Abri Group Limited (202447244)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447244

Abri Group Limited

25 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the condition of the windows was causing mould.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 3–bedroom house and the tenancy began in 2000. The landlord has recorded that the resident’s son has a sensory processing disorder and ADHD.
On 24 November 2022 the resident reported mould in the property. On 24 January 2023 the landlord attended to complete a mould wash. On 4 August 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended to inspect the windows. The contractor asked the landlord to raise a job for a single window to be removed, trimmed, and refitted to see if this would resolve the resident’s concerns before completing work on all windows in the property. This job was carried out in January 2024 but the resident asked the landlord to replace all the windows instead.
On 12 April 2024, the landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection at the resident’s whole property. The surveyor noted that the windows were in good condition and had been fitted correctly. The surveyor also noted that while some of the seals on the windows were weak, this was not enough to allow water ingress. Also, that the cause of the mould was likely to be condensation and moisture readings had been within normal range. The surveyor recommended a new ventilation system, but the resident declined because he thought the system would be too noisy for his child.
The resident complained on or around 3 September 2024. He expressed frustration with the amount of time it was taking to repair the windows and reported that the mould was making his son ill. The resident outlined that a previous contractor had told him the windows were the cause of the mould.
On 11 October 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged that the resident had needed to chase the landlord on several occasions for it to inspect the windows but that its surveyor had determined that the windows were not causing the reported mould. The landlord noted that the resident had refused a new ventilation system and had not allowed access for it to replace the window seals. The landlord raised a job for the windows to be reinspected. In response to his complaint, the landlord offered the resident £25 compensation for the delay in inspecting the windows, £25 for poor record keeping, and £25 for its failure to share the surveyor’s report.
On 31 October 2024 the resident escalated his complaint because the window inspection had not been carried out. The landlord responded on 22 November 2024. It apologised that it had told the resident it would reinspect the window and explained this had been a mistake. It said the windows did not need reinspecting because it had already done so and had raised the required works from the surveyor’s visit. The landlord stated it was satisfied that the windows did not need replacing, and that the mould was caused by condensation. It provided its insurance details so the resident could make a claim if he felt his son’s health had been impacted by the mould.
In its final response, the landlord asked the resident to confirm if he would like the ventilation system to be installed. It booked a mould wash for 25 November 2024 and explained it would attend on 11 December 2024 to replace the seals on the windows. The landlord changed the some of the window seals in January 2025, some seals could not be changed because they were glued in. The landlord has advised it has offered to the replace the windows that it could not replace the seals on. The landlord completed a mould wash in February 2025.
The resident escalated the matter to us because he wanted his windows to be replaced so that he could have a mould-free home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns that the landlord’s handling of the issues reported had impacted his child’s health. This aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of our remit.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that the health of anyone in the property has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
The resident mentioned that there have been historical reports of mould to the to the landlord. We expect residents to raise their concerns with their landlord as a complaint when they arise, so that it can be escalated to us within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months of the landlord’s final response. This report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the reports from November 2022 to November 2024, because this is what was referenced in the resident’s complaint and is what the landlord has responded to in its complaint response.
Some of the evidence we have received relates to events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response.

