Abri Group Limited (202425919)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425919

Abri Group Limited

15 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 the resident’s concerns about:
   1. The removal of a solar panel.
   2. Carpet in the communal area.
2. Our investigation will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder in a two-bedroom first-floor flat. The landlord owns the building, which included solar thermal panels on the roof from construction. Ownership of the panels appears to lie with the leaseholders, and the resident’s panel exclusively served her property, contributing to water heating.
4. Following reports of leaks in the communal loft in October 2023, the landlord arranged an inspection with its roofing contractor and a solar panel specialist. In November 2023, they found the solar panels were damaging the roof and causing water ingress. In December 2023, the panels were removed to allow roof repairs, and the panels were found to be unfit for reuse. In March 2024, a repair was raised for a leak in the communal area.
5. On 8 April 2024, the resident complained to the landlord. She had paid for an engineer to check her water cylinder, which provided hot water from her solar panel, as it was not working. The engineer found her panel was disconnected from the roof. She said she was not informed of this and now unable to use her hot water cylinder. She wanted the panel reinstated and her costs reimbursed. She added that a leak on the ground floor remained unresolved.
6. On 7 May 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint acknowledging poor service and communication. It confirmed the communal leak was fixed on 30 April 2024. The solar panel was disconnected for roof repairs and it apologised for not informing her. It would contact the resident about any incurred costs and whether her solar panel would be reinstated. The landlord reimbursed £150 for the engineer visit and offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience.
7. On 22 June 2024, the resident escalated the complaint. She said she had not been contacted despite chasing and her solar panel had not been reinstated. She added the leak persisted, and stagnant water on the carpet was a hazard and caused a smell. On 27 August 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint, confirmed the communal leak was repaired but a pipe section still needed replacing, and said it would review how to deal with the carpet. It apologised that she had not been contacted and said it would escalate the issue and write to her within 4 weeks.
8. In her complaint to us, the resident said the communal water damage was unresolved and her solar panel was disposed of, leading to higher electricity costs. She remained unhappy due to lack of contact from the landlord. She wanted the panel reinstated, reimbursement for costs, and further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Removal of a solar panel

9. Under the lease, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the building’s structural parts, including the roof. The lease permits the landlord to replace service installations if necessary to carry out repairs. The landlord considered the right to ‘replace’ service installations implied the right to remove the panels. The evidence shows that a solar panel specialist instructed by the landlord advised the panels contributed to the roof leak, were not fit for purpose and not reusable. Therefore, the landlord was entitled to remove them to carry out its obligations under the lease.
10. In December 2023, the solar panels were removed from the roof during an inspection. The evidence shows a letter was drafted to be handed out on-site by its contractor explaining the works and the suspected cause of the leak. The resident disputed receiving this letter. The landlord’s stage 1 response accepted she was not informed about the panel’s removal. The letter, in any case, did not include any information about removing the solar panels. This was a failing causing distress and inconvenience to the resident who was not aware of the impact this would have on her ability to heat water via the panel.
11. As the panel effectively belonged to the resident the landlord should have promptly informed her of its removal. It should also have explained what it planned to do with the panel, especially since its contractor had advised that the panels were not fit for purpose. This did not happen.
12. Although the resident could still access hot water using an immersion heater, she reported increased electricity costs in doing so. Accordingly, the landlord was aware of the impact on her from its action.
13. Given the poor communication about the panel’s removal, it was reasonable for the landlord, in its August 2024 final complaint response, to reimburse the resident’s £150 engineer visit, as that visit was how she found out the panel had been removed, along with £50 for the inconvenience she had experienced. At the same time, it acknowledged the solar panel situation was unresolved and said it would shortly write to all residents explaining what it would be doing about them.
14. There is no evidence it subsequently did so, or contacted the resident again until March 2025, when it visited her and discussed two available options to address the solar panel situation: installing new panels, or leaving them off permanently. This was approximately 6 months after it committed to write to her. The evidence shows the landlord’s preferred option was to manage the works and recharge leaseholders via service charges.
15. Nothing in the resident’s lease clearly obliges the landlord to reimburse her for any increased electricity usage. Nonetheless in June 2025 it committed to doing so and offered to pay for the value of the second hand damaged panel. This offer, and the earlier visit in March 2025 were reasonable remedies for the landlord’s poor handling of the matter, albeit lacking clarity about how long it would provide the reimbursement.
16. However, they should have more appropriately been made during the complaints process in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requirement that landlord’s put things right when they respond to a complaint. The further time taken by the landlord to remedy the complaint lead to additional inconvenience and frustration for the resident, which the landlord has not acknowledged or resolved. Accordingly, while the remedies it finally offered in 2025 were reasonable, the time taken to offer them left the complaint unresolved.

