Aster Group Limited (202415348)

Decision
Case ID	202415348
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Aster Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 February 2026

Background

The resident lives in extra-care accommodation. There is an on-site care service commissioned by the local authority. She complained to the landlord about its handling of reported antisocial behaviour, pest control, and the security of the building.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Historical reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
2. Noise disturbance
3. Pest control
4. Security of the building
5. The associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

We have found the complaint about the landlord’s handling of historical reports of ASB were outside our jurisdiction and we have not investigated them.
There was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
  1. The resident’s recent reports of ASB.
  2. Pest control
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about building security.
3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

We have already investigated some of the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour in a previous case. We cannot make a further decision about these concerns.
The landlord considered the additional recording made by the resident. It was transparent about its decision making and told her how she could report future issues.
The evidence suggests that the landlord responded robustly to the bedbug infestation at the block. It communicated with residents by letter and considered the impact of treatment on them. When the infestation was resolved, it arranged further monitoring. This was good practice.
The landlord’s records do not show if it completed the actions it agreed at stage 1 of the complaints process. The landlord should have responded to the issue at both stages of the complaints process.
The landlord acknowledged that it should have responded to the resident’s complaint about bedbugs, and that there were delays in its complaints handling. The delay was not wholly in its control. It offered appropriate compensation.

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	Evidence Order The landlord should provide the Ombudsman and the resident with documentary evidence that it: Wrote to residents to remind them to keep the building secure. Raised concerns about building security with the care provider at a partnership meeting.	No later than 26 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by failures in its handling of the resident’s concerns about building security. 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 26 March 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Evidence Order

The landlord should provide the Ombudsman and the resident with documentary evidence that it:

Wrote to residents to remind them to keep the building secure.
Raised concerns about building security with the care provider at a partnership meeting.

No later than

26 March 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by failures in its handling of the resident’s concerns about building security. 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

26 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The resident told us about ASB she has experienced after completing the landlord’s complaints process, including an assault. If it has not already investigated this incident, the landlord should consider doing so now. If it cannot do so, it should tell the resident its reasoning.
Unless it has already considered these issues in a separate complaints process, the landlord should contact the resident to discuss her concerns about how it supports her, and the standards of its cleaning of the block.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 April 2024	The resident complained by phone that: The building was not secure. She was experiencing antisocial behaviour (ASB), including disturbance from music. There was a bedbug infestation. She felt the landlord did not take her concerns seriously.
10 May to 13 June 2024	The landlord discussed the resident’s complaint with her by phone on 3 occasions.
9 July 2024	The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. It said: It was not able to comment on the resident’s reports of ASB, as it had already considered them in a different complaints process. The CCTV camera covered the front car park and entrance hall of the building. It would raise the resident’s concerns about building security, including windows being left open and doors wedged open, at the next partnership meeting with its care provider. It would send a letter to residents reminding them to keep the building secure. The bedbug treatment was complete. There was no current sign of infestation in the building. It was monitoring for new infestation. It offered the resident £75 in compensation for the delay in its complaint response.
13 July 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to the second stage of the complaints process. She reiterated her concerns about bedbugs, ASB, building security, and the cleaning of the block, and said: The landlord did not consider her concerns about whether it was supporting her adequately. She was unhappy with its communication and complaint handling. It had called her unannounced at an inconvenient time and did not acknowledge her emails. She was unhappy with the level of compensation offered.
19 September 2024	The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process. It did not uphold the complaint. It said: The resident asked for a hard copy of its stage 1 complaint response. It had sent a copy to her twice. It also hand delivered a copy. It asked her to confirm she had received it, but she did not respond. She later said that she had ignored its emails. It had called and asked her for a convenient time and date for a conversation, as she said she did not want unannounced calls. Overall, it demonstrated a willingness to respond to her complaint. The resident had sent it a new noise recording. It did not consider the recording showed ASB. The recording was of the resident’s neighbour playing music at 2pm. It considered that antisocial hours were between 11pm and 8am. The resident had previously declined the use of the noise app. The resident’s single point of contact could show her how to use it if she wanted to. She should report any new incidents of ASB.
27 January 2025	Following communication with the resident, we asked the landlord to consider its handling of the bedbug infestation, as the resident had raised this issue in her complaint escalation request.
27 February 2026	The landlord sent a second stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged that the resident had raised concerns about bedbugs in her complaint escalation request. It said: It sent a letter to all residents explaining the work it had done to resolve the infestation, and giving general advice on reducing the risk of future infestations. It offered the resident £100 in compensation for failing to address the issue in its first stage 2 response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said that the issues she complained about were unresolved.

