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.

Aster Group Limited (202325757)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325757

Aster Group Limited

5 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property following a mutual exchange.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident’s tenancy at the property began on 18 September 2023. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident made a complaint on 9 October 2023. They were unhappy with the condition of the property and the landlord’s handling of repairs since 18 September 2023. They said they had not yet been able to move into the property.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 November 2023. It set out the repairs it had completed. It said it would attend on 13 November 2023 to assess what further repairs were needed. It offered £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience. It said it would also reimburse the resident for rent and other costs they had incurred due to not being able to move in.
  4. On the same day (9 November 2023) the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. They remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs.
  5. The landlord issued its final response on 8 December 2023. It apologised the resident had not been able to move into the property. It said it would complete the agreed repairs to allow the resident to move in on 22 December 2023. It arranged an inspection for 9 January 2024 to allow it and its contractor to assess any further required repairs. It offered £5,227.48 in compensation. This comprised £1,400 for distress and inconvenience, with the remaining £3,827.48 being to cover costs incurred by the resident since 18 September 2023.
  6. On 1 November 2024 the resident confirmed they wanted us to investigate their complaint. They said there were still outstanding repairs in their property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us they still have outstanding issues in their property. These include a leaking roof, rising damp in a bathroom which has damaged the MDF skirting board, delays in removing cavity wall insulation, and issues with the windows. These all appear to be new issues that have occurred after the landlord’s final response of 8 December 2023.
  2. Our Scheme states that we may not consider matters that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. The landlord has told us it has 2 open complaints for the resident. The information it has provided indicates these complaints relate to the leaking roof, damp in the bathroom, and cavity wall insulation issues. Any concerns about the landlord’s handling of new matters relating to the windows would need to be raised as a new complaint to the landlord. Following the landlord’s investigations and final responses the resident could escalate these matters to us if they remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
  3. This investigation will only consider the matters that have been investigated and responded to by the landlord in its stage 1 response of 9 November 2023 and final response of 8 December 2023.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property following a mutual exchange

  1. A “mutual exchange” is an arrangement where social housing tenants who want to move can swap properties. The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 6 July 2023. The form used by the landlord to record this inspection makes it clear that the survey is not intrusive and any findings are based solely on a visual inspection. It also makes it clear the landlord will not move any items (such as furniture or floor coverings) or fully inspect the loft space. The inspection conducted by the landlord was in line with its Mutual Exchange policy.
  2. The inspection identified several repairs that were the landlord’s responsibility, but there was no evidence of any significant issues with the property.
  3. On 24 July 2023 the landlord sent the resident a ‘Mutual exchange disclaimer’. This explained the limitations of the inspection and detailed the repairs it would carry out before the mutual exchange completed. It also included a copy of the completed mutual exchange inspection form for their new property. The resident signed both the disclaimer and inspection form on 25 July 2023.
  4. The landlord’s records shows it completed most of the identified repairs before 18 September 2023. The only outstanding repairs were to an outhouse in the property’s rear garden. The landlord said it would repair a window and replace some boarding on the gable wall.
  5. The resident gained access to the property on 18 September 2023 and reported issues they had found to the landlord. The landlord attended the same day to make safe exposed electrical wiring for an oven. It also arranged to carry out an inspection on 20 September 2023.
  6. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord’s inspection and subsequent works prior to the exchange of the property deviated from what its policies required it to do. There is no evidence it failed to identify any repair issue present, given the level, extent, and the limitations of the inspection it was required to conduct before the exchange of the property. The evidence suggests the landlord’s pre-exchange actions were appropriate.
  7. The landlord attended on 29 September 2023 and completed most of the identified repairs. Its operative reported back that a leak under the kitchen sink was worse than the landlord had previously noted. The leak had damaged the under-sink cupboard beyond repair. The operative formed the view there was a possibility the leak had spread across the kitchen floor and a plumber would need to shut off the water and repair the leak. A container had been placed to collect the leaking water. They also said there was a possible woodworm infestation and that some underfloor joists would need to be replaced. They were unable to complete the repair to the outhouse as it would need two people and additional equipment.
  8. The landlord attended on 2 October 2023 to repair guttering and fix the under-sink leak. Its plumber was unable to complete the repair and identified a specialist contractor would be needed. The contractor attended the following day (3 October 2023) and replaced the leaking pipework.
