Abri Group Limited (202435787)

Background

1. On 2 December 2024 the resident called the landlord to report a leak coming from the loft. The call handler terminated the call without scheduling a repair. The resident made a further call to the landlord minutes later and a job was raised. The landlord attended the property the same day. It repaired the leak and made the ceiling safe.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of staff conduct.
   2. A leak to the property.
3. We also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of staff conduct.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a leak to the property.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Staff conduct

5. The landlord demonstrated it had taken the resident’s reports seriously and set out the action it had taken to investigate. It apologised for its failings and offered the resident a hamper in line with its policy. The compensation offer was fair and satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Leak

6. The landlord’s response to the leak and follow up works was in line with its policy. It apologised for any mess left by its contractor and offered compensation in line with its policy. The compensation offer was fair and satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. The resident complained that the call handler had failed to listen to her when she tried to report a leak and had terminated the call. She reported this to the landlord on 3 December 2024. The evidence shows the landlord reviewed the call recordings the following day. It acknowledged the call could have been dealt with better and put in place measures to prevent the same issues being repeated, such as speaking to the individual and providing further training. This demonstrated the landlord had taken the resident’s complaint seriously.
9. In its stage 1 response dated 18 December 2024, the landlord apologised for the level of service received and upheld the resident’s complaint. It set out the steps it had taken to investigate the resident’s complaint and offered her a hamper as a means of redress. This offer was repeated in its final response on 5 March 2025, where the landlord concluded it was satisfied with how the matter had been addressed. It asked the resident to confirm her dietary requirements to enable it to send her a hamper.
10. The landlord’s compensation policy states suitable redress for low impact failings, where an apology is not sufficient, includes the offer of a hamper or vouchers. In the circumstances, the landlord’s offer was reasonable.
11. In relation to the failures identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
12. The apologies made by the landlord, its swift investigation into the resident’s concerns and the offer of a hamper was reflective of the impact to the resident and proportionate to its failings. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of staff conduct. This means its offer of redress satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

13. The resident reported a leak coming through the ceiling on 2 December 2024. The landlord attended the same day to repair the leak and make the ceiling safe. This was in line with its repairs policy, which states emergency repairs will be attended within 24 hours.
14. The following day the landlord contacted the resident to arrange follow on works for the ceilings. She said the wet patch on the ceiling was getting bigger. The landlord attended the same day, in line with its policy, and recorded there was no further leak.
15. On 10 December 2024 the landlord visited the resident at her property to discuss her complaint. She raised concerns over the potential presence of asbestos. The landlord provided the resident with reassurance and explained its contractor had been provided with a previous asbestos survey.
16. In its stage 1 response dated 18 December 2024, the landlord explained a part had failed on the water tank which had caused the leak. It said it had attended within its policy timescales and completed the repair but follow on works to the ceiling were required. As a gesture of goodwill, the landlord offered to replace the floor covering in the resident’s living room.
17. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for the floor coverings in the property. The landlord is obliged to respond to a leak within a reasonable amount of time after being notified. A landlord only becomes responsible for any damage caused by the leak if it fails to carry out its repairing obligation within a reasonable time. In this case the landlord’s response was quick and exceeded the timescales set in its own policy. Therefore, its offer to replace the flooring was over above what would be expected of it.
18. The evidence shows the landlord had difficulty contacting the resident by phone to arrange the follow up works. The resident also refused access to the property on 7 January 2025. The work was completed on 15 January 2025, within its 90-day timescale for routine repairs. The resident escalated her complaint a week later as she was unhappy with the way the ceiling looked, and the contractor had left mess behind.
19. In its stage 2 response dated 5 March 2025, the landlord explained it was not responsible for the decoration of the ceiling following the repair it carried out. However, as a gesture of goodwill, it offered to complete the decoration works on behalf of the resident. The landlord also apologised for any mess left and offered £50 compensation for a small delay in arranging the flooring.
20. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for internal decoration of the property. The landlord’s offer to complete the decoration work was reasonable, given the resident’s comments about mess left by its contractor.
21. The landlord was not obliged to replace the floor covering, it was doing so as a good will gesture. The flooring was completed 2 months after the landlord committed to replacing it. The evidence shows there had been difficulty arranging the appointment with the resident. The time taken to replace the flooring was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord’s offer of compensation for this was above what would be expected in the circumstances.
22. In summary, the landlord’s response to the leak and follow up repairs was in line with its policy. It’s offers of compensation were above what would be expected of it and showed its commitment to putting things right for the resident. This leads to a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a leak to the property. This means its offer of redress satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

23. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process in line with the Code. Its complaints policy sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints:
    1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint within 5 working days at both stages.
    2. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded.
    3. It will issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint.
    4. If an extension to its response times is needed, it will inform the resident of this in advance.
24. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy timescales. Its policy was compliant with the Code. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord demonstrated good record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in the case.

Communication

26. The landlord demonstrated good, proactive communication with the resident, in respect of the matters we have investigated in the case.