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	Historical reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

In her complaint the resident referred to the landlord’s handling of an antisocial behaviour case that it had already responded to through its complaints process. This complaints process has already been investigated by us.
We cannot consider issues that we have already made a decision about, so we have not investigated the landlord’s handling of the earlier case.

Complaint	Noise disturbance
Finding	No maladministration

During the complaint investigation, the resident left the landlord a voicemail recording, of a neighbour playing a musical instrument. We have reviewed how the landlord handled this recording.
Overall, the landlord gave a clear explanation of its decision making around the voicemail, explaining why it did not consider that it showed noise nuisance. It told the resident what it considered to be ‘unsociable hours’ for noise disturbance. It also explained that it had not received any reports of disturbance by other residents of the block. This was good practice by the landlord, demonstrating transparency in its decision making.
The landlord told the resident how she could report disturbances through her single point of contact. It also offered to show her how to use the noise app. By doing this, the landlord made the process of reporting disturbances simple and accessible, and told the resident what she can do if problems continue.

Complaint	Pest control
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s pest control policy says that it is responsible for resolving pest control issues in extra-care accommodation. The resident told us that there have been bedbug infestations in her building for around 4 years. This has caused her worry about the risk of infestation in her property, and affected how she uses her home on a daily basis.
It can be challenging to control bedbug infestations in sheltered or extra-care accommodation. Infestation can spread easily between properties and through use of communal facilities. While there have been repeated infestations in the resident’s building, we did not see evidence that this was a result of the landlord’s actions or inaction.
The landlord has taken a robust approach to managing the infestation, including using heat treatments, spray pesticides, and monitoring equipment. It also restricted the use of communal facilities during periods of infestation. The landlord also gave residents advice on reducing the risk of infestation in their home. These actions were in line with its pest control policy and demonstrated good practice.
The landlord’s pest control policy says that it will attempt to work with residents who are known to have caused infestations before it considers further action, like recharging for treatments. This is a reasonable approach, particularly in extra-care accommodation as the individual circumstances of some residents may make it difficult for them to manage infestations.
The evidence showed that the landlord took steps to minimise disruption to residents, such as doing treatments overnight. This was another positive step by the landlord, showing that it appreciated the impact of the ongoing treatments on residents.
The landlord’s records show that it communicated with residents about the infestation and treatments by letters and notices with upcoming dates for treatments. It also provided works orders showing that treatments and monitoring visits had been done.
However, there were some gaps in its records. For example it did not provide us with confirmation from its contractors that the infestation was resolved, although we asked for this information. This did not affect the outcome for the resident, but the landlord should ensure that it keeps full records, so there is an audit trail of its actions and decision making.
The resident believed the landlord did not fully eradicate the bedbugs. However, we did not see any evidence showing the infestation was unresolved. In itself, the reoccurrence of the infestation does not show that the infestation was unresolved, as bedbug infestations are common in extra care accommodation. The landlord took reasonable precautions to prevent recurrence, including arranging regular monitoring of the building.
The resident raised concerns with the landlord about a particular neighbour who she said was contributing to pest infestation in the block. The landlord did not address this in the complaints process. The landlord has a duty to keep private information about residents confidential, so it would not have been able to give her any information about how it was responding to infestations in particular properties. However, it should have clearly explained this, so the resident knew it had fully considered her concerns.
The landlord’s records show that it considered which properties in the resident’s building were at a high risk of infestation and agreed that additional monitoring visits would be done in these properties. It would have been positive if the landlord had explained this to the resident, without identifying individual residents, as it would have offered her reassurance.

