uncertainty she experienced. We note that the landlord maintained communication with the resident following its stage 1 complaint response despite some confusion in August 2024 regarding when she would be able to return home, and the remaining works.

The temporary move

  1. Given the structural safety concerns, the lack of bathing facilities, and the extent of work, it was reasonable for the landlord to move the resident. The landlord moved her and her son to 6 different accommodations between 24 April 2024 and 2 September 2024, a period of 22 weeks. The landlord has recognised that the situation caused disruption and inconvenience. The number of extensions and properties in this timeframe was likely to cause distress, uncertainty, and disruption, especially given her son’s disabilities.
  2. The resident has raised concern that the landlord did not offer her temporary accommodation on 23 April 2024, the day it identified the structural concerns affecting the property. We note that she called on the day to express concern about the safety of the property. She said that she had no bathing facilities, and that the wall would not stay up as she could see daylight coming through. While the landlord attempted to reassure her, it did not send a surveyor on the day and there is limited evidence to show that it took adequate steps to assess the risk to her and her son. It may have had the opportunity to prevent undue distress had it considered the temporary move option immediately.
  3. The resident’s main concerns relate to the suitability of the first and second properties the landlord moved her to. The landlord has acted reasonably in its responses to the resident’s complaints by explaining that it was not able to re-house residents within the local area due to a lack of properties, and that it relied on the availability of hotels, and other third party owned providers when sourcing accommodation. The availability of suitable accommodation was outside of the landlord’s control.
  4. The landlord has demonstrated that it sought to act in line with the resident’s needs when locating the initial property. Its call records from 24 April 2024 show that it discussed the resident’s son’s medical needs, and access to his specialised school. She specified that she did not want it to temporarily move her to a specific area as she did not feel able to drive on motorways. She said she was due to be away between 2 and 5 May 2024 and her son was due to stay in the property with her parents at the time, which it needed to take into account.
  5. The landlord acted appropriately by managing the resident’s expectations on the day. It explained that it was having difficulty finding suitable temporary accommodation within the radius she specified and which also accepted pets. It said it could book a hotel until she went away, but that this would not allow extra guests and her parents would need to take her son back home while she was away. It checked and there was no availability in a nearby hotel. It said the other option would be a self-contained property further away. We note that the resident raised concern that this may not be suitable for her needs but subsequently moved to a self-contained property which was further away than she initially requested.
  6. The resident later explained on 25 April 2024 that the property was not suitable due to the size of the shower, and the need for her to support her son when bathing due to his disabilities. She also did not have access to her support network and had concerns about keeping her job as she worked nights. We have not seen evidence to show that resident informed the landlord of any concerns related to the shower size, or specific care or work factors in the initial conversations on 24 April 2024, before she moved to the property. As such, it could not consider these sooner. This does not amount to a failing.
  7. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to then request additional information and documentation about her son’s disabilities for context so it could take these into account. It also said that it could not guarantee anything as it had booked the accommodation based on the information it had and could not cancel. It nonetheless acted reasonably by asking the property management company if they had other properties available that she could transfer to by the following day. This may have been the only suitable option as it was not able to cancel the booked property and this was done within a suitable timeframe once it was aware of her concerns.
  8. The resident accepted that the second property was more suitable for her and her son’s needs, and the landlord booked this from 5 May 2024 to align with the resident’s return after being away. She and her son remained in this property until 26 June 2024. In her complaint on 24 May 2024, she specified that if the landlord needed to extend the move, she did not want to remain in the property. We note she had raised concerns about noise disruption, and later raised concerns about the lift, which was not working. All of these factors were outside of the landlord’s control, and it acted reasonably by communicating with the provider regarding the lift once it was aware.
  9. Its records show that it was waiting for a response from another team regarding a suitable property to move her to, and it had also tried to find a suitable alternative property, but these were mainly located outside the radius she had specified. It was resolution focused and reasonable for the landlord to attempt to find an alternative property in view of her concerns. The resident was required to move from 26 June 2024 as the provider had another booking. We note that the landlord found a property but that this did not accept pets, meaning the resident would need to find someone to have her dog, or arrange a boarding kennel, which it could reimburse.
  10. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to agree to book a property that the resident had found herself. While we recognise that this may have resulted in more time and trouble for the resident, she was better suited to know what would suit her and her son’s needs, especially given her concerns about the previous 2 properties that the landlord had found. She accepted that she would need to move from the third property by 10 July 2024 due to another booking. She moved to a fourth property on this date.
  11. In view of the extensions to the work needed at the property, it was resolution focused for the landlord to use its discretion and book a holiday park for the resident and her son between 23 and 30 August 2024. It was not strictly obliged to do so but it was reasonable to mitigate the impact on the family during the summer holidays. It then booked a hotel closer to her main property which was reasonable to facilitate moving back.
  12. The landlord reimbursed the resident for necessary mileage during the decant and there was a dispute regarding additional mileage used to collect her son from her parents. The landlord did not initially accept this as necessary travel but subsequently offered compensation within its complaint responses to put this right, which is reasonable in the circumstances.
  13. The temporary move over 22 weeks was likely to cause disruption and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord attempted to act in line with the resident’s needs by sourcing a second property within a reasonable timeframe once she raised concern that the first property was not suitable for her needs. It acted appropriately by raising her concerns about the lift in the second property with the provider, and her concerns about noise were outside of its control. It nonetheless demonstrated that it was actively seeking to locate a more suitable third property internally. It suitably managed her expectations by explaining the limitations it faced and acted reasonably by agreeing to book a property she had found herself given that she had raised concerns about both the previous properties it had found.
  14. While its initial communication about the move and work was disjointed, with the resident needing to inform each department what was happening, its records indicate that its communication was more regular following the stage 1 complaint response and it had attempted to improve this. Given the overall timeframe of the move, and repeated extensions, it was reasonable for the landlord to book a holiday park to mitigate the impact on the resident and her son before booking a hotel closer to the main property.

