Abri Group Limited (202503845)

Decision
Case ID	202503845
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Abri Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	15 October 2025

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a block of 6 flats. There are 2 other blocks attached to the resident’s and all 3 blocks share external communal grassed areas and bins.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by neighbours.
3. Request for her kitchen to be replaced.
4. Requests for a move.
5. Reports of rubbish in communal areas.
6. Concerns about staff conduct.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
There was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. Reports of ASB by neighbours.
  2. Request for her kitchen to be replaced.
2. Service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s:
  1. Requests for a move.
  2. Reports of rubbish in communal areas.
  3. Concerns about staff conduct.
  4. Formal complaint.

Summary of reasons

We found that:
1. There were failures in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould, but it has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to put things right.
2. The landlord did not act in accordance with its ASB policy when the resident reported ASB in September and October 2024.
3. The landlord sent the wrong operative to inspect the kitchen in February 2025. This resulted in the resident expending time and trouble to give access and raised her expectations that the kitchen would be replaced.
4. There were communication failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. Requests for a move.
  2. Reports of rubbish in communal areas.
  3. Concerns about staff conduct.
5. There was a minor delay in the landlord sending the stage 2 response and its handling of the complaint caused confusion.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 12 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £585 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the issues as follows: £150 for its handling of her reports of ASB by neighbours. £125 for its handling of her request for her kitchen to be replaced. £100 for its handling of her requests for a move (inclusive of the £50 already offered). £75 for its handling of her reports of rubbish in communal areas. £75 for its handling of her concerns about staff conduct. £60 for its handling of the formal complaint. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 12 November 2025
3	The landlord must confirm in writing to the resident the current position regarding the kitchen replacement, including whether a further inspection is required.	No later than 12 November 2025
4	The landlord must write to the resident confirming what actions it is taking/will take to address her concerns about rubbish in communal areas, with timescales for these to be completed. This should include the frequency of cleaning/ litter picking/ inspections and whether it will send reminder letters to residents and place posters in communal areas.	No later than 12 November 2025
5	The landlord must provide guidance to all front line staff on the importance of recording all contacts with residents.	No later than 10 December 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord to confirm in writing what works are required to address the damp and mould and how long these are expected to take. It should also include any potential impact on the resident’s use of the property and actions it will take to minimise this, including whether it will temporarily move her from the property for any of the period of the works.
The landlord to pay the resident the £850 compensation offered for its handling of the damp and mould. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 February 2025	The resident complained to the landlord and said: There was noise nuisance from 3 neighbours, including loud music and screaming. There was damp and mould in the property, which had been treated the previous year, but had returned. Her and her son’s mental and physical health had been negatively affected, because of the problems in the property. She wanted to be moved to resolve these issues. The landlord had helped her to register to bid for properties and told her to bid for a bungalow. This was rejected and she went through an appeals process, to be told she was not eligible for this because of her age. She was confused why the landlord had told her to bid for this. She was told the only way she could be offered a management move was if there was a threat to life. She believed her life was in danger because of the impact on her mental health. During a recent visit from the landlord, staff had been late, disrespectful and insensitive towards her. They would not tell her what evidence she needed to provide to be approved for a management move.
24 February 2025	The landlord’s stage 1 response said: It partially upheld the complaint due to delays in its handling of the damp and mould and miscommunication regarding the resident bidding for a bungalow. It offered £200 compensation (£150 for its handling of the damp and mould and £50 for the miscommunication). It would be speaking to neighbours about the noise and asked her to complete diary sheets for 2 weeks so it could review them and decide what further investigation was required. It could not progress a management move without evidence of a risk to life. It could not offer her a management move. The resident had reported rubbish problems in the communal areas, which it was aware of and “consistently addressing”.
24 February 2025	The resident asked to escalate her complaint, saying: The landlord had not taken into account the impact on her mental health. She believed she was entitled to a move because of this. She declined to complete the diary sheets, but said she was recording the noise. The damp and mould had been a problem since 2021. A recent survey of the kitchen had been done and the operative had said this needed replacing. She asked when this would be done. She declined the compensation and said she had spent £1,300 decorating the property because of the damp and mould.
29 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response, which said: The stage 1 complaint was handled correctly and it agreed with the outcome. There had been further service failures in its communication since the stage 1 response was sent, so it upheld the stage 2 complaint. It had not received evidence that the resident was at risk of harm from the neighbours and its surveyor had confirmed the property was habitable. Therefore, it was satisfied it had made the correct decision not to progress a management move for her. It had booked to complete works to address the damp and mould; but the resident had cancelled them, which had prevented it from resolving this. There were further actions it could take regarding the ASB, but it needed evidence to do so. Completing diary sheets was a necessary step, or she could provide this information in a different format. The operative who had recommended her kitchen be replaced was not able to make this decision. It apologised and said a supervisor would visit her to look into this. It offered £900 compensation (£200 offered at stage 1 and an additional £700 for its handling of the damp and mould, in recognition of the impact on the resident). It could not assess the impact on the resident’s health as she needed to raise this as a personal injury claim.
29 April 2025	The resident referred her complaint to us and said the landlord had not addressed the impact on her mental health. She asked to be moved to another property to resolve the complaint.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in line with section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
The resident has said she first reported damp and mould in 2021. Our investigations will usually cover the period 12 months before the formal complaint was raised, which in this case, is February 2024. However, the landlord extended the scope of its investigation to include 2023, so we have done the same.
Following a leak into the property in January 2023, the landlord noted an inspection was needed as mould may appear. This was raised on 13 January 2023 and completed 27 working days later, on 20 February 2023. This was over the 20 working day response time for routine repairs set out in the landlord’s repairs policy at the time. The landlord noted there was minor mould in the bathroom and that a mould wash was completed to remove this.
It is vital that landlords not only treat damp and mould but also seek to identify and resolve the underlying cause. As there had been a leak, it was reasonable to conclude that this was the likely underlying cause. As this had already been resolved, it was reasonable that the landlord only treated the mould at that time.
The resident reported the mould had returned on 28 March 2023. While the landlord made internal enquiries about this, there is no evidence it took any action to investigate until around 4 months later, when it raised a further works order on 21 July 2023, to reinspect. This was only done as a result of the resident expending time and trouble chasing this up in April and July 2023.
The landlord inspected on 1 August 2023 and recommended works including a mould wash, regrouting tiles and installing new extractor fans. This was sensible to not only treat the mould, but also address the possible underlying cause. These works were noted as being completed on several days the following month, which was within the 20 working day timescale for routine repairs.
Our damp and mould spotlight report says it is best practice for landlords to proactively follow up after it completes damp and mould works to check that the issues are fully resolved and have not reoccurred. In this case, the landlord did that in February 2024 and noted the resident confirmed there were no further issues. This was positive, proactive action and showed the landlord was taking the matter seriously and wanted to resolve the issues long term.
