Aster Group Limited (202409747)

Decision
Case ID	202409747
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Aster Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 May 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat which has an outside area shared with other residents. He has reported various anti-social and nuisance incidents to the landlord for multiple years. He also told the landlord that he felt that it and his neighbours discriminated against him. At the time of his formal complaint to the landlord, he remained concerned about residents throwing food outside to feed birds and frequent dog fouling near his property.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of reports of nuisance.
   2. The landlord’s response to his concerns about discrimination.
3. We will also consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of nuisance.
5. We find service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about discrimination.
6. We find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord took appropriate and proportionate action to address the resident’s reports of nuisance. However, there were communication failings in its overall handling of the case. It did not provide the resident with regular updates or explain the reasons for its decision about moving costs. It also should have set the resident’s expectations much sooner. We consider the landlord’s offer of compensation proportionate to the failings identified and reflected the detriment caused to the resident.
8. The landlord failed to consider, investigate, and respond to the resident’s concerns about discrimination. This caused him distress and likely reinforced his feelings that the landlord ignored him.
9. The landlord handled the resident’s complaint appropriately. There was a minor delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. In our view, this had minimal impact on the resident.

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
2	Apology The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:   The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.  It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 24 June 2026
1	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond to the resident’s concerns about discrimination. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 June 2026

 

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident £210 as offered in its complaint response, if this has not already been paid. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on this payment being made.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss his current circumstances and rehousing options, including any options available through the local authority’s housing register. The landlord should confirm if there is any support it can provide.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 September 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. He said: His washing line was missing and a plant pot had been moved from his front door. Dogs were constantly urinating outside his front door. Multiple residents were throwing food out of their windows. He did not want any contact from his housing officer as he had previously not found her helpful.
18 October 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: It had contacted his neighbours about abuse and feeding the birds previously and it stopped. The neighbourhood team would have a meeting to discuss the issues. It would complete a joint visit to a neighbour to discuss bird feeding and dog fouling. It would contact a staff member involved with his neighbour to discuss the abuse. It would update the resident on his request for a camera. The resident previously did not want to work with the Anti-social behaviour (ASB) team or complete mediation. It said the offer was still open. It should have replaced the washing line and apologised for the misunderstanding. It offered £110 compensation. Broken down as: £50 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience. £60 compensation for communication regarding the washing line.
15 February 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said: His neighbour was still feeding the birds and the birds foul on his clothes. Dog faeces bags were left outside alongside dog urine. Despite multiple complaints, the landlord had not done anything to resolve the issues. He did not want any contact from his housing officer or the ASB team. He said they were rude and judged him without any evidence. He wanted to move properties and for the landlord to pay his moving costs.
29 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It: Said different properties within the block of flats were managed by different teams and may have caused delays. It apologised. Summarised the actions it had taken. This included tenancy interventions when necessary, offer of mediation, removal of birdfeeders, and extra signage. Said it was following its process in considering the installation of CCTV. Said it had completed regular spot checks and had not seen any further issues with littering, dog fouling or bird feeding. Said it had taken all practical steps to address the issues. The issues raised did not meet the legal test for further enforcement action. Said it would not provide funding towards the resident moving properties. Apologised that it did not respond to a letter from the resident. It offered £100 compensation to the resident.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In summary, the resident said the landlord had not helped him with the issues. He felt the landlord had racially discriminated against him.

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 nuisance
Finding	Reasonable redress

