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 (202403568)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403568

Aster Group Limited

12 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 the resident’s:
    1. Request for replacement windows and reports of damp and mould.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom second floor flat where she lives with her daughter. The landlord, a housing association, owns the property.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 15 May 2023. Her complaint related to the condition of her windows which she said she had been reporting for 2 years. She said that the property was cold, especially her daughter’s bedroom, and there was damp and mould around the windows. She added that she believed its housing officer had lied to her about the replacement of her windows.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 16 June 2023. It explained its window replacement process and confirmed that her windows did not need replacing. It apologised if its contractors had misled her and offered £100 compensation. It said it raised an order to check all windows and complete repairs. It apologised and offered £300 compensation for a delay in installing an extractor fan and completing work to a bedroom window. It explained why it did not agree that its officer had been untruthful. It offered £50 for its delayed complaint response bringing its total compensation offer to £450.
  4. The date of the resident’s escalation request is unknown. However, she expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s compensation offer and asked it to increase this to £950.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 15 August 2023. It acknowledged further delays with its complaint handling and awarded £200 compensation. It apologised that it had to visit a second time to complete window repairs and offered £125 compensation. A total of £325 additional compensation. It also offered a further review of her complaint by its dedicated complaint panel.
  6. The resident progressed her complaint to the landlord’s panel around November 2023. Its panel acknowledged further failings, made recommendations, and suggested an additional £425 compensation. This brought its total compensation offer to £1,200.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She told us that it repaired her windows in July 2024 but did not replace them. She added that it has not installed a fan in her bathroom and she still has mould around the windows. She wants it to provide a timeframe for when it will replace her windows and increase its compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us that the landlord’s delay in completing repairs, and having to constantly chase it, had caused her and her daughter stress and anxiety. She also stated that it affected her mental health and asserted that it had triggered heart and sleep issues.
  2. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider any likely distress or inconvenience as a result of any failings by the landlord.
  3. The resident also told us that the landlord has not installed a new bathroom. As this did not form part of this complaint, and the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond, we have not considered this matter. The resident may wish to raise a new complaint to the landlord in relation to this.