Summary

  1. Our remedies guidance states that compensation amounts over £1,000 may be considered proportionate where there have been failings that had a serious detrimental impact on a resident (including a physical or emotional impact) over a significant timeframe as a result of a landlord’s failings. Any remedies we order are not intended to punish the landlord for failings but instead recognise the impact on a resident as a result of those failings.
  2. It is evident that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports between 12 February 2024, and 2 September 2024 was likely to cause significant inconvenience, time and trouble, and disruption to the resident. The landlord offered £1,300 compensation for this aspect of the complaint to recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, alongside some additional travel expenses.
  3. There were several shortcomings in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint, and it did not fully engage with its failings, including not initially completing an ‘in person’ survey of the property. It also incorrectly attributed the cause of the resident’s distress and inconvenience to its failure to complete work in 2013, which was, at least in part, inaccurate.
  4. While it did not recognise all failings accurately, it nonetheless agreed that the need to move from the property due to the works caused inconvenience and disruption, that its failings contributed to this and it offered compensation accordingly. We have found that it has made a reasonable offer or redress to the resident, and its offer of compensation adequately puts right the impact on its failings between the start of the tenancy on 12 February 2024 and 2 September 2024, when she returned to the property.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process set out in its complaints policy.  It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, and respond to complaints at stage 1, and stage 2, within a further 10 or 20 working days respectively. If it requires additional time to complete its response, it should inform the resident and explain the reason for the delay. Its responses should not exceed a further 10, or 20, working days without good reason
  2. The resident initially raised a complaint on 24 May 2024. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 30 July 2024, 46 working days later. While it had taken steps to inform her of the delay and provide new response timescales, this exceeded a further 10 working days. It acted reasonably by recognising the time taken to respond within its stage 1 response and offering £50 compensation which was proportionate in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord noted that the resident wanted to escalate the complaint on 30 July 2024. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 25 September 2024, which was 40 working days later. It acted reasonably by informing the resident that it would need more time to respond on 23 August 2024 and providing a new response timeframe. Overall, it extended the timeframe by 20 working days and acted reasonably by informing her of the delay in advance. The overall timeframe of its stage 2 complaint response was in line with the timescales set out in its policies and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  4. The landlord primarily acted in line with its policies and the Complaint Handling Code when responding to the resident’s complaint, with the exception of the timeframes of its stage 1 complaint response. It acted fairly by offering compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by the delay at this stage. Overall, its offer of £50 compensation is proportionate to put right the impact of the delay and we have found that it made a reasonable offer of redress on this basis.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of the property, subsequent repairs and her temporary move, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that:
    1. The landlord pays the resident £1,350 compensation as previously offered through its complaints process, if it has not already done so.
    2. The landlord arranges a structural survey of the property in view of the resident’s ongoing concerns related to cracks reappearing in the same areas. It should consider whether there are any further structural or subsidence related concerns and take steps to address these.
    3. The landlord should review evidence of any utility related costs the resident was charged for at her main property while she was away between 24 April and 2 September 2024. It should confirm whether it will reimburse the resident in line with its decant policy. The resident may need to provide evidence in the form of energy statements if she wants the landlord to consider this.
  2. The landlord should confirm its intentions in relation to the above recommendations within 4 weeks.