Aster Group Limited (202405025)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405025

Aster Group Limited

29 July 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Staff conduct concerns.
   2. Complaints about works to the car park.
   3. Damp and mould reports.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
4. The records show on 6 December 2022 the resident reported black mould to his landlord. It addressed the issue by inspecting the property including in December 2022. Around the same time the landlord was doing repair and maintenance work to the carpark in the resident’s estate.
5. The resident complained on 5 January 2023 about a range of issues such as mould spreading in his home. On 25 January 2023, the landlord issued an initial complaint response. It said after the December 2022 inspection a further property survey was being arranged.
6. On 22 February 2023, the resident’s solicitor sent a pre-action protocol for housing conditions claim letter to the landlord about his housing conditions. An undated disrepair schedule set out areas of damp and mould. On 8 March 2023, the landlord wrote to the solicitors and set out the works it had identified, including a mould clean.
7. On 6 September 2023, the resident raised a separate complaint to the landlord. It concerned a range of issues including its officer’s conduct at a February visit, maintenance in his home, and the handling of the carpark works. He said the officer had looked through his cupboards without permission, and that the carpark work had not been done safely. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s 8 March 2023 response concerning the causes of the mould.
8. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 25 September 2023. It said the matters concerning its officer’s visit in February 2023 and its handling of the car park works were too old for it to consider a complaint about. However, it explained it had reminded officers of the need for safety measures. For example, installing safety barriers around unfilled trenches. It said it was dealing with the resident’s solicitor about his maintenance concerns and about a home visit in August 2023, and because of that it would not respond as part of the complaints process.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint on 27 February 2024. He said he did not accept the landlord’s response about its officer and the carpark safety issues. He stated the maintenance issues were unresolved, which included black mould.
10. The landlord responded on 9 April 2024. It explained the circumstances around the August 2023 visit but accepted and apologised for its officer acting inappropriately during his visits. It also acknowledged shortcomings in its handling of the carpark work and apologised for that too. It set out a plan of works including the appointment of a cleaning company to do a full clean.
11. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 7 May 2024 seeking a resolution of the damp and mould issue, and compensation from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. The resident has complained that the landlord’s action has “caused serious mental anguish”. 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. This issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts. It will not be considered in this report.
13. The resident has provided evidence of issues going back to 2019 and previous complaints he made to the landlord such as in 2021. We have not seen evidence that the resident brought the complaints to the Service at the time. There are time limits on complaints which the Ombudsman will investigate which is usually 12 months from when the issues arise. The resident has confirmed the focus of this investigation is to be on his complaint of 6 September 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s staff conduct concerns

14. The landlord’s code of conduct for employees says it will be professional and will treat tenants with “courtesy and respect at all times”. Its bullying and harassment procedure states any allegations will be treated “sensitively”.
15. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will consider complaints within 6 months of the event complained about occurring.
16. The resident complained that when the landlord’s officer visited his home on 21 February 2023, among other things, its officer looked inside his cupboards without consent and was “intimidating”. He also said while he had agreed a boiler service visit on 14 August 2023, he had not agreed to its officer and contractors also attending on the same day. He said he felt intimidated as its officer stood outside, and looked through the kitchen window.
17. The landlord did not deal with the resident’s complaint about the February 2023 visit in its stage 1 response as the events had taken place more than 6 months previously. Delays in raising complaints can negatively impact identifying relevant evidence and accurate recall of events. Its decision was in line with its complaint policy, and based on the evidence the landlord’s decision was reasonable.
18. However, following the resident’s escalation, the landlord’s stage 2 response of 9 April 2024 considered his concerns about the 2 visits. It set out its understanding of events and agreed that its officer had acted inappropriately, including opening cupboards without permission and staying at the property after access was refused. It said the officer had left the organisation in February 2024 so it had been unable to interview him about the resident’s concerns. It apologised for the lack of “professional courtesy” shown to the resident.
19. The resident has provided a video of the October 2023 visit. It shows comments made by the landlord’s officer to him such as saying the resident was “paranoid”. There is no evidence this video was shared with the landlord prior to its final complaint response. In its final complaint response, the landlord  nonetheless acknowledged its officer’s behaviour was poor and apologised. This was reasonable.
20. While some of the issues complained about had been historic and technically fell outside the complaints timescales, the landlord showed a willingness to be open about its failings by dealing with the complaints. It was also in line with its code of conduct values by showing a commitment to addressing its failures in the “courtesy and respect” shown to the resident. The response addressed the resident’s concerns, showed the landlord took them seriously and empathetically, and acknowledged its failings.
21. However, given the landlord had acknowledged significant failings by its officer, and the resident had explained how distressing he found the experiences to be, as a remedy the apology offered by the landlord did not fully reflect the impact of the failing. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code other remedies, such as compensation, should also have been considered. They were not considered, which meant the landlord did not fully resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about works to the car park