Complaint	Building security
Finding	Service failure

The resident complained to the landlord about the security of her building. She raised concerns about windows and doors being left open by residents, and not secured at night when care staff left.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord told the resident it would write to residents to remind them to keep the doors and windows shut. It also said it would raise her concerns with the care provider. These were appropriate actions, particularly as the care provider in the resident’s building is commissioned by the local authority, so the landlord does not have a direct contractual relationship with it. However, the landlord’s records do not show if it completed these actions. Landlords should ensure they follow up any actions agreed during the complaints process, so the lack of evidence that it did this was a failing.
It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether it discussed the issue of the building being left insecure with the resident during calls about her complaint escalation request. However, in the resident’s written escalation request, she indicated that she remained dissatisfied with how the landlord handled her report about the door being wedged open on a specific occasion.
In the circumstances of the case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to respond to the issue at stage 2 of the complaints process. This would have given it an opportunity to show it had completed the actions it agreed, and demonstrated thoroughness and a desire to resolve the issues.
To put things right for the resident, the landlord has been ordered to provide evidence that it completed the actions it agreed at stage 1 of the complaints process. It has also been ordered to pay compensation. The compensation awarded aligns with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website). The remedies guidance says awards in this range are appropriate where a landlord has failed to fully put right a failing.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time complied with the definition of a complaint in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (April 2024).The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure also complied with the Code.
The landlord did not meet its complaints policy timescale at either stage of the complaints process. At stage 1 of the complaints process there was a delay of around 40 working days. On one occasion the landlord did not call when it agreed to discuss the complaint due to staff absence. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for this delay, as it may have caused the resident frustration. The landlord offered the resident £75 in compensation, in recognition of the impact of this delay. The compensation award is discussed later in the report.
The resident has difficulty reading PDF documents, and asked the landlord to send her a hardcopy of its complaints response so that she could consider it when she discussed her escalation request with the landlord. It agreed to send one. However, the resident later emailed the landlord saying that she did not receive a copy in the post, and explained that the landlord had emailed her a large print copy of the complaint response, which she had not asked for. She said it had not confirmed that a physical copy had been posted. With the evidence available, we cannot determine if the landlord did post the letter or not.
The landlord agreed to send a letter by post again, but the resident said she did not receive this. The evidence suggests that the landlord asked the resident more than once if she had received the letter, but she did not respond. Ultimately it hand-delivered a copy of the complaint. Cumulatively, this caused a delay of around 1 month in the landlord’s stage 2 response. However, it is not clear that the delay was within the landlord’s control, and it appropriately notified the resident when it became aware that it would not meet its response timescale.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s explanation of the delay. She said that a member of staff taking 2 weeks of annual leave had caused further delay. If the landlord had been able to speak to the resident sooner, it may have been able to issue the complaint response before the staff member went on annual leave. However, it would have been reasonable to acknowledge the annual leave in its explanation, as it would have demonstrated balance. The landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 2 complaint response, which was appropriate.
The landlord went to significant effort to discuss the complaint with the resident, at both stages of the complaints process, over several phone calls. There was evidence it asked the resident why she was unhappy with its stage 1 response, and for her desired outcomes from the complaint. This was good practice, as it aligned with the Code and showed the landlord’s willingness to engage in the complaints process.
It is a requirement of the Code that the landlord addresses all elements of a resident’s complaint. After we wrote to it, the landlord accepted that it did not address the resident’s concerns about its handling of the bed bug infestation in its first stage 2 complaint response. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the failure, which is discussed below, and sent a further stage 2 response.
However, there were further elements of the complaint that the landlord did not address in its complaints process. For example:
1. The resident complained to the landlord that she did not feel that the cleaning in her block was being done adequately, giving examples. She mentioned this in her initial complaint email, during a call with the landlord to discuss her stage 1 complaint, and in her complaint escalation request, so the landlord should have responded to her concerns.
2. The resident also complained that she felt the landlord was not supporting her adequately at both stages of the complaint process. As such, the landlord should have considered this issue in its complaints responses.
The landlord’s failure to consider these issues may have undermined the landlord-tenant relationship.
In total, the landlord offered the resident £175 in compensation for the impact of failures in its complaints handling. In our opinion, this award is sufficient to recognise the impact of the landlord’s failures, as it aligns with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website. No further compensation has been awarded.

Learning

The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure documents give clear guidance on actions it will take to resolve ASB. However, they do not explain how it will decide if a report does not meet its definition of ASB. The landlord may wish to consider including additional guidance on its approach to reports of noise disturbance, such as what it would consider a ‘difference in lifestyles’ rather than noise nuisance, and times that it considers to be unsociable hours. This would promote consistency in its decision making around reports of noise nuisance.