  9. The landlord treated the property for woodworm on 5 October 2023. Its operative reported the floors were in overall good condition, but that 2 floorboards near the front door needed to be replaced.
  10. The landlord’s repair policy says that where there is a situation that has the potential to endanger life or cause major damage it will make it safe within 4 hours. It will complete the repair within 24 hours. It will complete non-emergency repairs within 20 working days. It will complete planned one-off repairs or a defect that is larger in nature within 60 days.
  11. As the landlord had been able to contain the under-sink leak on 29 September 2023, it is reasonable to assume the repair to the pipework would not be an emergency repair. Therefore, the evidence shows the landlord’s actions between 18 September 2023 and 5 October 2023 to inspect the property and carry out repairs were conducted in line with its policy.
  12. On 6 October 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. They said:
    1. They had been unable to move into the property due to repairs being needed.
    2. The landlord had carried out some repairs but there were still outstanding matters.
    3. They were concerned the leak in the kitchen may have damaged the wood floor (under the floor coverings) and said the landlord should investigate this.
    4. The landlord had told them on 2 October 2023 it would refund the rent they had already paid and suspend future rent until it had rectified the major issues.
    5. They wanted the landlord to complete all the repairs needed and refund/suspend their rent.
  13. On 9 October 2023 the resident reported the pipework in the kitchen was still leaking. The landlord’s records show its specialist contractor attended the same day. The contractor found that its previous fix had caused the remaining fittings on the original pipework to begin leaking. It said it would replace the leaking pipework.
  14. The evidence shows the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports from 9 October 2023 and its handling of this repair was in line with its repair policy.
  15. On 10 and 17 October 2023 the landlord carried out further inspections at the resident’s property. The landlord’s records indicate the first inspection had identified it would be necessary to use a contractor to complete the necessary building repairs. The second inspection was to allow the landlord and contractor to view the property together and discuss the required repairs. The works order for the second inspection shows the contractor had agreed to provide a quote.
  16. On 26 October 2023 the landlord told the resident it required additional time to investigate their complaint. It explained it was waiting to hear from its contractor about possible start dates and how long the works would take.
  17. On the same day the landlord attended the resident’s property to replace a light fitting in a bathroom. Its records show during the visit the resident notified its operative about exposed wiring for a previously fitted outdoor light. The operative found the wiring was live and made it safe. They reported they had contained the wiring in trunking. There is no clear evidence the landlord was, or ought to have been, aware of this wiring before the resident told it. Its handling of making the wiring safe was in line with its repair policy.
  18. On 31 October 2023 the landlord’s building contractor provided its quote and proposed a start date of 13 November 2023. It noted it was unsure what the full extent of the required repairs may be and it would adapt as repairs progressed. On 6 November 2023 the landlord arranged to meet the contractor at the property on 13 November 2022. This was to carry out a more intrusive inspection (its records note it intended to “open up floors”) to agree the needed repairs.
  19. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 November 2023. It provided a list of issues that had been identified since 18 September 2023. It explained what repairs it had carried out to date and what further repairs it intended to do. It apologised that the resident had needed to report so many issues since they had taken over the tenancy and that they had been unable to move in. It said it had spoken to the resident about alternative accommodation but understood they wanted to continue the arrangements they had at the time, which was to stay with relatives. The landlord said it would make arrangements to temporarily store the resident’s belongings.
  20. The landlord offered £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience. It explained it would reimburse reasonable rent and charges the resident had incurred but would rather determine these after the inspection on 13 November 2023. It said this was because the inspection would allow it to better understand the extent of the further repairs that were required.
  21. The landlord’s stage 1 response was clear about the actions it had taken and acknowledged where it felt it had failed to provide an adequate level of service. The evidence shows the landlord had provided all the information it had available to it at the time of its response. The landlord’s complaint policy says any extension to provide a stage 1 response should not exceed 10 working days. As the landlord had already taken an additional 10 working days, it would not have been appropriate for it to have further delayed the response. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with its response as was and with the information it had available to it.
  22. On the same day (9 November 2023) the resident requested the landlord escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. They said they did not feel the landlord had addressed or appropriately answered the issues they had raised. They disputed some of the dates and reference numbers the landlord had outlined in its stage 1 response. They also said information in the stage 1 response contradicted other information the landlord had given them. They outlined the repairs they considered were still outstanding and reiterated that they wanted the landlord to complete them.
