From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Abri Group Limited (202439456)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202439456

Abri Group Limited

29 August 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and deciding 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 sent 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 flooding into the property, including reports of property damage, damp, and mould.
  2. We have investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 4-bedroom house the landlord owns and manages. It let the property to the resident under an assured shorthold tenancy agreement in June 2019. It records the resident is vulnerable due to mobility and mental health conditions and her family have mental health and immunity conditions.

  1. The resident reported a flood from the downstairs toilet to the landlord on 7 March 2024. The landlord’s handling of this repair and the associated property damage was the subject of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 1 October 2024 which the landlord acknowledged on 3 October. It sent her a stage 1 complaint response on 30 October 2024 in which summarised its handling of repairs between March 2024 and October 2024. It said:
    1. The front door did not require repair but it would repair the downstairs flooring, the kitchen skirting, and kickboards, and the downstairs toilet.
    2. It needed to complete flooring repairs first but it had been unable to arrange appointments with the resident. It was satisfied it made appropriate efforts to arrange appointments before it cancelled the works order.
    3. It had agreed to replace damaged carpet in the downstairs bedroom as a goodwill gesture but the carpeting on the stairs and landing were the resident’s responsibility.
    4. It could assess the kitchen repairs, the flooring, and woodwork since it had cleared waste refuse from the property.
    5. It had arranged for a plumber to trace and repair any leaks or blockages, but it had no reason to think there were any drain repairs.
    6. There had been no evidence of damp and mould when it last inspected the property but it would reinspect this.
    7. It deep cleaned the property twice to a high standard and sanitary condition.
    8. It had not retained records of emails the resident sent but it should have logged this communication. It acknowledged service failures in its communication and record keeping.
    9. It did not cover the cost of personal belongings but she should claim for these via her personal contents insurance.
    10. It previously offered the resident £250 as compensation which she felt was too low given her damaged belongings. It made this offer as a good will gesture and not in recognition of any service failures.
    11. It upheld the complaint and apologised to the resident. It offered her £450 compensation which it itemised as £100 for poor record keeping, £100 for poor communication, and the £250 it had previously offered her.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 November 2024 because she was unhappy with the landlord’s findings and its offer of redress. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 November 2024 and sent its stage 2 complaint response on 10 December 2024. In addition to the advice provided at stage 1 it:
    1. Acknowledged the resident’s view it had not offered her a further decant. But her family did not wish to move again due to the disruption the previous decant to and from the property caused.
    2. Said it had not completed a thorough investigation, taken appropriate measures, nor considered the family’s vulnerabilities prior to their return, as it should have.
    3. Advised it did not feel the redress it provided for the time and trouble the resident had spent chasing the landlord was enough.
    4. Said it could not evidence the attempts it made to arrange appointments to access her home, which the resident disputed. It also found delays cleaning and clearing the property.
    5. Advised it shared information internally about its poor communication, poor record keeping and its low offer of compensation.
    6. Confirmed it raised works orders and appointments for the outstanding repairs.
    7. Said it upheld the complaint and offered a further £1,685 compensation bringing the total to £2,135. It itemised this as £900 for distress and inconvenience, £200 for repair handling delays, £200 for poor communication, £300 for ending the decant prematurely, and £85 for a parking fine.
  4. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said to put the matter right the landlord should complete the repairs and increase the compensation offer. Since the complaint exhausted the internal complaint procedure the landlord increased its compensation offer to £3,000. It told the resident of this in a letter dated 11 June 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. However, we can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident. We have therefore considered the landlord’s compensation offers within our general assessment of its handling of repairs following a flood. If the resident wants to pursue a personal injury claim she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of repairs following a flood

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair (including drains and external pipes). It must keep the installations in the property for the supply of water and for sanitations in repair and proper working order (including basins, sinks, baths, and sanitary conveniences). It must also complete repairs within a reasonable time.
  2. The resident reported an upsurge from her toilet to the landlord’s out of hours team just after midnight on 7 March 2024. The landlord’s specialist drain contractor attended within 24 hours. This was in keeping with the landlord’s repairs policy which says it will provide a response to critical failures within 24 hours as an emergency. The drain contractor unblocked an external manhole and 5 blockages inside the property and removed 4 bags of waste. It completed the work within 24 hours of the reported flood which was appropriate.
