Aster Group Limited (202431017)

Decision
Case ID	202431017
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Aster Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	3 December 2025

Background

1. The resident is a shared owner of a 1-bedroom house on a lease agreement. The landlord is the freeholder. She has informed us that she has health vulnerabilities. In September 2023 the property was struck by lightning causing substantial damage to the structure of the property. This resulted in a demolition and rebuild of the property. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the events, the demolition and rebuild programme as well as the handling of the temporary accommodation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The fire at the property and communications.
   2. Demolition and rebuild of the property.
   3. The temporary accommodation.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found service failure with the landlord’s handling of the fire at the property and communications.
4. The demolition and rebuild of the property is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
5. The temporary accommodation is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
6. We have found reasonable redress with the complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord initially handled the fire at the property appropriately, however, there was a period when its communications let it down, which had a significant impact on the resident. While the landlord recognised failures in its handling of the case, its poor record keeping led to challenges in identifying the extent and duration of its failures.
8. The landlord recognised its complaint handling failures and put things right for her through its apology and compensation offer.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing 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 05 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 compensation (including £100 already offered) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of communication. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	05 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
1.The landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation in relation to its complaint handling failure as offered during the complaints process.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
July 2024 to September 2024	On 10 July 2024, the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the fire at the property. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 September 2024, which included the following points: The landlord attended the site promptly after the fire The local authority arranged temporary accommodation for the resident on the first night. The landlord arranged hotel accommodation initially, however, this was only until the insurance company took over the management of the stay The landlord stated there were no failures in its initial response to the fire Communications: It acknowledged staff changes and a period without an allocated contact person. It apologised for this and confirmed the new contact officer details It agreed to hold monthly meetings until the property was ready for the resident to return It committed to providing weekly construction updates Demolition: Demolition had been timely, but an unforeseen utility supply issue caused a 6-week delay It had stored salvageable items in an on-site container, and the resident was given access to retrieve her belongings Structural concerns: The resident had raised concerns about the protection of a party wall and floor. The landlord told her the protection was inadequate A structural engineer was appointed to assess these items. If compromised, they would be rebuilt Rebuild process: The property’s building insurance is held by the landlord, so the rebuild claim had to be made by them Planning permission was required, taking at least 3 months to be approved The landlord needed to appoint a contractor and await a detailed programme of works, which it agreed to share with the resident It acknowledged that unforeseen issues could arise but agreed to keep the programme on track and keep the resident informed It refused to delay the programme while the resident appointed her own contractor to monitor works Construction details were confirmed that included: Original roof tiles would not be retained The resident’s list of alterations was referred to the contractor Carpet samples were requested The garden would be reinstated The resident could visit the site at various stages Local authority building control would monitor the project Compensation and medical claims: The landlord said it could not assess medical claims under its complaints procedure It told her that a medical claim could be pursued via a solicitor or its insurance liability route It offered her £200 compensation broken down as: £100 for poor communication £100 for delay in issuing the stage 1 response
October 2024	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The landlord escalated the complaint and sent its stage 2 response on 31 October 2024. It told her it had thoroughly explained what was happening in relation to the rebuild including providing weekly updates. It said the reasons for the delay in starting the rebuild were due to: Her refusing permission to start works It gave an update in relation to her concerns about repairs and replacement of an unprotected party wall and floor She had damp and mould concerns, and these were inspected by the structural engineer and a report issued to her stating there were no concerns with the condition of the beam and block flooring It agreed to share the kitchen plan design with her once it received the final plan. It reiterated its position in relation to other items of building works such as roof tiles and garden works It had held a meeting with her and was providing weekly updates It apologised for the delayed stage 2 response and offered her £100 compensation. The total amount of compensation was now £300
Referral to the Ombudsman February 2025	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and brought her complaint to us. She told us she wanted compensation for: The physical and mental affects the issues had caused her Injuries caused to her dog as a result of the fire Reimbursements for additional costs as a result of travel and temporary accommodation She stated that the landlord had not treated her as a home owner in its handling of the issues.

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 a fire at the property and communications
Finding	Service failure