  23. The resident disputed they had said they wanted to stay with relatives as was said to have been the case by the landlord. They said the landlord had told them there was no alternative accommodation in the area. The resident said, due to school and work commitments, this had left them with no option but to stay with relatives.
  24. The resident said the offered compensation was too low. They said they also wanted the landlord to reimburse them and their relatives for costs they had incurred since 18 September 2023.
  25. The landlord’s records confirm it attended the resident’s property on 13 November 2023 and agreed what repairs the building contractor would complete. This inspection also identified tiles in the kitchen and bathroom that may have contained asbestos.
  26. The landlord contacted the resident on 17 November 2023. It explained its focus when investigating the stage 2 complaint was to allow the resident to move into the property before Christmas. It said this may mean it carried out temporary repairs in the interim period, with permanent repairs taking place in the new year.
  27. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to focus on doing necessary repairs to ensure the resident was able to move into the property as soon as was possible. This is because the resident told the landlord they wanted to be able to spend Christmas in the property with their family. The landlord’s approach is evidence it was taking the resident’s complaint seriously, trying to minimise the impact on the resident and looking to resolve the issues while taking into account the resident’s personal circumstances.
  28. There was a delay in the contractor starting the repairs. The evidence indicates this was due to the need to remove the tiles where it was suspected asbestos was present. On 1 December 2023 the landlord told the resident this would take place on 4 and 5 December 2023. The contractor would then complete all the repairs needed to allow the resident to move in. The landlord said it was aiming to complete the repairs by 15 December 2023.
  29. There is no evidence the landlord could have reasonably carried out the removal of the asbestos material sooner or that the delay incurred was avoidable.
  30. The landlord issued its final response on 8 December 2023. It apologised for the delays in getting the resident into the property. It acknowledged there were some outstanding repairs, but it had focused on allowing the resident to move in. It said it had discussed with the resident that it was aiming for them to be able to move in on 22 December 2023. It said, by that date, it would have completed all the repairs needed to make the property usable and free of any health and safety issues. It explained it had arranged an inspection on 9 January 2024 to assess what further repairs were needed.
  31. It offered £5,227.48 in compensation. This comprised:
    1. £1,797.48 to cover bills and travel costs for 3 months.
    2. £1,980 to cover costs incurred while staying with relatives.
    3. £1,400 for distress and inconvenience. This included the £200 from stage 1.
    4. £50 to the resident’s costs in removing an item from their previous property. The resident had said this should have been the landlord’s responsibility.
  32. Following its final response, the evidence indicates the landlord inspected the property on 9 January 2024. It carried out further inspections and repairs during 2024. Its repair records show it instructed at least 2 additional contractors to carry out repairs, along with the building contractor already working at the property. The evidence shows by 22 November 2024 the landlord had completed the repairs necessary to resolve the matters raised by the resident’s complaint.
  33. In summary, the evidence shows that the landlord did take steps to address and resolve the resident’s concerns. It is not disputed that it did not complete all the required repairs within its repair policy timescales. It acknowledged and apologised for the length of time taken for the resident being able to move into the property.
  34. The evidence shows the landlord was taking actions throughout what was a prolonged period where the resident was unable to move into the property. It is clear the repairs required in the resident’s property were extensive. The landlord’s decision to carry out inspections before raising repairs was in line with its repair policy. It was reasonable for it to want to understand the full extent of required repairs and how that changed as matters progressed.
  35. Delays to complete repairs after the final response appear to have been caused by the landlord having to coordinate at least 3 separate contractors. There were also additional repairs being identified and agreed upon while the works already identified were progressing. There is insufficient evidence on which we could reasonably conclude that the landlord had unduly delayed in carrying out the repairs. There is also insufficient evidence to indicate it could have completed all the required repairs significantly earlier than it had done.
  36. When a failure is identified, as in this case, 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 take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  37. The landlord has conducted the necessary repairs following the resident’s reports. It has admitted delays and explained these throughout its complaints process. The landlord made an offer of compensation which, when assessed using our remedies guidance, would be awarded where failures have occurred over a significant period and have resulted in a significant impact upon the resident. As such, we assess the landlord’s offer of compensation to be proportionate to its failings and that it satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
  38. For these reasons, this leads to a determination of reasonable redress for its handling of repairs to the resident’s property following a mutual exchange.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of repairs to the resident’s property following a mutual exchange.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that, if the landlord has not already done so, it pays the resident the £5,227.48 compensation offered in its final complaint response.