10. It is noted that there is a long history of nuisance, harassment and abuse reports by the resident. This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 13 September 2023 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because there was a gap of more than 6 months in the resident’s reports of nuisance before he made his formal complaint to the landlord. Residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
11. The landlord’s ASB policy states that pet nuisance is treated as environmental ASB and managed by the Neighbourhoods team. The landlord has told us the case was managed outside its ASB procedure. There is no specific restriction on feeding birds within the policy or the tenancy terms. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will not allow nuisance or annoyance.
12. It is clear the incidents caused the resident distress. He told the landlord that he repeatedly had to clear up bird mess and dog urine near his front door. He said the issues were impacting his mental health. The landlord’s actions following the resident’s reports showed it took his concerns seriously. It took a range of reasonable steps to address the issues and put in place practical measures. This is because it:
    1. Visited the resident to discuss his concerns.
    2. Wrote to all residents of the block regarding dog fouling and feeding of the birds.
    3. Contacted the neighbours of concern.
    4. Removed bird feeders in the communal areas. It also installed dog fouling and bird feeding signs.
    5. Offered mediation which the resident declined.
    6. Asked the estates team to clean the area and monitor.
    7. Consulted with residents about installing CCTV.
13. The landlord did not provide regular updates to the resident. It discussed the resident’s reports internally however it gave limited updates directly to him. Although data protection may have restricted some information that it could share, it could have done more to reassure the resident that it was taking action. The lack of updates would have reduced the resident’s confidence in the landlord, particularly as he had already said he felt ignored.
14. On 24 November 2023, the resident told the landlord he had received a threatening letter from a neighbour and did not feel safe. The landlord acted appropriately by attempting to arrange a meeting with the resident. The resident declined the meeting as he felt he had met with the landlord previously and no action was taken. The landlord did not follow this up any further. This was a missed opportunity to provide support to the resident.
15. The resident asked to move due to ongoing nuisance and requested that the landlord covered his moving costs. The landlord refused but did not explain its reasons. It should have provided a clear explanation so the resident understood how it reached its decision. The resident has told us that he still wants to move properties and the landlord previously provided a link to Homeswapper. We have made a recommendation that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss his current circumstances and rehousing options, including any options available through the local authority’s housing register.
16. We acknowledge the outcome of the resident’s stage 2 response was not what he hoped for however the landlord appropriately set clear expectations. It explained that the issues raised did not meet the criteria for legal enforcement. It said it had taken all reasonable steps to address the bird feeding and dog nuisance and that no further action was available at that time. It also confirmed it would respond to any new or significant incidents. The landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s reports was reasonable because it took appropriate and proportionate action to address the resident’s concerns. However, it should have set the resident’s expectations earlier and explained sooner what actions it could and could not take.
17. Overall the landlord took appropriate and proportionate action to address the resident’s reports of nuisance. However, there were communication failings in its overall handling of the case. It did not provide the resident with regular updates or explain the reasons for its decision about moving costs. It also should have set the resident’s expectations much sooner.
18. The landlord offered the resident £210 compensation for failings in its communication. This amount falls within the Ombudsman’s guidance for cases where the resident has been adversely affected by service failings. We consider the offer proportionate to the failings identified and reflective of the detriment caused. We therefore find that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about discrimination
Finding	Service failure

19. The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. The Act requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘due regard’ (properly consider) how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so. We have no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act, this can only be done by the courts. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties
20. In contact with both us and the landlord, the resident said that the landlord and neighbours had racially discriminated against him. We expect landlords to take such concerns seriously, investigate them, and provide a clear response.
21. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about discrimination. It missed the opportunity to seek further information to understand why the resident felt that way. This failure meant the resident was not assured that the landlord had taken the matter seriously. The resident did not want to speak to certain members of staff due to how he felt they treated him. By not exploring the resident’s concerns, it missed the opportunity to rebuild the resident and landlord relationship.
22. The resident has told us that he feels he was treated differently by the landlord and that it takes the word of other residents over his. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns. However, throughout our investigation, we have seen no evidence that the resident was treated differently. The service failings we have identified relate to communication, rather than discriminatory treatment.
23. Overall, the landlord failed to consider, investigate, and respond to the resident’s concerns about discrimination. This caused distress to the resident and likely reinforced his feelings that the landlord ignored him.
24. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation to recognise the distress caused to the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

25. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The policy allows the landlord to extend these timescales.
26. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the required timescale. In line with its policy, it agreed an extension with the resident and issued its response within the revised deadline.
27. There was a minor delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 acknowledgment, which it issued after 13 working days. The stage 2 response was also outside its policy timescales. However, the landlord delayed its stage 2 response in line with the resident’s request not to be contacted while he was on holiday. The landlord’s variation from its policy was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
28. Overall the landlord handled the resident’s complaint appropriately. There was a minor delay in acknowledging resident’s the escalation request. In our view, this had minimal impact on the resident.

 

Learning

29. The landlord should ensure it recognises and responds to allegations of discrimination. It should seek further information where needed, assess the concerns in line with its equality duties, and provide a clear response to reassure the resident that the matter has been taken seriously.
30. The resident told the landlord that if it did not take action, he would contact environmental health. Although we have identified the landlord took proactive action to address the issue, the landlord could have considered contacting the environmental health team directly to seek advice on the issue. This would have demonstrated collaborative working with external partners to see if there was anything more it could do.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord provided adequate records for our investigation.

Communication

32. As discussed, the landlord should ensure it provides regular and clear updates to residents, particularly where concerns are ongoing. This will help maintain residents’ confidence and demonstrate that issues are being addressed.