Aster Group Limited (202526007)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. At the time of her complaint, she lived with her 2 adult sons. The resident advised this Service that she had complained about damp to the landlord and was previously advised it was due to condensation and lifestyle.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents:
   1. Report of damp and mould within the property.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:
   1. Maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of damp and mould.
   2. Service failure in its Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acknowledged, during its complaints process that there had been significant delays in its response to resolve the damp and mould issue and offered a proportionate amount of financial redress. The landlords records however, were poor, and it failed to demonstrate an adequate level of investigation into the delays which occurred, so it has been unable to demonstrate any it had learnt what had gone wrong or put in place any service improvements as a result.
5. There were delays in the landlords complaint handling. It apologised and offered the resident £300 compensation to recognise the delay and failure. The landlord failed to in the Ombudsman’s opinion, demonstrate an adequate level of investigation into the delays or learning from its complaint handling failings.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not looked at

6. It is beyond the authority of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the households physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that the households health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.
7. The landlord offered compensation for delays going back to 2021. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident experienced delays since this time, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. Therefore, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s actions in the period leading up to the formal complaint. This is also in accordance with the Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period of the matter occurring.

What we have looked at

8. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord is required to keep the structure of the property in good repair.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy says that critical emergency repairs are carried out within 4 hours to make safe any defect where there is potential to endanger life. Emergency repairs are carried out within 24 hours where defects could cause health and safety risks. Routine repairs are completed within 20 working days and repairs typically larger in nature within 60 days.
10. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a system that identifies and categorises various hazards that can be found in a home. Under the HHSRS, damp and mould is classified as a hazard and the landlord is responsible for avoiding or at least minimising these hazards.
11. The landlord’s condensation and mould policy states that it will categorise and treat reports of damp, mould and condensation dependent on severity. It says it will survey the property, when possible, within 10 working days. This policy states it will clearly communicate with customers being kept updated regarding any work required.
12. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord followed its mould and condensation policy initially, as it arranged a surveyor inspection of the resident’s property within a reasonable period after she reported damp and mould in February 2024. The resident has advised that the rear wall was found to be damp when a kitchen replacement was in progress at this time. The landlord has not produced a survey report for its inspection on 13 February 2024, nor do its records indicate what severity it categorised the damp as under its policy.
13. Although a works order to overhaul trickle vents was raised on 13 February 2024, its system notes indicate a further visit took place on 19 February 2024. It is on this date that the landlord noted the cavity wall insulation to the rear of the property to be “saturated”.
14. It is evident that the landlords actions following this were not timely. Between 20 February 2024 and 15 April 2024, the landlords system notes evidence its surveyor was chased 7 times for an update following the inspection. It is not clear if the resident chased the landlord during this time, nevertheless the delay was unreasonable.
15. A further inspection took place on 15 April 2024 and again the landlord noted the cavity wall insulation to be “soaking wet”. This inspection is noted as a “complaint inspection” on the landlords system however this predated the complaint it logged for the resident. This indicates that there was previous correspondence with the resident which was not provided to this Service for this investigation.
16. The landlord logged the residents frustrations with the lack of progress internally on 29 April 2024 and it provided a stage 1 response on 4 May 2024 where it committed to carrying out works to rectify the issues it had identified at its inspection on 10 May 2024. It is evident that its stage 1 response contained inaccuracies. The landlord provided a survey report of its inspection on 10 May 2024, and its repair records detail works were raised in early June and some completed in July 2024, which included the removal of the cavity wall insulation.
17. Quotes for internal decoration and plastering were raised in June 2024 however there are minimal records following this to demonstrate the landlords actions. Some repair orders were raised in late August and early September 2024 however its records do not provide the detail of the works. No contact records from this period have been provided either. In an email to the resident on 1 July 2025, the landlord noted its communication at this time “settled” due to the walls needing to dry out. It is not evident this was communicated to the resident prior to this which was not reasonable.
18. In addition, works orders were raised in early June 2025 and noted an ongoing complaint. In an email to the resident dated 1 July 2025, the landlord confirmed it had visited the property on 9 April 2025 and raised the remaining internal works following receipt of quotes from its contractor. Again, no inspection record was provided, and it is not evident that the resident was communicated with about the works at the time which was not reasonable.
19. The format in which repair records were provided to this investigation do not make it clear when works took place. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
20. In an email in July 2025, it said it had visited in April 2025 but did not note any mould growth or significant change to the walls at that time. The landlord inspected the property on multiple occasions but did not produce reports for each inspection. The lack of clear records has impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to understand the severity of the mould throughout the period of the residents complaint.
21. The lack of records also impacted the landlords ability to have adequate oversight of what works were outstanding at the property. On 1 July 2025 the landlord advised the resident it presumed the cavity wall had been refilled but said it had faced challenges with its contractor at the time. It committed to getting the cavity wall filled as soon as possible. It confirmed in its stage 2 response that the cavity wall insulation was completed in November 2025, some 4 months later. In addition, the landlord did not post inspect the works or monitor if they had resolved the issue.
22. Following the residents stage 2 complaint being logged, the landlord re-inspected the property and raised the required repairs. It took approximately 5 months to complete these however, and it is evident that its communication throughout this time was not effective. The resident made it clear to the landlord in September 2025 that works should not be completed before a clear plan of the repairs to be undertaken was put in place. It is understandable the resident requested this as she had experienced poor communication around repairs previously and wanted reassurance that the landlord would provide an enduring resolution to the damp. It is not evident that the landlord provided a plan of the works to the resident before concluding its complaint process in December 2025.
23. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This service will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience, and the resident’s circumstances will be taken into account.
24. The landlord acknowledged, during its complaints process that there had been delays in completing the proposed works to resolve the damp and mould issue. The landlord apologised to the resident in both its complaint responses for these delays. The landlord initially offered the resident £250 compensation in its stage 1 response to recognise the delay. The landlord then increased its offer of compensation to £2300 in its final response to recognise the further delays, going back to 2021. The landlord also offered £500 compensation for impact and inconvenience, £200 for its poor communication, and said it would consider a further payment for additional heating during the period it delayed reinstating the cavity wall insulation. The landlords offer of compensation was in line with its policy at the time.
25. As a result of the above failings the resident expended time and trouble pursuing the repairs and her complaint. She and her family experienced inconvenience and distress and had reduced enjoyment of their home. However, the landlord has acted fairly by apologising for not effectively managing the issue, the delays, its poor communication, and inconvenience caused.
26. It is acknowledged that the amount of compensation offered by the landlord exceeds both the timeframe for the scope of this investigation and broadly incorporates the amount which would be recommended by the Ombudsman in the circumstance. However, the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has a relationship with the resident and has greater knowledge of the details of the case historically. Therefore, in this case, the Ombudsman believes the landlord’s offer of compensation, was reasonable and proportionate in recognising the significant delays and any distress the resident experienced.
27. This does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould reports, and the impact on the resident, was ‘reasonable’, but reflects that there were considerable failings by the landlord which it acknowledged and offered compensation for.
28. Although the amount of financial redress is seen as reasonable, the landlords records were poor, and it failed to demonstrate an adequate level of investigation into the delays which occurred, so it has been unable to demonstrate any learning from its identified failings. It is for these reasons that the Ombudsman finds maladministration and an order has been made to recognise this.

29. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Complaints are acknowledged within 2 working days. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
30. It has been difficult to establish when the landlord logged the residents complaint at each stage as it has not evidenced it acknowledged the complaint. Its policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, the landlord has therefore not evidenced it followed its own policy in this respect.
31. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 May 2025, which was 4 working days after it internally raised the residents concerns. As has been noted above, it is evident previous correspondence with the resident was not provided to this Service for this investigation as the landlord notes indicate a “complaint” prior to this.
32. The landlords policy says requests to escalate to stage 2 must be made within 30 days. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 July 2025, which far exceeds this timeframe. As the works promised in its stage 1 response had been delayed significantly, it was an appropriate use of the landlords discretion to escalate the complaint to stage 2 and not prolong the complaints process with another stage 1.
33. The landlords stage 2 response was provided 113 working days after the residents email of 1 July 2025. During this time, the landlord emailed the resident to extend its target response time on multiple occasions. Although this is good practice, the amount of time was unreasonable, and it is evident the landlord failed to keep to its proposed timescales on multiple occasions.
34. Within both its complaint responses, the landlord gave advice on the route for making a claim for the impact on the households health through its insurers as it could not compensate for personal injury through its complaints process. This was consistent and clear advice, which was also in line with its complaint policy.
35. The landlords stage 2 response was significantly delayed, and the landlords complaint process lasted around 20 months. The delay would have caused avoidable inconvenience for the resident, and she was delayed in progressing the complaint to the Ombudsman because she needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before escalating her concerns to this Service. The delay was unacceptable.
36. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response, that there were delays in its complaint handling. It apologised and offered the resident £300 compensation to recognise the delay and failure. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s compensation guidance for when there have been delays at each stage.
37. Although the amount of financial redress for its complaint handling is seen as reasonable, the landlord failed to, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, demonstrate an adequate level of investigation into the delays in its complaint handling. It therefore has not demonstrated it learnt from what went wrong and could put a plan in place to ensure it improved its service for the future. The Ombudsman therefore considers it appropriate to make a finding of service failure, which would have been a finding of maladministration had the landlord not acknowledged and compensated for some failings.

Learning

38. The landlord should ensure that it has adequate resourcing in place to ensure that its staff are able to comply with the Code, and that its staff have sufficient training on its complaint handling obligations.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. Landlords should maintain appropriate records so they can satisfy themselves, their residents and external organisations like the Ombudsman that they have responded to issues in a way that is fair and reasonable. In this case, the landlord did not provide clear records to demonstrate this or that they were aware of what the outstanding repair need was at the property. This indicates more effective record keeping is needed.

Communication

40. Landlords must ensure open and clear lines of communication with residents. In this case, communication was limiting and inevitably added to the resident’s frustration and distress. It remains that the landlord should have kept the resident up to date with the progress of works and provided an effective point of contact for the resident to obtain updates from.