  3. The landlord moved the resident into a hotel on the same day. This was in keeping with its decant policy which says where there are health and safety concerns such as a flood, it will provide temporary short-term accommodation such as a hotel. We recognise the urgency of this move was likely to cause significant disruption to the family, especially given their vulnerabilities. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to move the family urgently to ensure their safety and complete repairs.
  4. The landlord arranged for an external cleaning contractor to complete a deep clean in the property on 9 March 2024, after it cleared the drain and the internal blockages. It was appropriate for the landlord to do so while it rehoused the resident given the extent of the internal damage.
  5. The landlord said its surveyor inspected the property on 11 March 2024 and concluded the property was habitable. It raised a works order on the same day to treat damp and mould in the property on 8 April 2024. The landlord ended the resident’s hotel stay so she could return home the same day.
  6. The landlord rearranged the mould wash appointment to 13 March 2024 following concerns from the resident’s support worker on 12 March about the children living in the property. The landlord’s surveyor had inspected the property the day before. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat the damp and mould in keeping with its damp and mould policy which says it will act quickly and proportionately to all reports of damp and mould. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have booked the initial mould wash appointment sooner than 8 April 2024 under the circumstances.
  7. The landlord treated mould in the property on 13 March 2024, but its contractor found damaged carpets, walls, and doors and recommended a further surveyor’s inspection. He reported the smell of sewage and soaked walls, flooring, and skirting boards which was damaging the resident’s possessions. The landlord raised works orders on the same day for a contractor to quote for repairs to replace the doors in the kitchen, toilet, and downstairs bedroom, and replace the downstairs vinyl flooring. It also raised follow on works to complete a mould treatment in the property and repair the woodwork on the ground floor. It added that the property required a surveyor’s inspection to the works orders. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange repairs to bring the property to the condition it was in before the flood. It was reasonable for it to arrange a surveyor to complete a further assessment of the property condition.
  8. On 15 March 2024, the resident’s support worker told the landlord that sewage affected the downstairs rooms and flooring, the house was an unhealthy environment, and it needed to move the family urgently. He also said the damp and mould team asked the family to monitor the situation as it was not clear it fixed the leak. This was unreasonable. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess the leak repair itself instead of asking the family to monitor the situation. This was likely to cause distress, time, and trouble the resident. The landlord told the support worker it would complete a full property condition survey which was appropriate given the reported defects.
  9. The resident reported the property smelled of raw sewage and there was a puddle on her downstairs bedroom carpet to the landlord on 18 March 2024. The landlord discussed moving her into alternative accommodation while it completed repairs on the same day. This was a reasonable response considering the impact of the circumstances on the family and the support worker’s advice. The landlord requested urgent alternative accommodation the next day. It discussed moving her into an empty property or a service apartment in response to her request not to return to a hotel. This was appropriate and in keeping with its decant procedure which says it will work with residents to provide temporary property that meets a household’s needs. The landlord did not offer another decant property. The parties agree that the resident did not wish to move again due the disruption the previous move had caused her family. The landlord cannot be faulted for this if the resident did not wish to be temporarily moved. However, given the reports that were raised so quickly after the resident moved home, we are concerned about the decision to initially ask the resident to move back home.
  10. The damp and mould team were unable to complete works on 18 March 2024 due to the level of moisture in the property. The landlord’s property condition survey found a further leak which caused the property to be in a worse state than the previous week but it found no evidence of damp and mould. The surveyor concluded it would need to carry out a significant amount of work to rectify the damage. It found the property met its decent homes standard and was fit for habitation. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the qualified assessment of its surveyor when considering to the condition of the property.
  11. The surveyor completed a property condition survey on 19 March 2024. This delay from 13 March 2025 was unreasonable because the surveyor knew the extent of the sewage leak and the contractor and support worker also reported concerns in the preceding days. The landlord’s failure to promptly respond to the contractor and support worker advice was likely to have increased the distress and inconvenience it caused the resident.
  12. Further leaks form an upstairs bathroom affected the property in April and September 2024. It was unclear whether this was because of the initial sewage incident, but it added to the residents distress and inconvenience. It also increased the number of repairs needed which extended the overall detriment caused to the resident.