The resident’s reports that the condition of the windows was causing mould

The landlord’s damp and mould procedure encourages residents to report damp and mould as soon as they see it. The procedure states that it will assess reports of mould and prioritise them based on severity. Severe jobs will be attended within 10 days and routine jobs will be attended within 30 days. It will carry out mould treatments and ventilation surveys, any additional works will be passed to the appropriate teams for action.
When the resident first reported mould, the landlord did not act appropriately because it did not respond within its policy timeframes. There was a delay of 8 months from the initial report to the landlord’s inspection, and a further 8 months until the whole property inspection which was inappropriate. The resident had to chase the landlord on several occasions which caused distress and inconvenience.
It is noted that there were occasions when the landlord attended but the resident did not allow access or declined works. Repairs often require the cooperation of residents to facilitate appointments and ensure the landlord has access to the property. While we do not question the resident’s reasons for not allowing access, any delays which occurred solely because of the resident declining or missing appointments are beyond the control of the landlord.
There was also a delay to the windows being inspected because the landlord changed its contractor. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have kept the resident up to date on the reasons for the delay and when it predicted the inspection would take place. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations which caused frustration.
The landlord’s surveyor found that the mould in the property was caused by condensation rather than the windows. We understand that the resident disagrees with this finding because he feels the windows are in poor condition and have caused the issues reported. The evidence provided suggests that the windows are fit for purpose. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff members, and we have no seen any evidence to dispute the landlord’s position.
After the surveyor recommended replacing the window seals and installing a new ventilation system, the records indicate that the resident declined the works because he felt it would be too noisy for his son. The landlord acted appropriately by offering these works to the resident, it also took steps to reassure the resident that the ventilation would be “near silent”.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it accepted that there had been a delay in inspecting the property and the windows and apologised that the resident had needed to chase this up. It noted it appreciated the frustration that the resident had experienced. The landlord took steps to explain the surveyor’s reasoning for not recommending that the windows were replaced and to show it understood the resident’s concerns about the ventilation unit. This was an appropriate response because the landlord demonstrated it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and understood why he was unhappy.
The landlord told the resident it would carry out a further inspection of the windows, however when the contractor arrived, the inspection was cancelled. We have seen internal correspondence as part of our investigation and can see that the inspection was cancelled because the landlord felt it was not necessary. It had inspected the windows previously and found they were not causing the reported mould. While the landlord was entitled to make this decision, the resident was distressed and inconvenienced by the fact he was not told the job had been cancelled until the contractor arrived.
The landlord also advised the resident it would share a copy of the surveyor’s report. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have shared this report at the earliest opportunity, this would have helped the resident to understand the landlord’s position. It is unclear from the evidence if the landlord did share this report with the resident after it said it would.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it apologised that it had misinformed the resident about the window inspection and accepted it should not have offered this. It explained it had decided another inspection was not needed because it already had enough information to make a decision on what works it should do to address the mould. This was a reasonable response. The landlord repeated its offer of a new ventilation system and advised it had arranged an appointment for a mould wash and for the window seals to be replaced. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
Overall, the landlord initial response to the resident’s reports of mould was inappropriate because it took too long to arrange an inspection and did not communicate effectively with the resident. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. There was also a delay in the landlord providing the resident with a copy of the survey that it was basing its position on. The resident experienced further distress when the additional window inspection was cancelled without a clear explanation.
The landlord took an evidence led approach to identify the cause of the mould and acted appropriately by trying to arrange the recommended works from the surveyor’s report but it is understood the resident has refused some of these. It was candid in its complaint responses and acknowledged its own failures. It provided learning and what it had done to ensure the same failures did not happen again, this was a reasonable response.
The landlord has made some attempt to put right its failures by apologising, providing reflection and learning, and offering compensation. Had the landlord not done this, the finding in this case would have been maladministration. We consider that the offer does not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and poor communication identified. Additionally, the landlord’s offer was made before the second window inspection was cancelled so this was not accounted for.
We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the condition of the windows was causing mould. The landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the failures identified, the landlord’s previous compensation offer of £75 can be deducted from this amount, if already paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the condition of the windows was causing mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to us that it has:
1. Paid the resident a total compensation of £150 to acknowledge and redress the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the condition of the windows was causing mould.
  1. The landlord’s previous offer of £75 can be deducted from this amount, if it has already been paid to the resident.
  2. This amount should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent or debt owed.
2. Provided a copy of the April 2024 survey report to the resident, if it has not already done so.

Recommendations

The landlord should reiterate its offer of a ventilation unit and to replace the windows with the glued in seals to the resident, if it has not already done so.