Aster Group Limited (202336098)

Decision
Case ID	202336098
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Aster Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 November 2025

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom house. It was built in July 2022 and the resident was the first occupant in August 2022. The developer remained involved as the property was under warranty.
2. The resident no longer lives in the property. He mutually exchanged to another property in July 2024. The resident and his partner were joint tenants and both were involved in the complaints process. For ease, both parties are referred to as ‘the resident’.

What the complaint is about

3. The landlord’s handling of reports of heat loss.
4. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of reports of heat loss.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

7. There were unreasonable delays in repairs regarding heat loss, but the landlord has paid compensation for its failures in line with our remedies guidance.
8. There was a delay in the landlord’s complaint response.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident directly £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused by its delayed stage 1 response.	No later than 18 December 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 October 2023	The resident had made a previous complaint about cold and draughts coming through gaps in the windows and doors in April 2023. The landlord paid him £500 compensation. The resident raised a new complaint as the issues had not been resolved.
23 November 2023	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It said it would raise the windows and doors with the developer, and inspect the insulation. It offered £850 compensation (£300 for the delay in resolving the windows and doors, £250 towards heating costs due to the cold draughts, and £300 for inconvenience and stress caused).
8 December 2023	The resident escalated the complaint as the issues were not resolved.
15 January 2023	The landlord gave its stage 2 response. It said works had been raised for repairs to the insulation, door and windows. It offered £100 additional compensation for the ongoing delay.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the repairs remained outstanding and he was unhappy with the compensation offered due to the impact of the cold temperatures on his son’s health.

 

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 reports of heat loss
Finding	Reasonable redress

9. The building developer was responsible for defects in the property as it was a new build under warranty. The developer is referred to for context only. As the developer is not a member of our Scheme we cannot make determinations about its actions. Instead, we have investigated the actions of the landlord and its obligations to the resident. This includes its communication with the developer and the resident.
10. The resident noticed the draughts and cold temperature soon after moving in. Internal communication shows the landlord telling the developer about the necessary repairs to doors and windows in November and December 2022. This was addressed in the April 2023 complaint. The fact the resident had cause to complain for a second time, in October 2023, about the outstanding repairs was unfair.
11. A survey in November 2023 found the windows were not closing properly and the front door had gaps. The landlord correctly passed these issues to the developer, which was still responsible for repairs under the warranty and defect process. The landlord’s ability to directly resolve the issue was limited, but it still had an obligation to the resident. At the point the resident moved out in July 2024, these repairs were still outstanding. This delay of 8 months was unacceptable.
12. There is evidence the landlord contacted the developer on numerous occasions to arrange the repairs and confirm appointments. This was positive and showed it understood its role to liaise for the resident. The developer’s responses were not always helpful. According to the landlord’s defect resolution process, it should give the developer timeframes to complete work. If the developer does not respond, the landlord’s own contractors should complete the work.
13. While there were some responses from the developer, the repairs were not resolved. The resident and his family suffered the cold draughts for an unreasonable amount of time. Such time had passed that the landlord had an obligation to consider completing the repairs itself. It could have done this to resolve the issue more quickly for the resident, but failed to do so.
14. The resident reports that the cold temperatures caused ill health for his young son, including hospital visits for chest infections and pneumonia. The resident and his partner also suffered emotional distress. The landlord correctly referred them to its liability insurers in the stage 1 response. This was in accordance with its compensation policy, which says all claims for injury or ill health will be dealt with via a personal injury claim through its insurers. We do not order compensation for injury or medical issues and cannot determine insurance matters. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice regarding this.
15. During the complaints process the landlord acknowledged the failings identified in this report and paid the resident £950 compensation (not including the £500 from the earlier complaint). It paid a further £250 compensation on 17 June 2024 for the ongoing delays and distress. The sum paid during the complaints process is in line with our remedies guidance for failure that has caused significant time, trouble and stress.
16. The landlord did chase the developer, which was ultimately responsible, for resolution, but failed in its obligation to the resident. While positive the landlord accepted responsibility and acknowledged the detriment to the resident, it was disappointing the repairs remained unresolved. Had the resident not left the property, we would have ordered the landlord to complete repairs given the unreasonable time passed without progress.
17. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which 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 therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not find maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
18. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the reports of heat loss. It accepted its failures in its obligation to the resident and paid fair and reasonable compensation. As we have evidence of the sum already being paid, there are no recommendations regarding this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

19. The stage 1 response was issued 24 working days after the complaint was made. This was longer than the landlord’s target of 10 working days. The response detailed the outcome of a survey that happened during the response period. It made sense for the response to be given after the survey, but it was 10 working days later. While not excessive, it was still a delay that added to the stress and inconvenience felt by the resident. The landlord should have informed the resident of an extension to the response time to manage expectations.
20. The stage 2 response was given 23 working days after escalation. This was only slightly over the landlord’s 20 working day target, so any impact was minimal.
21. Due to the delay in the stage 1 response, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay directly to the resident £50 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a minor failure of short duration that did not affect the substantive issue.

Learning

22. Where substantive issues are the responsibility of another party, the landlord should remain aware of its obligation to residents. It should consider the action it can take to meet this.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. There were sufficient records for this investigation.