  13. Between March and December 2024, the landlord arranged extensive repairs to the flooring, drains, walls, ceilings, and woodwork. It also completed cleaning and clearance work and a CCTV drain survey. However, there were failings in its completion of these repairs as it:
    1. Failed to keep the resident up to date. This was not in keeping with its repairs policy which says it will keep residents informed of the progress of their repairs. This caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble pursuing updates via email causing her to say it was as if the landlord did not care.
    2. Told the support worker it had completed all the repairs, except the flooring on 13 May 2024. This information was not correct, given the landlord later acknowledged it could not complete all the repairs, such as decorations, until after it replaced the flooring.
    3. Failed to inspect the property before telling the support worker all works were complete. It would have been appropriate for it to satisfy itself the repairs to the sewage and water-damaged property presented no health and safety concerns beforehand.
    4. Broke the resident’s sink while completing repairs on an undisclosed date before 16 July 2024.
    5. Failed to handle works orders and purchase orders in a coordinated way. It is unclear whether this administration delayed the repairs or affected the resident. However, it suggests poor management of knowledge, information, and repairs.
    6. Cancelled flooring repairs in August 2024 because its contractor said it had been unable to book appointments with the resident, despite ringing her, cold calling, and leaving cards. There is evidence the resident and her support worker emailed the landlord prior to August 2024 to pursue these repairs which the landlord did not address. We have not seen evidence of the contractor’s failed contact attempts which the landlord later asked it to provide.
    7. Failed to visit the property to assess the condition and the progress of the repairs it had partially completed in response to the resident’s requests of 21 May 2024, 5 and 27 June 2024, 12 and 20 September 2024. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to monitor the progress of the repairs and check the condition of the property. Further for it to have provided an appropriate level of customer care by replying to the resident’s emails.
    8. Failed to keep accurate records of its repair handling such as the outcomes of an inspection it completed on 26 September 2024.
  14. The resident first reported poor communication and lack of correspondence from the landlord on 11 April 2024. She resent a series of emails – that she had previously sent to the landlord since April 2024 – in October 2024 as evidence to support her complaint. The landlord recognised it had not saved, nor responded appropriately to her emails in its final complaint response. It did not dispute her complaint and recognised this as a service failing which was appropriate. Furthermore, it offered her £200 as compensation for poor communication which was reasonable. We expect landlords to make and retain complete records of its housing services. The absence of the resident’s emails suggests poor handling of knowledge, information, and repairs.
  15. The resident’s support worker asked the landlord if it would pay compensation for the resident’s damaged personal belongings on 15 and 20 March 2024. The resident also sent photographs and described her damaged property in further emails she sent between April 2024 and October 2024. The landlord sent internal emails on 30 April 2024 that confirmed it was not responsible for the external sewage pipe and that the resident should claim for her damaged personal items via her personal contents insurance. This is in keeping with its April 2024 welcome guide and useful information document. This says it does not insure resident’s belongings and recommends they take out contents insurance. However, there is no evidence it told her this until it discussed her stage 1 complaint with her on 3 October 2024. This was unreasonable. It should have managed the resident’s expectations sooner to prevent causing her time and trouble pursuing a response and then raising a complaint.
  16. The landlord did not provide the resident with compensation for her damaged items in its final stage 2 complaint response. Although it provided £900 for distress and inconvenience. This award was reasonable under the circumstances, given the level of outstanding property repairs. However, despite not being responsible for the resident’s damaged personal items, it awarded her an additional £765 for these items in its putting it right letter dated 11 June 2025. This was after the resident provided a description of her damaged items to the landlord. While delayed, this was a resolution focussed approach to resolve the complaint in recognition that the resident did not have any home contents insurance.
  17. When a landlord has acknowledged its failings, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, compensation, and a review of procedures) was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  18. The landlord’s final complaint response recognised its communication, record keeping, and repair handling failings. It apologised for the impact this may have caused to the resident. It also recognised its earlier compensation awards had been too low. This was appropriate under the circumstances, given the level of inconvenience and distress the matter was likely to have caused the resident.
