Aster Group Limited (202450788)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202450788

Aster Group Limited

28 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s requests for the kitchen, bathroom, and roof to be replaced.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow, and the resident has lived there since March 2011. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident has reported that he is self-employed.
On 26 November 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report damp and mould in his property. He stated it had been ongoing for several years and he had been addressing it himself with bleach. The resident also reported that other properties in the area had been given new roofs, but he had not. The landlord responded on the same day. It stated it had asked its contractor to arrange a damp and mould inspection with the resident, and it had passed on the resident’s other comments to the relevant departments.
On 16 December 2024 the landlord’s contractor carried out a damp and mould survey. It categorised the mould as level 3 – severe but noted that the resident had already cleaned and painted over most of the mould in the property. It outlined that a cavity wall survey was also needed. The resident expressed frustration that the contractor had not turned up at the advised time and explained he was self-employed so had missed work to accommodate the appointment. The landlord apologised to the resident for this.
On 17 January 2025 the landlord carried out a cavity wall survey. It identified that the wall cavity was clear, but the property could benefit from some insulation. The survey identified a large crack in the mortar at the rear of the property which may have allowed water ingress into the cavity, and that there was a break in the guttering downpipe. The landlord also carried out a mould wash in the resident’s property.
On the same day, the resident raised a formal complaint. He reported that a contractor had not turned up when they were meant to, and a mould wash had been carried out which meant he needed to redecorate again at his own cost. The resident noted he had lost 2 days of work so he could accommodate appointments.
On 23 January 2025 the resident repeated his complaint. He also expressed frustration that the windows in the property were blown, the kitchen was in need of replacement, and the roof was leaking.
On 24 January 2025 the landlord phoned the resident to discuss his concerns. The resident explained that he usually did his own repairs due to his work commitments. The resident stated that he had been told the kitchen was due for replacement, but this had not happened. He also noted that he regularly left his door open so his dog could get outside but this made the property cold. The resident requested redecoration vouchers rather than the landlord carrying out this work.
On 5 February 2025 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It stated:
1. The kitchen was due for replacement between 2024 and 2027.
2. The roof was due for replacement in 2026.
3. The windows were due for replacement in 2027.
4. The bathroom was due for replacement in 2029.
The landlord also explained that it had raised the following works orders:
1. Replace the back board to sink unit, service units, and inspect work tops in the kitchen.
2. Replace floor covering in the bathroom.
3. Service windows and remediate or replace blown double glazed united.
4. Reconnect rainwater downpipe.
5. Repoint cracks in external wall.
6. Install cavity wall insulation.
The landlord offered the resident a £200 redecoration voucher. It explained it would not compensate for the fact the resident had missed days of work to accommodate appointments because the tenancy agreement places an obligation on the resident to allow access. In addition to the voucher, it offered the resident £200 compensation in relation to the confusion caused around its previous visits.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on the same day he received the stage 1 response. He expressed frustration that other properties in his neighbourhood had recently had new roofs, but he had not, and that the kitchen was not going to be replaced. He also reported that the mould had reappeared. On 10 February 2025, the landlord’s records state that the resident requested for all booked appointments to be cancelled until his complaint had been responded to.
On 11 March 2025 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised that the works orders it had previously raised had been cancelled and explained it would re–raise these. It also offered to carry out a mould wash and stain block for the resident. The landlord explained that the replacement of the kitchen was based on an indicative life cycle, and it aimed to complete replacements within 3 years of the end of the life cycle. It offered a further £100 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by having to re–raise the works orders.

Events post internal complaints process

On 31 March 2025 the landlord contacted the resident to book an appointment. The resident declined because he wanted all works to be completed on the same day, so he did not have to take more time off work. The landlord offered an appointment on 25 April 2025, but the resident explained he would be unavailable on this date.
On 25 June 2025 landlord’s records state that the resident wanted all of the works to be completed on the same day, but it was struggling to arrange this because several different contractors were required.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We understand that the resident has reported historical issues of mould and repairs in the property to us. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for a resident to raise a formal complaint about matters within a reasonable period of these occurring, usually considered to be 12 months. This is so the landlord has an opportunity to investigate the matters while they are still live and while relevant records are still readily available. It is not evident that the resident raised a formal complaint about these earlier matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As such, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the issues from November 2024, which has been responded to in its complaint response.
Some of the evidence we have received relates to events that took place after this case was duly made to us on 17 June 2025. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint responses. In this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date the complaint was duly made. The resident has the option to raise any later events as a new complaint with the landlord in the first instance.

