Aster Group Limited (202341575)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341575

Aster Group Limited

7 October 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 approach to moving the resident to alternative accommodation after reports of damp and mould at the property.

Background

2. At the time of the complaint the resident was a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is the leaseholder for the property, but not the freeholder. The property is a 1-bedroom flat which is part of a wider development of flats. His child sometimes stayed with him there.
3. On 25 October 2022 the resident reported damp and mould to the landlord. The landlord arranged an inspection but before this went ahead, the resident moved to a hotel offered by the landlord on 21 November 2022. He and his child stayed there until 30 January 2023, when they moved to further temporary accommodation, this time, a bungalow.
4. On 15 December 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He said it had ignored his earlier reports of damp and mould and failed to support him financially during the moves between properties. He also said he had been taken to court to pay council tax that was its responsibility.
5. In a phone call on 22 December 2023, the resident added to his complaint. The landlord recorded that he said he could not return to his home as it was a 1-bedroom flat and he was now the full-time carer for his child. He said it had failed to support him finding a new home and that personal items had been damaged by mould.
6. On 9 January 2024 the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It said it would cover the costs associated with the moves and provide help with moving furniture to a new property.
7. The landlord also apologised for the confusion around council tax liability. It accepted that it had not supported the resident in the moves in accordance with its policy. It offered £250 to recognise the inconvenience and distress he had felt. It offered a further £200 as a good will payment for the loss of personal belongings but did not accept that it had ignored earlier reports about damp and mould.
8. On 24 February 2024 the landlord issued a notice to the resident seeking possession (NTQ) of the temporary accommodation. This meant he had to leave by 24 March 2024.
9. The landlord recorded that the resident asked to escalate his complaint on 27 February 2024. The resident expressed “deep dismay” that the landlord had served a NTQ before the complaints process had finished and said he had repeatedly told it how unhappy he was with the resolution offered at stage 1.
10. The resident moved permanently on 8 March 2024. His new tenancy is with a different landlord.
11. On 14 March 2024 the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It said the resident had agreed to accept a compensation payment of £3105 to settle this (and other) complaints.
12. The resident said he wanted the Ombudsman to investigate, saying the main element of his complaint was that the landlord handled the moves to alternative accommodation poorly. He said his mental health had been affected.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

13. Throughout the complaint and in communication with the Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. As this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts, it will not be considered in this report.
14. Following his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident has contacted us to say that the landlord contacted the police causing his wrongful arrest. He has also said that he had a number of other complaints with the landlord that he wanted us to investigate and that the landlord delayed paying him the agreed compensation. These are matters which fall outside of the concerns raised in this complaint and what we have investigated under this complaint reference. If the resident complains to the landlord and remains unhappy with its response, he can return to the Ombudsman.
15. The resident has also told the Ombudsman that, because of the landlord’s errors, a wrongful judgment was entered against him by the court. As he did not pursue this to the end of the complaint’s process, if this issue remains outstanding, he would need to complain to the landlord again, returning to the Ombudsman if he remains unhappy with its response.

The landlord’s approach to moving the resident to alternative accommodation after reports of damp and mould at the property.