9. Under the terms of the shared ownership lease agreement the landlord and resident have responsibilities such as conducting certain repairs at the property. However, in the event of a fire, it is appropriate for the landlord to initiate a claim under the building insurance policy. The insurance claim is outside of the scope of our investigation as it is not considered a housing activity. However, we can investigate the landlord’s initial handling of the resident’s report of a house fire including its communications throughout the events.
10. The resident told us that the events and the landlord’s handling of the issues impacted on her health and that of her pet dog. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can however decide if the landlord should pay compensation for any landlord failures causing distress and inconvenience to the resident.
11. In September 2023, the property was struck by lightning, causing significant structural damage. Evidence shows the landlord acted promptly by visiting the site to assess the damage and support the resident. The landlord secured the property, helped the resident obtain temporary accommodation through the local authority, and set up an incident action group with key personnel to manage the situation. Overall, the evidence indicates the landlord’s initial response to the fire was appropriate given the circumstances.
12. Overall, the landlord evidenced extensive communication and support to the resident from the time of the fire damage through to the completion of the property rebuild in May 2025. This included:
    1. Regular progress updates on construction works
    2. Organising meetings to discuss developments
    3. Conducting site visits
    4. Responding to the resident’s numerous emails
    5. Involving the resident in selecting fixtures and fittings for the property
13. The landlord acknowledged that communication was not always consistent, particularly during a period when no named officer was assigned to the resident’s case. Although the records do not confirm how long this issue lasted, it likely caused the resident distress and led to reactive communication, often initiated by her rather than the landlord. Recognising this impact, the landlord offered £100 compensation to address the inconvenience.
14. While it is positive that the landlord acknowledged its communication failures, we cannot confirm the duration of these issues or whether the £100 compensation offered was sufficient. The period from the fire to the resident returning home was lengthy—around 18 months (September 2023 to May 2025). During this time, the resident felt the landlord was not treating her as a home owner. We do not have evidence to support the resident’s belief, however, it was clear the landlord’s lack of communication had a significant impact on the resident causing her distress and frustration. During this time, proactive communication was essential to keep her informed.
15. Given the lack of records and the impact on the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay £300 compensation in total (including the £100 already offered) to put things right for her in recognition of the distress and inconvenience. This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance where there has been an adverse impact to the resident. For these reasons, we have found a service failure in the landlord’s handling of communications.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the demolition and rebuild of the property
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

16. The resident’s lease agreement with the landlord (section 4.2) states that at all times it is required to keep the premises insured against loss or damage by fire and other risks. The resident pays a monthly charge to the landlord for building insurance. The building insurance policy is in the name of the landlord. Any claim against this policy has to be made by the landlord. In this case, the landlord submitted a claim to the building insurer. The demolition and rebuild of the property was managed under this policy.
17. Our role is to review the actions or omissions of the landlord or those acting on its behalf. Managing an insurance policy is not considered a housing activity, so we do not have jurisdiction to investigate the insurer’s actions unless the insurer was acting on behalf of the landlord in handling the complaint. For these reasons, the complaint is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate. The resident may wish to seek advice from the Financial Services Ombudsman relating to the building insurance complaint.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

18. The landlord supported the resident in obtaining temporary accommodation initially through the local authority and then in an hotel until the building insurance loss adjuster was appointed who managed the temporary accommodation.
19. The management of an insurance policy is not a housing activity, and therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to investigate the actions of the insurer. These types of complaints are more suited for investigation under the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) for complaints relating to insurance. The local authority complaint relating to temporary accommodation is more suited to be investigated by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

20. On 10 July 2024, the resident raised a complaint. The records do not confirm whether the landlord acknowledged it at that time. However, on 6 August 2024, the landlord visited the resident, followed up with 2 holding letters, and issued its Stage 1 response on 20 September 2024.
21. Under our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), Stage 1 complaints must be acknowledged, defined, and logged within 5 working days of receipt. The landlord must then issue a full response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. If an extension is required due to complexity, the landlord must inform the resident of the revised timescale. Any extension should not exceed 10 additional working days without good reason, and the reasons must be clearly explained to the resident.
22. The landlord delayed its Stage 1 response by 2 months. However, it followed the principles of the Code by sending holding letters to agree on an extended timeframe for its response. The landlord acknowledged the inconvenience caused and offered £100 compensation, which we consider reasonable in the circumstances.
23. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint, responding on 31 October 2024. However, the records do not show the exact date the escalation was made, so we are unable to assess the timeframe for the landlord’s Stage 2 response.
24. Under our Code, Stage 2 escalation requests must be acknowledged, defined, and logged within 5 working days of receipt. A full Stage 2 response must then be issued within 20 working days.
25. The records suggest the Stage 2 response was issued around 1 month later. However, poor record-keeping meant we could not confirm the exact timeframe or whether the complaint was acknowledged. The landlord did acknowledge a delay and offered an additional £100 compensation, bringing the total for complaint handling failures to £200. This amount aligns with our remedies guidance for failures that caused an adverse impact on the resident. We therefore consider this to be reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord’s complaint handling records were limited. Going forward, the landlord should ensure it maintains sufficient records to fully audit complaint handling and demonstrate compliance with our Code requirements. For best practice, the landlord should review our Spotlight report: Knowledge, Information and Management (KIM – May 2023).

Communication

27. The landlord’s lack of communication during a key period of activity was a significant shortcoming. This was especially important given the major events and the impact on the resident after losing her home. The landlord should review this complaint and ensure lessons are learned and improvements implemented.