  19. It referred to the property condition assessments made by 2 different surveyors in March 2024 which concluded the property was safe. It also referred to the resident’s preference to stay in the property rather than move. It was reasonable for the landlord to address these points to clarify it took reasonable steps to ensure the resident’s home was safe and habitable.
  20. The landlord did not dispute the resident’s complaint. It agreed its housing services had been poor and it upheld the complaint which was reasonable under the circumstances. It offered the resident £2,135 as compensation, for the detriment its failings caused the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to put matters right in keeping with its putting things right procedure. This says it will provide compensation if a resident has experienced distress, unreasonable inconvenience, or has been the subject of repeat service failures over an unacceptable time.
  21. The landlord has completed flooring, drainage, and other associated property repairs since the complaint exhausted the internal complaint procedures. It subsequently revised its compensation to include an award for the resident’s damaged personal belongings. This was reasonable under the circumstances. It increased its compensation award to £3,000. It offered this when the resident returned to the property from a further decant in keeping with her request. The landlord’s handling of the repairs was likely to cause considerable distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident and her family for an unreasonable amount of time. The resident lived in the property while it completed repairs which was likely to exacerbate the detriment the situation caused her. We could have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of flooding into the property, including reports of property damage, damp, and mould. However, the landlord’s compensation award was in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there were failings that had a significant physical and emotional impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right was substantial.
  22. For the reasons set out above, we found the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident. It resolved the repair handling failings satisfactorily and took proportionate measures to address what went wrong and recognise the impact its failures had on the resident. We have recommended it pays the compensation to the resident if it has not already done so.

 

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord relied on information it obtained from various sources when investigating the resident’s complaint and its responses were appropriately detailed. It did not dispute any of the concerns the resident raised. Instead, it recognised and apologised for the failings it found in a meaningful and sincere way. It also empathised with the circumstances the resident experienced due to its actions and inactions. The landlord’s final complaint response was fair and set out what it would to do put things right.
  2. We found failings in the landlord’s complaint handling as it:
    1. Did not acknowledge a stage 1 complaint the resident made on 19 March 2024 in keeping with its complaint policy and paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’) in use at the time. This says landlord must acknowledge complaints within 5 days of receipt.
    2. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 1 October 2024 until 30 October 2024 which was 11 working days later than its 10-working day policy timescale.
  3. The landlord recognised its poor communication, poor repair handling, poor record keeping, and its low stage 1 compensation award in its final complaint response. It shared these findings in an internal email dated 30 October 2024which is evidence of it sharing the learning from complaints.
  4. When a landlord has acknowledged its failings, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation) was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  5. The compensation payment the landlord offered in its final complaint response included £200 for poor communication. However, it is not clear how much of this it intended for its complaint handling failings. It would have been reasonable for it to have itemised this, given it found its previous compensation offer to be low.
  6. The landlord sent a ‘putting it right’ letter 6 months after the complaint exhausted its internal complaint procedure. It explained the letter did not mean it had reopened the complaint or added an additional stage in its process. But due to remedial works since its final complaint response, it reviewed the compensation award. It was positive for the landlord to seek to put right matters, which it recognised were likely to have caused further detriment to the resident. It waited to send the letter until after the resident returned from alternative accommodation in keeping with her request which was reasonable.
  7. However, it is unclear why it did not properly address compensation while the complaint was within its internal complaints procedure. This caused the resident time and trouble while waiting for the landlord to offer proportionate compensation. We cannot say whether the landlord would have taken this action if the resident had not brought her complaint to us.
  8. The landlord’s compensation for its poor communication and complaint handling was in line with our remedies guidance. However, it missed the opportunity to offer further compensation for failing to offer proportionate compensation in the first place. Taking all matters into account, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  9. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 further compensation for its complaint handling. This is in keeping with our remedies guidance where there have been minor failings by the landlord which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident but caused her to incur time, trouble, and delays in getting matters resolved.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of flooding into the property, including reports of property damage, damp, and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident £100 for time and trouble that the landlord’s complaint handling failures may have caused to the resident. The landlord should pay the compensation direct to the resident and not offset this against any arrears the resident may owe the landlord, where they exist.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the £3,000 compensation offered in the putting it right letter if it has not already.
    2. Review its record keeping practises and consider how it can make improvements considering the problems we have highlighted in this report.