Carpet in the communal area

17. This aspect of the resident’s complaint focused on the ground floor communal carpet, which she described as mouldy and rotten. She felt this posed a health risk as there was stagnant water.
18. The landlord’s formal responses explained the leak was fixed on 30 April 2024, though further work was needed to replace another section of pipe later. It also said it would review how best to address the resident’s concerns about the carpet.
19. The landlord’s repair policy operates an appointed-based job system for non-emergency repairs. While it does not give a specific timeframe, industry best practice is approximately 28 days for routine repairs. The landlord should have given the resident an approximate timeframe so that she was aware of the next steps. However, it did not do this. Considering the leak was initially raised on 22 December 2023, it was fixed considerably outside 28 days. It did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay.
20. The leak did not affect the resident’s home, but the landlord is responsible for keeping communal areas including carpets clean and safe, as set out in its estate standards. The resident told the landlord she felt embarrassed by the condition and cleanliness of the communal areas.
21. There is no evidence of the landlord taking the promised action with the carpet until after the resident brought her complaint to us. At that point the landlord arranged an urgent clean of the carpet outside the resident’s flat. However, this did not address the ground floor area outside the service cupboard, which was the focus of her complaint. The lack of follow-up frustrated the resident, who went to effort to pursue the matter. In October 2025, she told us the carpet had not been resolved, and wanted the landlord to replace it.
22. Although the leak did not directly impact the resident’s home, the landlord failed to act reasonably after she raised concerns about the wet carpet. Overall, the landlord did not resolve her concerns about the carpet during the complaints process. It failed to follow through on its commitment to review the carpet, missing a chance to reassure the resident and take appropriate action.

Handling of the complaint

23. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Where more time is needed to complete an investigation, the landlord will contact the resident to confirm the delay, explain the reason and agree how often it will keep them updated on progress.
24. The resident escalated the complaint on 22 June 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response outside the 20-working day target. While it extended the timeframe, it only did so on 13 August 2024, after 20 working days had elapsed. This caused time and trouble for the resident who chased on 2 August 2024.
25. The landlord did not acknowledge the delays at stage 2 or offer any remedy in recognition of its poor complaint handling..

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
    1. The removal of the solar panel.
    2. The complaint.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about carpet in the communal area.

Orders

28. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident £600 for the failings found in this report and the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident. This is made up of:
    1. £200 as offered in its stage 1 response, if it has not already been paid.
    2. £200 for the solar panel issue.
    3. £100 for the communal carpet issue.
    4. £100 for the complaint handling delay.
29. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide evidence that it followed through with its commitment made in June 2025, where it said it would reimburse the resident’s increased electricity usage related to the removal of the solar panel, and compensate her for the disposal of the old one. It should ensure it has explained how long it will provide the reimbursement for, and provide a written update to the resident about its intentions regarding installing new solar panels.
    2. Given the current status of the damaged carpet is unclear, the landlord must provide evidence that it has now taken steps to resolve the problem. This must include writing to the resident to confirm what action it has taken and why it is satisfied the issue has been resolved.
30. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman within the timescales above to confirm that it has complied with these orders.