22. The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep common parts in reasonable repair and fit for use. The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy sets out how it manages shared communal areas. It aims to have “safe and well-maintained places to live” stating it will conduct inspections to ensure neighbourhoods are free from health and safety risks.
23. In the resident’s complaint of 6 September 2023, he raised safety concerns about the landlord’s carpark works. He said he only became aware of the works after coming home, in the dark, to an “open trench with no warnings or barriers”. He says it was left this way for 6 weeks. Further, he said after 3 weeks, the landlord put a piece of metal in the trench which was “sticking up in the air”.
24. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not deal with the carpark issues as the resident formally complained about the carpark more than 6 months afterwards. Complaints should be raised so that a landlord can investigate events in a timely way. This was reasonable and in line with its complaint policy.
25. In its stage 1 complaint response of 25 September 2023 the landlord told the resident it had asked its officers to restate the need to protect unfilled trenches including with barriers. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns showing it had listened and learned lessons.
26. On the day of its stage 1 response, the landlord asked internally for the trench to be refilled with “something more solid” for a “level surface between the tarmac, coping stone and adjacent area”. By proactively addressing the issues the landlord was acting in line with its policy commitments to keep common areas in reasonable condition. However, its complaint response unreasonably failed to set out the further works, the reason for them or a projected timescale. The failure to set out the works was a missed opportunity to be open, show that it had learned from mistakes and build trust with the resident.
27. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 9 April 2024 tried to make things right by acknowledging the resident’s safety concerns and for not giving him notice of the start of the works. It said the works should have “been made and left safe by the operatives undertaking the works” and apologised for failing to do so. This was reasonable and showed an empathetic approach. However, as with the above issue, while the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings with the carpark works, that was not sufficient for it to have reasonably remedied the resident’s complaint, given its scale and nature.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports

28. The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep in good repair the structure of the property including internal walls and ceilings.
29. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out its repair timescales from emergency repairs within 24 hours to routine repairs within 20 working days. Its condensation and mould policy says reports of damp and mould will require an inspection before carrying out repairs and a mould clean.
30. On 6 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the mould issue which he had reported to it on 6 December 2022. In its initial complaint response on 25 September, the landlord said at a home visit on 19 September 2023, it had agreed an action plan. The plan did not mention mould works. The landlord however said it was liaising with the resident’s solicitors about “maintenance issues” and it hoped to do the necessary works after access was granted.
31. The evidence shows the resident had previously complained about mould in his home in 2021 when the landlord carried out remedial action such as extractor fan works, a mould clean, and a carpet clean. On 19 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord confirming the matter had been resolved.
32. On 6 December 2022 after the resident again reported mould to his landlord the property was inspected on 20 December. At that time he also had a heating loss issue which was being dealt with. The landlord noted areas of mould, condensation, and staining near the extractor fans. It said it would share its findings for further consideration. After the resident complained again on 5 January 2023 about the spread of mould, the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 25 January. It acknowledged the mould was “exacerbated” by the heating loss and said it would arrange a further survey, which the evidence shows took place on 21 February 2023.
33. On 8 March 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident’s solicitors after receiving their letter about his housing conditions. It said the 21 February visit indicated “mould associated with high-levels of condensation generated in the property”. It stated it had been investigating extraction concerns and agreed a mould clean. While neither the solicitors’ letter or the details of the February visit have been seen, the actions proposed by the landlord were reasonable in the circumstances referred to by the resident in January.
34. The evidence shows the landlord followed up on its remedial actions including by attempting a mould clean on 8 March 2023. The resident told it his solicitors had advised him not to allow any cleaning, so it did not take place. Accordingly, the landlord’s actions showed it was attempting to resolve the mould issue but was unable to gain access.
35. The evidence shows from August 2023 (after access was agreed with the solicitors) the landlord tried a number of times to do repairs. It was unable to gain access until its repair visit on 24 October 2023. An internal landlord email shows it undertook works such as mould removal and cleaning a trickle vent.
36. The landlord’s initial complaint response of 25 September 2023 did not consider the mould issues, which it said was part of legal discussions. Whether that was accurate and reasonable is considered in more detail below. The evidence does, however, show the landlord responded to the resident’s December 2022 reports by arranging 2 inspections (in December 2022 and February 2023). It also shows in January 2023 it took action to identify what work needed to be done. It then attempted remedial actions from March 2023. The works did not take place until October 2023 as the landlord was unable to gain access earlier. The landlord’s actions were in line with its policy commitments both in terms of timescales and carrying out remedial works post-inspections.
37. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and on 27 February 2024 he escalated his complaint. He said at the October 2023 visit, its officer told him he had not cleaned his home. He also said the landlord had not cleaned all the mould, it had left his home in a “filthy mess”, and a moisture detection unit it installed was expensive to run. The landlord issued a final complaint response on 9 April 2024. It has explained to the Service the response was a summary of a discussion with the resident about his complaint.  Among other things it agreed to arrange for contractors to clean his home and for an electrician to check the moisture sensors were correctly connected to the extractor fans.
38. The evidence shows the landlord contacted the resident during April 2024 to carry out the work it had promised in its complaint responses. On 12 April, the resident said he could not agree the works at that time due to a family matter. The landlord emailed the resident on 3 further occasions. There is no evidence the resident responded to the landlord to schedule the works. The landlord has explained to the Service that in a call to it, the resident said he did not want to proceed with the outcomes and wished to pursue the matter via the Service. There is no evidence of the call record.
39. The landlord was responsive to the resident’s mould reports and proactively undertook inspections and arranged follow up works. While the remedial works set out in the March 2023 letter did not take place for another 7 months, the evidence shows this was due to the landlord being unable to gain access. Other than the March 2023 landlord letter, there is no evidence of the discussions or agreements reached with the resident’s solicitor about the mould issue. However, the evidence up to April 2024 shows the landlord was committed to resolving the resident’s reports in line with its policy. Overall, the landlord’s actions were reasonable as they were appropriate to the reports the resident made.

Complaints handling

40. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will consider complaints not subject to legal proceedings. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould states commencing the pre-action protocol for housing conditions does not constitute legal proceedings and a complaint can be considered at the same time as the protocol.
41. Among other things, the resident complained that the landlord and its contractors attended his home in August 2023 without prior agreement. In its initial response, the landlord said it was “liaising” with his solicitors about the visit and maintenance issues. The evidence supports the landlord’s explanation. For example, on 8 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the solicitors proposing remedial action.
42. Both the landlord and the resident have told the Service legal proceedings were not issued, yet it told the resident in its first complaint response it would not respond to several issues because they were with the solicitors. By not fully addressing the resident’s complaints, the landlord unreasonably failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy. Its final complaint response also failed to acknowledge this failure.
43. By including the information around the legal discussions, the landlord would have followed its policy and shown the resident it took his concerns seriously. It has not acknowledged, apologised or compensated the resident for the complaint handling failures and therefore the matter has not been resolved.

Determination

44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Staff conduct concerns.
    2. Complaints about works to the car park.
45. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports.
46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

47. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £350 within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The compensation comprises:
    1. £150 for its handling of staff conduct concerns. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of distress, time and trouble and inconvenience.
    2. £100 for its handling of works to the car park and the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    3. £100 for its complaint handling failures and the inconvenience caused.
48. Evidence of payment must be provided to the Service by the deadline.