The replacement of the kitchen, bathroom, and roof

The resident has expressed frustration that the kitchen, bathroom, and roof are due for replacement, but this has not happened. The resident stated he was told the kitchen would be replaced when he moved into the property, and that other local residents have had new roofs. The landlord has outlined when it expects to complete its cyclical replacements of these issues.
It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. The landlord’s planned maintenance policy which is available on its website states that it will aim to replace kitchens that are over 20 years old or where they are reaching the end of their life. Bathrooms will be replaced if they are over 30 years old, but the landlord may only replace the elements that have reached the end of their life rather than the entire installation.
While we do not dispute the resident’s position that he was verbally informed about a kitchen replacement, we have not been provided with evidence to demonstrate what was said. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord clarified its position following the resident’s query, which was in line with its planned maintenance policy. The resident pointed out that other residents in the local area had recently had new roofs. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain its position on this.
It is unclear from the evidence when each of these items was originally installed. The landlord has outlined clearly when it expects to replace the kitchen, bathroom, and roof. It also provided a timeframe for the replacement of the windows in the property. It took steps to mitigate any impact on the resident by raising works orders to complete any repairs required. This was an appropriate response. Given that it is not evident that the kitchen, bathroom, or roof were beyond economic repair, it was reasonable that the landlord intended to complete repairs where necessary, and full replacements in line with its planned maintenance policy.
While we appreciate that the resident is dissatisfied with the timeframe the landlord has provided, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its own qualified staff to determine when replacements should be completed. The landlord has managed the resident’s expectations and provided clear information. We find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for the kitchen, bathroom, and roof to be replaced.

Damp and mould, and the associated repairs

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the property in good repair. The resident must report repairs to the landlord promptly. The resident must allow the landlord access to the property to carry out repairs, the landlord will give the resident up to 24 hours’ notice of a visit unless it is an emergency.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy sets out how it will respond to reports of damp and mould. When minor, moderate, or severe mould is reported, it will arrange for its surveyors to carry out a damp and mould survey. A survey should be completed within 10 working days of the report.
The resident reported damp and mould on 26 November 2024, and the landlord raised an inspection on the same day. The inspection was carried out on 16 December 2024 which is 14 working days after the report was made and outside of the landlord’s advertised time frames. This was a shortcoming; however, this had only a minimal impact on the overall outcome. The survey identified that a cavity wall inspection was needed, and this took place on 17 January 2025. We consider that the landlord completed this follow up inspection in a reasonable time because it happened 21 working days after the initial inspection.
The resident stated that the landlord had turned up late for its appointment, which meant that he had missed a day of work. As a result, the resident has been hesitant to allow further visits or has requested that all work be completed on 1 day to minimise the time he needs to take off work. While we understand the resident’s position, he has an obligation to allow the landlord access to carry out repairs in line with the tenancy agreement. The landlord offered an apology and compensation to the resident for its late attendance and any confusion caused, which was appropriate.
The resident reported that the landlord’s contractor had carried out a mould wash which meant that he now needed to redecorate. It was appropriate for the landlord to complete a mould wash to ensure that all existing mould had been removed. The landlord offered the resident redecoration vouchers when he indicated he did not want the landlord to do the redecoration, which was a reasonable response.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord outlined the repairs it intended to carry out to address the cause of the damp and mould. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident requested these works be cancelled until he had received the landlord’s final complaint response.
Repairs often require the cooperation of residents to facilitate appointments and ensure the landlord has access to the property. While we do not question the resident’s reasons for not allowing access or requesting the work be cancelled, any delays which occurred solely because of the resident declining appointments are beyond the control of the landlord. The landlord re–raised the work in its stage 2 response and offered the resident compensation of £100 for any inconvenience caused by the delay in carrying out the work. This was an appropriate response.
The evidence suggests that the resident requested for all of the identified work to be completed on the same day. As part of our investigation, we have been provided with the landlord’s internal correspondence. We can see that the landlord has made several attempts to arrange for all necessary contractors to be available on the same day in order to facilitate the resident’s request but has not yet been able to confirm a suitable date. The landlord attempted to book visits for 4 April 2025 and 25 April 2025, but the resident was not available.
Overall, we consider that the landlord has acted in accordance with its obligations. It acted appropriately by inspecting the property, carrying out further inspections to identify the cause of the mould, and attempting to arrange remedial works. While we understand that the resident is frustrated that the remedial work has not yet been completed, the landlord has demonstrated it has made several attempts to arrange this to the resident’s satisfaction. We find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to attempt to arrange for the required works to be completed.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for the kitchen, bathroom, and roof to be replaced.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to attempt to arrange for the works identified to be completed.