The resident reported the damp and mould returned in August 2024 and the landlord inspected the following month. We have seen no formal record of the inspection so it is not clear what its findings were. It went on to raise a works order for a mould wash, which was completed 13 working days later on 1 October 2024.
While positive that the landlord completed this in a timely manner, it did not take any other action at that time to address the possible causes of the damp and mould. The landlord’s failure to consider and address this, meant the mould came back and the resident reported this again in February 2025. This was particularly concerning as the resident had told the landlord the mould was impacting her and her son’s health and so it should have done more to permanently resolve the issues and prevent reoccurrence.
The landlord reinspected on 18 February 2025 and identified works required to not only treat the mould but address the underlying causes. The landlord subsequently raised orders and obtained a quote for some of the work. However, these have not gone ahead as the resident has advised she cannot take time off work to give access. She has said this is because she has already had to take a number of days off for appointments and inspections.
Resolving damp and mould can be challenging for landlords and often requires an incremental approach, as there can be multiple contributing factors. We understand it can be disruptive for residents to give access for repeated inspections and repair appointments. However, it may be necessary to do so on multiple occasions where damp and mould continues to reoccur. Repeatedly having to give access does not mean there has been a failure by the landlord and it is important that residents work with landlords to allow access for investigations to be completed and works to be undertaken. It is also important that landlords are flexible in their approach and take account of individual residents’ circumstances when arranging appointments.
In this case, when the resident told the landlord she had already taken several days off for appointments and been disrupted, it made internal enquiries about arranging some of the works on the same date. While positive that it did this, more could have been done to coordinate the works in order to reduce the number of appointments being offered on different days. After the resident cancelled the appointments and said she could not take any more time off, the landlord subsequently offered to attend on a Saturday, meaning she did not have to take additional time off work. This was a sensible offer to make and shows that the landlord was taking account of her individual circumstances so it could complete the works.
The works identified on 18 February 2025 have not been completed and this would be an unreasonable delay. However, this is not attributable to the landlord as it has tried to complete the works and made reasonable alternative offers to accommodate the resident’s personal circumstances. The resident has asked the landlord not to contact her due to a decline in her mental health. She has told us that, despite this, the landlord and its contractors continue to call her to arrange works. While it is important that landlords adhere to resident’s requests, it is also, equally important, that landlords make attempts to complete required works in their properties.
In this case, this is particularly important as the resident has told the landlord that the damp and mould is negatively affecting her and her son’s health; and so the landlord should do all it can to complete the works as quickly as possible. While understandable that it has continued contacting the resident to progress the works, it could have done this in a more sensitive way. For example, rather than calling her, it could have written to her explaining why it was contacting her when she had asked it not to, setting out what works it needed to do and the importance of completing these.
Going forward, the landlord and resident should work together so the required works can be completed. In March 2025 the resident asked on a number of occasions for a written list of all repairs required, but this was not provided. This was disappointing for her and left her uncertain about what works were needed and when she would need to give access. It is vital that the works are coordinated so they can be completed at the same time so as to cause as little disruption as possible to the resident. We recommend that the landlord confirm in writing what works are required and how long these are expected to take. It should also include any potential impact on the resident’s use of the property and actions it will take to minimise this, including whether it will temporarily move her from the property for any of the period of the works.
The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered £850 compensation. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused, and in consultation with our remedies guidance; the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £850 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by neighbours
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s ASB policy says violent activity and noise, including loud music and shouting, are dealt with as ‘category 2’ ASB cases. Therefore, the landlord should have dealt with the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy.
The resident first reported noise nuisance from neighbours on 17 September 2024 and said this was affecting her and her son’s mental health. While the landlord responded to the resident about other matters, we have seen no evidence that it responded to the noise nuisance report. This was not in line with its ASB policy, which says it will respond to initial reports of category 2 cases within 5 working days.
On 29 October 2024 the resident reported ASB in the area had got worse, including a violent incident between neighbours. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will discuss initial reports with residents and agree a course of action. While the landlord acknowledged this report 2 days later, there is no evidence it made any attempt to discuss it with the resident. It told her it had contacted the Police, which was sensible considering the nature of the incident reported. However, there is no evidence it agreed an action plan with her. This means it did not act in line with its policy commitments.
The landlord’s ASB policy says a risk assessment may be completed at the landlord’s discretion. In this case, as the resident had reported multiple types of ASB, including witnessing a violent incident, and said this was impacting her health, the landlord should have completed a risk assessment. There is no evidence it did and this was a failure that left the resident feeling unsupported.
The landlord’s ASB policy says if a resident does not want to follow a case through, it will be closed down and a closure letter sent. As part of the report made on 29 October 2024, the resident said she did not want to give details of the people involved. We recognise that this would have limited what action the landlord could take and may have resulted in the case being closed. However, it should still have discussed the matter with herand considered what support it could offer. If the landlord concluded it was unable to take action, it should have told the resident this and confirmed the outcome in writing, in line with its policy commitment.
We recognise that these ASB reports were made as part an email exchange regarding the resident’s request for a move. While the landlord took action to support the resident with this, it should also have followed its ASB process in relation to the reports and taken action to log and investigate them. Its failure to do so meant it did not act in accordance with its policy and this amounts to maladministration.
When the resident reported further noise nuisance from neighbours as part of her formal complaint in February 2025, the landlord provided diary sheets and asked her to complete these for 2 weeks so it could assess what further action was required. This was sensible and in line with its ASB policy, which says for reports of noise nuisance the landlord will issue diary sheets in the first instance. It says it will tell the resident whether it will open an ASB case or not once the diary sheets have been returned and reviewed.
The resident told the landlord she would not complete the diary sheets, but that she was recording the noise. The landlord agreed to accept these in place of the diary sheets as they would allow it to get an overview of the noise to decide on the best course of action. This was appropriate and showed it was being flexible in its approach.
The resident told the landlord in March and April 2025 that she had recordings to provide, but these were too large to send via email and asked for an alternative way to send them. The landlord replied on 17 April 2025 and told her to upload the evidence to a USB stick and drop it to its offices. This was an unreasonable suggestion that made it difficult for the resident to provide the recordings to it. It placed a financial burden on her to buy a USB stick, and she would have to incur time and trouble to deliver this to the landlord. As it has said it needed these recordings to progress the matter, it should have made it easier for the resident to provide them.
Around 2 weeks later, as part of the stage 2 response, the landlord provided a file sharing website for the resident to send the recordings. This was sensible and showed it was taking her reports seriously and wanted to investigate them. The landlord has told us the resident has not submitted evidence of the noise and so it has been unable to open an ASB case. While frustrating for the resident, this is reasonable and in line with its ASB policy.
We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £150 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of this matter. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has not acknowledged this or put things right.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her kitchen to be replaced
Finding	Maladministration