Request for replacement windows and reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to this case. This has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. Our investigation has, therefore, relied on the available evidence.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy of August 2021 states that it will carry out an assessment within 10 days. It will refer any non-urgent work to its asset management team to be added to its future planned works programme.
  3. It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of window repairs, damp, and mould. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered (apology, compensation, and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. We have not seen the detail of the resident’s complaint, however, the landlord describes this as the windows being in poor condition. It noted that she asserted that its contractors had stated the windows required replacement. She stated that its contractor also asserted that it would not pay for scaffold to complete repairs externally. She added that its neighbourhood officer had lied and provided excuses as to why her windows were not being replaced, despite 2 other neighbours having theirs done. She felt it was discriminating against her.
  5. Allegations of hate or discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. These matters therefore fall outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns further using equalities legislation or speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to her concerns.
  6. In order to resolve her complaint, the resident asked the landlord to replace her windows, compensate her 10% of the weekly rent, and requested no further contact from the housing officer.
  7. The landlord’s repairs records show that the resident reported damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom on 31 December 2021. It arranged an appointment for 6 January 2022. It noted there were no extractor fans in the kitchen or bathroom and completed a mould wash. However, we have seen no evidence to show that it installed fans at the time.
  8. We have seen no evidence from either party of any further reports until 15 May 2023 when the resident reported her windows were draughty. The landlord’s records of 13 June 2023 refer to its contractor being unable to complete repairs following their visit. It asked for a second contractor to visit to assess the windows, damp and mould. It said that she had reported that her windows were performing badly and her property was always cold. She had to wipe down the windows and frames daily. Her daughter’s bedroom window had blown and had a build up of condensation between the glass panes. It noted that the windows were due for renewal in 2 to 4 years.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 14 June 2023, it explained that as part of its cyclical programme it assessed if the windows required replacement. Following its assessment the replacement would either be planned into its programme for future years or in some cases brought forward where it would cost more than effective repairs. It also stated it would take guidance from surveys carried out by its contractors. It confirmed that her windows were not on the programme for that financial year and the survey confirmed they did not need to be replaced for several years to come. However, it would review this regularly and continue to make repairs as necessary.
  10. The landlord said that when it visited, it raised repairs for the blown windows but its contractor was unable to complete the repair as they required access externally via scaffold. It reassured her that until her windows were due for renewal it remained responsible to complete repairs. It confirmed an appointment for 22 June 2023 to erect scaffold. It said it would check all windows and carry out any required repairs. It was unable to agree a full window replacement or provide an explanation regarding why other customers were having their windows replaced due to data protection. However, it would only bring forward a window replacement in any property if it were warranted.
  11. While the landlord appropriately explained its renewal programme and process, it would have been helpful to have more clearly explained the reasons why her neighbours windows were being replaced. It would not have been a breach of data protection to explain that other windows may have been in worse condition without more detail. It failed to sufficiently address her concerns which likely led to her belief it was discriminating.
  12. The landlord apologised if its contractor had made comments during their visit which were inaccurate or misleading. It agreed that the comments were unhelpful causing stress and inconvenience. It had fed this back to its contractor and offered £100 compensation for any distress caused. Its apology and compensation offer was reasonable and within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance.
  13. The landlord stated that the resident reported condensation and mould on 31 December 2021 and it completed a mould wash on 6 January 2022. It noted that there was mould around her daughter’s window, the window was cracked, and it asked for an extraction fan to be installed to help reduce condensation in the property. While the repairs were put on its operative’s notes, the follow-on work was not raised in a timely manner. It has since installed a fan, however, it failed to say what it did in relation to the cracked window.
  14. The landlord acknowledged that as a result of the delay in installing the extractor fan, the resident had to purchase 2 dehumidifiers. It offered to reimburse the cost of £100. This was reasonable given the delay. It said it was unable to calculate the loss of heating due to 2 windows being blown or offer 10% reduction of the weekly rent. However, it offered £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience which was reasonable.
  15. The landlord did not agree with the resident’s assertion that its officer was untruthful with the information provided about the window replacement. It said that its programme was managed by its investment team and it had no control over the schedule. Its officer provided the investment team’s response which was accurate. It confirmed that the officer no longer covered her area and that she had a new officer. It apologised for its “sub-standard service” and confirmed its compensation offer of £400
  16. The landlord’s response demonstrates that it listened to the resident’s concerns. We acknowledge it would have been frustrating for her to be told that her windows would not be replaced, especially when her neighbours’ were. However, it is reasonable for staff to consult other departments when seeking answers for residents and provide those responses. It is also reasonable for landlords to rely on the professional opinion of its contractors. Its compensation offer was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which caused detriment to the resident.
  17. We have not seen a copy of the resident’s escalation request. However, the landlord describes her dissatisfaction with the length of time it took to complete window repairs, damp, and mould. She asked it to increase its compensation offer to £950.
  18. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 15 August 2023, it repeated that the windows did not require replacement. It assessed the windows in May 2023 and its contractor noted there was nothing wrong with them other than 1 unit which required reglazing. It completed the repair on 12 July 2023. This was 41 working days since its inspection and was in line with its planned repair timescale of 60 working days.
  19. The landlord, however, apologised that it had required a second visit to complete the work. It offered £75 compensation for the delay and a further £50 for the inconvenience. It rejected her assertion that the matter had been outstanding for 2 years. It said it was only aware of the required repair on 22 May 2023 and it completed the work on 12 July 2023. It was unable to complete repairs it was unaware of. While its response was appropriate, it was aware of a cracked window in December 2021, but it is not known if this was the same window or repair.
  20. The landlord said that the resident self-identified mould and damp issues at the property as ‘severe’. However, its attending surveyor noted a small amount of mould present in 1 corner of the bathroom and kitchen. At the time, they recommended extractor fans to improve air flow. While it had installed extractor fans, it noted the delay and her purchase of dehumidifiers. It found that its £300 compensation offer for the delay and inconvenience was acceptable. It also offered a further review of the complaint via its dedicated complaint panel.
  21. The landlord’s additional compensation offer was reasonable. However, its records of 17 November 2023 refer to it being unsure if it fitted fans in both the kitchen and bathroom. This is concerning as it should have been aware from its own repairs history whether it completed the work. The resident has told us that no fan has been installed in the bathroom.
  22. We have not seen a copy of the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 3. However, its panel reviewed the case on 30 November 2023 and sent its findings to the resident. It made several recommendations as follows:
    1. It felt that it had performed below its expected service levels. It was not until she logged the issues as a complaint that her concerns were acknowledged and this was a missed opportunity. It said that it should ensure that frequent concerns raised by customers regarding works on cyclical replacement programs should be followed up. It should ensure that visits and assessments were recorded in 1 place and visible to all staff.
    2. It said it needed to apologise for the impact and upset caused and it recommended an additional £100 compensation for poor service prior to the complaint being raised. It also recommended an additional £100 for stress and anxiety.
    3. It stated that a thermal inspection had been offered to the resident by the stage 2 case manager. Despite the window repair taking place, her home still had cold spots, damp and mould. It confirmed that a thermal survey had been booked for 6 December 2023. It should review the findings and forward a copy of the report to her and implement any remedial work. It should provide a point of contact and monitor work until completion. Due to the delay in completing the thermal imaging survey, it recommended a further £100 compensation.
    4. It stated that it agreed with the stage 2 response regarding the delivery of follow on work and the additional compensation of £125.
    5. It should ensure that its contractors were made aware of the expected level of service and discuss this with its contractor to ensure it did not raise resident expectations. However, its apology was sufficient.
    6. It recommended the landlord pay £425 in compensation.
  23. The landlord agreed with the panel findings and recommendations. It demonstrated learning from the complaint and said it had implemented a new process to deliver a more co-ordinated improved service. This included patch meetings with its housing and surveying teams on a 6-weekly basis to discuss where a resident had reported dissatisfaction twice with its planned programme. It would discuss requests, resident circumstances, arrange inspections and assessments, and follow up actions. It completed the recommendations set out by the panel.
  24. While this could be said to have put things right for the resident, the evidence shows that it delayed further in completing repairs. The landlord’s thermal imaging report of 6 December 2023 concluded that there was cold spotting to the external walls and windows. The glazed units were not containing any thermal heat and were losing heat around the casings. It recommended to replace the windows as soon as reasonably possible. The resident chased for a copy of the report on 3 occasions and asked it to provide temporary heaters to help with the property being cold. We have seen no evidence that it responded to her request for temporary heaters or her request for temporary alternative accommodation.
  25. The landlord agreed on 8 January 2024 that it would place the windows on its planned programme. However, its records show confusion between its departments as to whether this happened. It disputed the thermal imaging report. The resident continued to report her dissatisfaction in April 2024 stating it had not resolved her complaint and she was experiencing ongoing stress and anxiety. It apologised in May 2024 for the conflicting information and mixed messages. It asked for a further independent impartial survey. It also acknowledged that she had been led to believe her windows would be replaced and whether it was in a position to retract this. This is concerning given its thermal imaging report recommended the windows be replaced and having raised her expectations.
  26. The landlord’s records of 16 July 2024 refer to the windows requiring servicing due to worn out rubbers and no seals on any of the windows causing an issue with heat escape. The resident complained again stating the matter had been ongoing for too long. Its further records of 17 July 2024 state it was “trying to keep on top of the window element” which had been ongoing for 12 to 18 months.
  27. The landlord completed servicing work to the windows on 24 July 2024. This included sealing the units, silicone works and renewal of hinges. This was a further delay of 7 months since its panel findings and the thermal survey.
  28. In summary, the landlord failed to act on its thermal imaging survey or complete necessary repairs to the windows until July 2024. It also failed to advise the resident on when her windows will be replaced. While it demonstrated learning from the complaint during its complaints process, it continued to repeat the same failings with communication and actioning required repairs. We have, therefore made a failure finding and ordered additional compensation in line with our remedies guidance. We have also made relevant orders in relation to the windows.