16. The landlord’s response to damp and mould was in line with its policy. After his first report it arranged an inspection and, because it was aware of other issues at the block, offered to accommodate the resident elsewhere while repairs were completed. However, before this inspection could take place, the resident moved to the hotel. It recorded that it could not gain access. As the resident and his child had been moved away from any potential risk and as the landlord paid for the hotel, this was a reasonable response.
17. The resident was aggrieved, however, that he had to spend Christmas at the hotel. The landlord failed to address this in its complaint response.  However, the records show that it fitted carpets at the bungalow on 19 December 2022. On 13 January 2023 it emailed, apologising for not answering his calls about the proposed move, explaining that final electrical checks were being completed on that day. The timing of the resident’s stay appears to be due to the nature and circumstances of the matter rather than any omission by the landlord.
18. The evidence shows there were gaps in communication about the move. However, it also shows that the landlord was taking steps to make the bungalow safe and comfortable. It took 2 months between his move from to property to find an alternative property, and to put carpets in, carry out safety checks and for him to move in. There was no unreasonable delay in preparing the bungalow for occupation.
19. The resident told this service that he was “left in limbo” while he was living in the bungalow. In emails to the landlord, particularly in February 2024, he said that the landlord had failed to contact him throughout the period, apart from one or two calls. The landlord responded that officers had been in regular contact with him.
20. There is no evidence to support regular contact was made after moving the bungalow in January 2023 and September 2023. However, the landlord has accepted that its communication fell below its service standard and that its failings impacted on the resident’s wellbeing, offering £250 for the inconvenience and distress its failings had caused him. This sum was a reasonable acknowledgement of the inconvenience and distress caused, and in line with our remedies guidance at the time it was offered.
21. The landlord said the resident contacted it in September 2023 about moving to a 2-bedroom property permanently. The communications between the resident and the landlord after September 2023 show the resident considered the landlord was trying to push him to return to his home. He thought this was wrong. He said it had not been surveyed for damp. Further, he said he now needed a second bedroom for his son.
22. The landlord said that if there were issues with his home, he could report them and it would deal with them. It offered to survey the property. While it is not clear why a survey of the property was not completed at an earlier stage or at least before suggesting that the resident return, this was an appropriate offer to ease the resident’s concerns.
23. The records show that the landlord only considered asking the resident to move back as a last resort. It worked to avoid that option, liaising with the local council to try and find a property that the resident considered suitable. It was not until after he had refused the offer of another property that it told him, in November 2023, that he could not stay at the bungalow “indefinitely”. Reasonably, it explained that with every week that went by, his home sat empty and the bungalow that could be used for someone with level access needs, was not available.
24. The resident complained about the lack of financial support for the various moves. During the complaints process, the landlord said it had paid for his hotel stay and for carpets at the bungalow.
25. However, the landlord failed to offer assistance with the move to the bungalow. It accepted during the complaints process that this was not in line with its decants policy. It offered to cover those costs, remedying that error. It also said it would cover the costs of the move and other reasonable moving costs. This and its acknowledgment that it needed to take on learning from this complaint, was an appropriate remedy to this failure.
26. The landlord also acknowledged there had been some confusion with communications around council tax payments. At stage 1 it said these were now resolved and the resident did not pursue this issue to stage 2. It apologised for the confusion, which was appropriate.
27. The resident also complained that the landlord delayed in escalating his complaint to stage 2. Arguably, the landlord should have progressed the complaint to stage 2 quicker. It was clear from his correspondence, particularly the correspondence we have seen between 14 and 16 February 2024, that he remained dissatisfied after the stage 1 response.
28. However, the landlord was attempting to answer the resident’s concerns. When this did not resolve the issues, the landlord escalated the complaint. There was no delay between the date of the acknowledgement of his stage 2 complaint and the landlord’s stage 2 response. The landlord took 12 working days, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. If the landlord had escalated his complaint on 14 February 2024, its stage 2 response would have still only been 1 day outside the appropriate timescale and again, not caused the resident significant adversity.
29. In his stage 2 request, the resident said he was concerned that the landlord had served a notice to quit in the middle of the complaints process.
30. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 8 March 2024 to reassure him that while his complaint was open, it would not take any action. While the resident says he found the NTQ distressing, the landlord sought to reassure him.
31. The resident signed a “decant licence” (the licence), on 30 January 2023, when he moved to the bungalow. This document set out the agreed terms between the resident and landlord. It said, among other things, that the licence would end “automatically” when it wrote to him to say the work to his home had been completed. The resident did not agree this was the case, citing issues with mould and other repairs, but the landlord offered to survey the property and make any necessary repairs.
32. The licence said it would “usually” give a resident 4 weeks notice and the NTQ did this. The landlord had also, as noted before, made it clear as far back as November 2023 that the resident’s stay at the bungalow was not permanent.
33. In any event, as the resident had moved out before the NTQ required him to do so, he was not caused significant adversity by the letter.
34. The landlord’s stage 2 response was minimal on detail. It focused on the compensation it said the resident had agreed to accept to settle his complaints. It repeated its offer of £450 at stage 1 and offered a further £1080 making a combined offer of £1530. It said the £1080 was to cover moving costs.
35. It would have been appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code if the landlord had also acknowledged the issues the resident had raised in his escalation to stage 2 and set out in what ways it had learnt from the complaint.  Its failure to do so was a missed opportunity to provide some resolution, other than financial, for a resident who had explained that the process had caused him distress.
36. Overall, there were failings with the landlord’s approach. It failed to address all the resident’s complaint points and its communications between January 2023 and September 2023 were poor.
37. However, at stage 1, the landlord recognised the process had not run smoothly, offering £250 for distress and inconvenience. It offered full compensation for all the moves between properties at stage 2. When the resident approached it to find new suitable housing, it worked hard to achieve a housing solution. While the timing of the service of its NTQ was ill-advised, it had put the resident on notice for some time that he needed to move. It offered a survey of his home to ease his concerns about its condition and took steps to reassure him that it would not take action on that notice until after his complaint had been addressed. The landlord’s responses and the remedies it offered for its failings and their impact were reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.