The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, which includes the kitchen. It is reasonable that the landlord repairs the kitchen, where possible, before considering replacing it. If the kitchen is deemed irreparable, then the landlord is responsible for replacing it.
When the resident told the landlord her kitchen was in poor condition, it arranged an inspection to assess the condition. This was sensible and showed it was taking her concern seriously. The landlord attended on 18 February 2025 and subsequently recommended that the kitchen needed replacement. However, 2 months later, as part of the stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident the operative who had recommended this was not able to make this decision.
It is unclear why the landlord sent this operative to inspect the kitchen if they were unable to decide whether it needed replacement, as it knew this was the primary reason for the visit. The landlord should have sent the appropriate staff member to make this assessment/decision. Its failure to do so meant the resident expended time and trouble giving access for an appointment that was of no benefit and she has said she had to use her limited leave from work to do so. This amounts to maladministration.
As the resident had been told her kitchen needed replacement, it was understandable that she expected this to happen. When the landlord told her this may not, this left her feeling disappointed and let down. This was avoidable, had the landlord sent the correct member of staff to inspect the kitchen in the first instance.
As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised and arranged to reinspect the kitchen. While positive that it did this, it did not offer any other redress and we have seen no evidence that the promised inspection went ahead. This means the landlord did not fully put things right for the resident. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
We order the landlord to pay the resident £125 compensation for the distress and inconvenience of its handling of this matter; and confirm in writing the current position regarding the kitchen replacement, including whether a further inspection is required.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a move
Finding	Service failure