Associated complaint

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 3-stage complaint process. It would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. It also offered a further review by complaint panel. It has since reviewed its policy to a 2-stage process which is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Its stage 1 complaint response was 13 working days later than its 10 working day policy timescale. It apologised for its delay and offered £50 compensation. It increased its offer to £100 in its stage 2 response. This was appropriate and in line with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it acknowledged a delay in allocating the complaint to a stage 2 case manager, issues with workload demands, and providing incorrect timescales. It offered £50 for each failing, totalling an additional £150 compensation. Its offer was appropriate given its identified failings.
  4. The landlord’s dedicated complaint panel felt that the landlord had sufficiently addressed its complaint handling failures in its responses.
  5. In summary, we find that the landlord’s apology and total compensation offer of £250 was reasonable. It is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which would not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. We, therefore, find the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement windows and reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following actions within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of its compliance:
    1. Pay to the resident the sum of £1,550 broken down as follows:
      1. £400 offered in its stage 1 response, £125 offered in its stage 2 response, and £425 offered by its dedicated complaint panel. (This can be deducted if already paid).
      2. An additional £600 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for its further delay in completing required window repairs.
    2. Send a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
    3. Confirm to the resident when the windows will be replaced. It must also confirm whether it will provide additional temporary heating in the meantime.
    4. Arrange to install a fan in the resident’s bathroom to help alleviate condensation.

Recommendations

  1. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pay to the resident £250 offered for its complaint handling failures if not already paid.