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 (202332051)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332051

Aster Group Limited

27 August 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 resident’s complaint is about the installation of fire safety measures, and the landlord’s communication with the resident around fire safety concerns.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder under a shared ownership scheme, and they have held the lease since the property was newly built in 2021. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom mid terrace house.
  2. In September 2023 the property was struck by lightning. The energy from the lightning strike created a fire which caused significant damage to the property and the neighbouring properties. The resident said the speed in which the fire spread caused them to become concerned about the build quality of the property, and the wider development.
  3. On 23 September 2023 the resident contacted the property’s developer to express concerns about the property’s build quality. The developer referred this email to the landlord. Upon reviewing the resident’s email the landlord decided on 29 September 2023 that it would handle the resident’s concerns as a complaint.
  4. In its stage one response dated 23 October 2023 the landlord said:
    1. It was sorry for what the resident was going through and the significant impact the lightning strike had on them.
    2. When the landlord works with developers it follows established ways of working to ensure safety standards. Regarding the resident’s property the following steps had been taken to ensure the property was built in line with building standards:
      1. The landlord and developer had agreed on contracts which ensured the properties built on the development were compliant with building standards and were legally compliant.
      2. The National House Building Council (NHBC) had approved the drawings of the property and issued a building control certificate.
      3. During the build process an NHBC surveyor had attended the property and was satisfied with the quality of the building’s construction.
      4. The building was issued with a robust details document which confirmed the developer built the property in accordance with standard design for party walls between dwellings.
      5. Independent surveyors had issued a certificate of practical completion as they were satisfied that any defects identified had been resolved within 12 months of the build completion.
      6. Clerks of works inspections had occurred throughout the build process.
    3. It had identified no evidence to suggest there was any non-compliance with building standards throughout the build process.
    4. It had reviewed the fire service’s report of what occurred, and this report highlighted no concerns with any building fabric issues.
    5. It felt it was reasonable for the developer to refer the resident’s email to the landlord, as the resident had a contractual relationship with the landlord and not the developer.
  5. The resident escalated their complaint on 5 November 2023 as they felt the landlord had not addressed their concerns around the installation of firewalls. The resident also said they wanted to be compensated for the stress, anxiety and frustration they had experienced.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response dated 30 November 2023 the landlord said:
    1. It again expressed how sorry it was for what the resident had been through.
    2. The landlord’s Fire Risk Team Leader had visited the property after the lightning strike to assess the interior of the property. They did not identify any building fabric issues.
    3. The purpose of fire measures is to slow the progression of a fire, they are designed to allow occupants the time to safely evacuate a building.
    4. It acknowledged that the resident felt its stage one response was a tick box exercise. However, it noted the documents referred to several professionals who had assessed the property.
    5. The resident had asked for safety inspections to occur on the estate. While it did not believe there were any deficiencies in the build quality of the estate, the landlord would conduct inspections to reassure concerned neighbours.
  7. On 5 January 2024 the resident brought their complaint to this Service as they felt the landlord had handled their concerns poorly and they wanted evidence of the fire safety measures used in the property.

Assessment and findings

The installation of fire safety measures, and the landlord’s communication with the resident around fire safety concerns.

  1. The Building Regulations Approved Document B dated 2019 outlines standards for newbuild properties when it comes to fire safety. Under this document properties are required to be built in a manner which inhibits the spread of fire within a building. The document says that materials used should adequately resist the spread of flames on surfaces and, if ignited, the rate of fire growth should be reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The property was built by a developer between 2020 and 2021, and the landlord had oversight of this process. On 25 February 2021 the property was completed, at this point the resident would have been able to move into the property.
  3. The landlord has supplied this service with documentary evidence from the build process which indicates that the property was built in line with building standards in place at the time. These include:
    1. A certificate of compliance for walls and flooring in the property.
    2. The NHBC building control final certificate.
  4. The landlord has also supplied details of how the separating walls of the property were built and the materials used. The materials used in the party walls were designed to prevent thermal bypass. The use of this material was reasonable when considering the content of The Building Regulations Approved Document B.
  5. The resident has told this Service that when the property was struck by lightning, they managed to escape from the property and call the fire services at 12:18 am. The property was fully engulfed by flames at 12:32 am. Undoubtedly this would be an extremely distressing experience for the resident and the Ombudsman has sympathy for what the resident has been through.
  6. The resident was concerned with how quickly the property became engulfed by the fire, so they contacted the developer to express concern. The developer directed the resident’s concerns to the landlord and the landlord decided to deal with this as a complaint. This was a reasonable approach to take.
  7. As the resident was expressing concern that there were deficiencies in the fire safety measures in the properties on the development, the landlord arranged for inspections of the neighbouring properties to occur. This was reasonable and appropriate. The inspections found all relevant properties had been built in line with fire safety standards.
  8. In its stage one response dated 23 October 2023 the landlord provided the resident with a detailed response outlining inspections and certifications which occurred during the build period which showed the property was built in line with regulations. This response was appropriate, and it directly related to the resident’s concerns.
  9. The resident escalated their complaint as they felt the landlord had not provided evidence that there was a firewall built into the property. Although the landlord had provided evidence that the property was built in line with building standards, it had not referred to ‘firewalls’ which was a term the resident had used in their complaint. It also did not refer directly to ‘firewalls’ at stage 2. It would have been an improvement for the landlord to directly address this and to link the term ‘firewalls’ into its findings about building regulations/standards.
  10. In its stage 2 response the landlord said its Fire Risk Team Leader had visited the property after the fire and could find no evidence of building fabric issues. It said the professional opinion of the Fire Risk Team Leader was that the enormous energy from the lightning strike would have caused the rapid expansion of the fire.
  11. The landlord also outlined that the purpose of fire safety measures is to slow the growth of a fire to allow for occupants to escape. This explanation was reasonable and accurate when considering the content of The Building Regulations Approved Document B.
  12. The Ombudsman has determined that throughout the landlord’s internal complaint procedures it provided the resident with accurate and detailed information which directly addressed the resident’s concerns, and it offered the resident sympathy for what they had been through. Additionally, the evidence supplied to this Service, the inspections of neighbouring homes and the advice from the landlord’s fire team leader do not indicate there were any deficiencies in the fire prevention measures installed in the property. As such the Ombudsman has determined that no maladministration occurred.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines the timescales in which it will respond to a complaint. The landlord commits to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days, and to provide its stage one response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If the resident wishes for their complaint to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint, the landlord will acknowledge this request within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
  2. The landlord was sent the resident’s email by the developer on 29 September 2023, and it acknowledged the complaint 5 working days later. This was appropriate.
  3. The landlord provided its stage one response 14 working days after the acknowledgement. The landlord’s policy says it will provide stage one responses within 10 working days. In this instance the landlord’s stage one response was highly detailed and it contained documents from throughout the build process which the landlord would have required time to locate and review. As such the Ombudsman finds this response time acceptable. However, it would have been better customer service for the landlord to let the resident know its stage one reply might be delayed.
  4. The landlord acted in accordance with its complaints policy at stage 2. This was appropriate.
  5. While there was a slight delay at stage one, this did not cause any significant detriment to the resident. As such the Ombudsman has made a finding of no maladministration in relation the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s communication with the resident around fire safety concerns.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.