From at least August 2024 the resident has told the landlord she wants to move because of issues impacting her and her son’s mental health. In late 2024, the landlord met with the resident to support her in completing a medical assessment form for the council’s housing register. This was sensible and showed it wanted to help her. It also sought additional information from the council in October 2024 about a delay in it registering new applications. While this delay was frustrating for the resident, this was not attributable to the landlord, as it was a decision made by the council in respect of its housing register.
As part of her complaint, the resident raised concerns about advice the landlord gave her to bid on a bungalow, despite her not being eligible because of her age. The landlord acknowledged there had been miscommunication on this issue, apologised and offered £50 compensation. While frustrating for the resident, it is understandable that miscommunications can happen. Where they do, the landlord should seek to acknowledge the failures and put things right, which it did in this case.
The landlord’s management transfer policy says a management move will be progressed in exceptional circumstances, on the grounds of safety due to a serious risk of harm. It confirms any application will usually be supported by additional evidence from other agencies. The landlord told the resident it would not progress a management move due to the ASBbecause it had not received any evidence that her safety was at risk from the neighbours. This was reasonable, as this type of evidence would normally come from an agency such as the Police, and there is no evidence the landlord had received any evidence of this nature.
The landlord’s management transfer policy also says it will only progress a move where all other options have been considered. In this case, the landlord advised there were a number of other options it could explore to investigate and address the ASB, including tenancy enforcement action; and that it would need to progress these before it could consider a move. This was reasonable and in line with its management transfer policy.
The landlord told the resident it would not move her because of the mould. This is because the landlord’s surveyor had inspected the property and deemed it habitable. This was again reasonable, as the landlord was entitled to rely on its expert’s opinion regarding the condition of the property. Therefore, while frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s decision not to progress a management move for her was reasonable and in line with its management transfer policy.
The resident has said that other neighbours have been moved because of a number of issues and she felt she should be moved also. The landlord’s response to this was that it could not discuss the circumstances of other residents with her due to data protection. It told her if neighbours had been moved, it was because their circumstances were different. This was a reasonable response as all cases should be assessed on their own merits. As we have only investigated the resident’s circumstances, we cannot comment on why neighbours were moved.
The landlord has told us it arranged to meet with the resident in early February 2025 to discuss its management move criteria. The landlord meeting with the resident was sensible to show her it was taking her concerns seriously, and that it wanted to clearly explain its position.
The resident raised concerns about the level of information given by the landlord about its management move process during this meeting, particularly in relation to the supporting evidence required. The landlord has not provided a formal record of this meeting, so we have not seen specific details of what was discussed and so cannot fully assess the resident’s concerns. Whatever was discussed during the meeting, it would have been sensible for the landlord to confirm its position in writing. The landlord did not do this until it responded to the stage 1 complaint. Had it done so sooner, this would have provided clarity on its position and may have prevented the resident’s dissatisfaction.
While the landlord told the resident the criteria for a management move and that supporting evidence was required, we have seen no evidence that it explained what this needed to be or what agencies it was referring to. This would have been helpful for the resident to understand what additional evidence was required and why she did not meet the criteria.
As the resident had provided medical letters supporting the need for her to be rehoused, it is understandable that she believed she had met the criteria and was left disappointed when she was told she did not. Had the landlord given more detail about the type of evidence required, this could have been avoided. This was a communication failure that caused detriment to the resident. However, as it did not affect the overall outcome, this was a minor failure.
The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered £50 compensation. This was in relation to the miscommunication regarding the resident bidding on a bungalow only. As we have identified a further communication failure, the redress offered was not quite proportionate to the failings identified, and so a finding of service failure is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident for the additional communication failure and pay her £100 compensation (inclusive of the £50 already offered, if not done so).

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rubbish in communal areas
Finding	Service failure

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about rubbish in communal areas in its stage 1 response only. The record of the phone call in which the resident asked to escalate her complaint does not include any reference to this matter. This suggests it was not part of the reasons she wanted to escalate the complaint.
However, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint acknowledgement listed “continual presence of rubbish in the communal external areas” as a reason the complaint was escalated. It is not clear if this was included in error, or if the resident had raised this as a concern and the landlord failed to properly record this in the call note. Either way, the landlord set the expectation that it would include this issue within its stage 2 review and so should have done so. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not address this issue, but as it had the opportunity to do so, we have included this as part of our investigation.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said it was aware of the rubbish problems and had removed a large number of items via additional collections. It advised this issue was caused by residents misusing the bins and dumping items. The landlord said it was “consistently addressing” this, but it is not clear what this meant as it gave no further explanation on specific actions taken. This communication failure was disappointing for the resident and left her feeling the landlord had not taken her concerns seriously.
The landlord has subsequently told us that it had sent letters to all residents, put posters in communal bin areas and increased communal cleaning from monthly to fortnightly. All of these were sensible actions to take to address the resident’s concerns. However, there is no record it told the resident it had done these things. This lack of communication amounts to service failure and we order the landlord to apologise and pay her £75 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for minor failures which did not affect the overall outcome for the resident.
The resident has told us there are ongoing problems with rubbish in communal areas. We order the landlord to write to her confirming what actions it is taking/will take to address this, with timescales for completion. This should include the frequency of cleaning/ litter picking/ inspections and whether it will send reminder letters to residents and place posters in communal areas.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct
Finding	Service failure

For complaints about staff conduct, we will not investigate the conduct of staff as this is for the landlord to do. We will assess how the landlord investigated and responded, and whether this was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord addressed the resident’s complaint about staff conduct in its stage 1 response only. It has told us this was because the resident did not raise this concern as part of her stage 2 escalation request. From the records we have seen, there is no mention of the staff conduct concerns in the note of the escalation phone call. However, again, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint acknowledgement listed staff conduct as a reason the complaint was escalated. Therefore, the landlord set the expectation that it would include this within its stage 2 review. The landlord did not make reference to this in the stage 2 response, despite having the opportunity to do so. Therefore, we have included this matter as part of our investigation.
The resident raised concerns about staff conduct during a home visit in early February 2025. While the landlord acknowledged the concerns in the stage 1 response, it did not say if, or how, it had investigated this. The landlord has subsequently told us the concerns were investigated, but it had not followed the correct process.
Regardless of the process it followed, the landlord failed to properly feedback to the resident. This was disappointing for her and left her feeling the landlord had not taken the concerns seriously. This amounts to service failure and we order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £75 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for minor failures which did not affect the overall outcome for the resident.
When investigating staff conduct complaints, it is important that a landlord reviews its records of the contact or action that led to the complaint. In this case, we have seen no record of the home visit in early February 2025 that led to the complaint. This is a concern as a lack of detailed records will impact the landlord, and our, ability to fully investigate complaints. We order the landlord to provide guidance to all front line staff on the importance of recording all contacts with residents.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints in 5 working days. It will respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 11 February 2025, 4 working days after the complaint was made. It sent the response 10 working days later, on 24 February 2025. Both of these were sent in line with the timescales set out in its policy.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 28 February 2025, 5 working days after the complaint was made. This was in line with the committed timescale set out in its policy. The stage 2 response was sent 41 working days later, on 29 April 2025. While this was over the 20 working day committed response time, the landlord told the resident on 26 March 2025, that it had extended the deadline. This was reasonable and in line with its policy, which said if it needed more time to respond to a complaint, it would tell the resident.
The landlord said it would send the stage 2 response by 25 April 2025, but it did not send this until 2 working days later. As this was a short delay, this was a minor failure. However, considering the landlord had already extended the deadline, it was disappointing for the resident that it did not keep to its commitment and sent the response late. This left her feeling it was not taking the complaint seriously.
From the records provided, it is not clear when the resident raised the complaint about rubbish in communal areas as this is not included in the notes of the initial complaint phone call, or the stage 1 acknowledgement phone call. However, this is noted in the stage 1 acknowledgement.
Similarly, the landlord did not note that the rubbish issue or staff conduct concerns were raised as part of the stage 2 escalation, but again, noted these in the stage 2 acknowledgement. It is not clear if these arerecord keepingerrorsfrom the landlord not recording details of issues discussed; or if the landlord included issues within the acknowledgements that were not discussed. Either way, this was a failure that led to confusion and the possible unnecessary inclusion and escalation of issues in the complaint process.
The resident said she first reported the damp and mould in 2021, but the landlord had only investigated the matter from 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will not accept a complaint where the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred more than 12 months ago. It will apply discretion and may accept complaints made outside of the 12 months where there is good reason to do so.
The landlord extended the scope from 12 months to around 24 months, which was reasonable considering the circumstances. It was not obligated to extend the scope further to 2021, as it was the landlord’s discretion to do so, and it can be challenging for landlord’s to investigate historic matters. That would have been particularly relevant in this case as there had been a merger between the resident’s original landlord and her current one in 2023.
The resident has told us she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her complaint as she does not feel it has addressed the impact on her mental health. As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident it could not assess the impact on her health as this needed to be raised as a personal injury claim via its insurer. This was reasonable and in line with its compensation procedure, which says any claims the landlord’s actions have impacted a resident’s health should be dealt with as a personal injury claim, outside of its complaints process. For similar reasons, we cannot determine that there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. We suggest the resident raises this with the landlord’s insurer, if she wishes to pursue this further.
The complaint handling failures identified are minor, over a short duration and did not have a significant effect on the overall outcome. Therefore, these amount to service failure. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £60 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance and is reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused by the identified failures.

Learning

If ASB reports are made as part of communication about another matter, for example a move request or formal complaint, the landlord must act on these in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure.
When dealing with damp and mould, it is vital to not only treat the problem, but identify and address the underlying cause. This will ensure the action being taken has the best chance of successfully resolving the problem in the long-term.
It is good practice for landlords to proactively follow up with residents several months after works are completed to address damp and mould, to check these have resolved the problem and it has not reoccurred. The landlord did that in this case.
The landlord must ensure it sends the correct member of staff to assess and determine whether a kitchen needs replacement.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord must ensure staff are keeping accurate, detailed records of all contacts with residents.
When taking initial complaints and escalation requests over the phone, the landlord must ensure these include all points of complaint and the subsequent complaint acknowledgement must accurately reflect the issues of complaint. If any matters dealt with at stage 1 are not escalated to stage 2, the landlord should consider stating this in the acknowledgement.

Communication

The landlord should make sure it clearly explains what evidence is required in respect of management transfers, so residents can understand the criteria and why they might not meet this.
The landlord must feedback to residents on actions taken or conclusions reached. It is not enough to simply take actions, as the resident does not automatically know this has happened so it should tell the resident what it has done and why. This reassures residents that the landlord is taking their concerns seriously.