Abri Group Limited (202227119)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227119

Abri Group Limited

27 June 2024

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs reports concerning her previous property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The previous property was a 3-bedroom house. The resident’s tenancy for the property commenced in 2020, and she moved into a new property in May 2023. The resident’s household includes her husband and 2 children, and she says she is disabled. The resident and her husband are both parties to the complaint, but for the purposes of this report are both referred to as ‘the resident.’
3. The landlord’s repairs records show that since 2020 a number of repairs were raised after reports from the resident. These include repairs for rotted stairs, leaking gutters, damp walls, cracks, damaged plaster, pointing, bathroom water ingress, blown windows, and window seals, and recurrent repairs for issues including gutters, bathroom ingress and plastering to the kitchen ceiling. In late 2022 and early January 2023, repairs were raised for water ingress issues including the bathroom, gutters, brickwork, a roof inspection, various cracks, and damaged plaster to the kitchen ceiling.
4. In mid-January 2023, the resident made a complaint. She raised dissatisfaction with the repairs that had been required since 2020, and that some issues such as a kitchen ceiling had had multiple repairs. She said that the voids department had not addressed a number of issues before she moved in, that the landlord’s workmen were inexperienced, and that she had incurred decoration costs and been caused distress and inconvenience due to the repeated repairs. She raised concern with current issues such as cracks and water ingress, and said there was a significant issue with the rear wall that needed to be fixed before other repairs.
5. In February 2023, the resident reported issues including chunks of the bathroom ceiling falling down, and the property was attended by the landlord and the local authority environmental health. The landlord confirmed it was already progressing repairs that the local authority observed for bathroom and kitchen ceilings, pointing and investigation of the roof, and some repairs such as the bathroom ceiling were completed the same month. Later the same month, the resident said she was noticing issues with a bedroom ceiling similar to the bathroom, and she expressed a desire to move from the property which she started to explore with the local authority.
6. The same month, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It noted repairs since 2020 and that water ingress issues had not been fully resolved. It said it had arranged a specialist inspection for some concerns about woodworm. It said its empty homes team agreed issues should have been picked up if visible during the void period. It noted a surveyor had recently inspected, and the ceiling was made safe before repairs that had been booked including ceilings, cracks and guttering. It noted the resident said the property was unsuitable for her needs and she was bidding on properties via the local authority. It detailed options for assessments by occupational therapists including its own. It acknowledged and apologised for the resident’s poor experience and the distress and inconvenience caused to her and her family, and said learning had been discussed with voids and repairs teams. It noted she had incurred costs redecorating and awarded £100 for multiple failed repairs, £100 for distress and inconvenience, and £100 towards decorating as well as a decorating pack for the whole property. Following this, the resident raised dissatisfaction with the compensation, and said her preference was to be moved.
7. In March 2023, the resident continued to raise concerns, saying issues with bedroom and kitchen ceilings were worsening, there were water ingress issues despite contractors visiting that month and not finding a leak, and cracks had appeared in other areas such as the landing and a doorframe. The local authority environmental health subsequently visited and asked the landlord to arrange a number of works to avoid an improvement notice. These included works to investigate a lounge leak, replaster the kitchen ceiling, investigate a rear vent to assess if it caused leaks, repoint, investigate cracks that were likely natural movement, investigate bathroom and rear bedroom ceilings to assess if there was a damp issue or if holes just needed patching, replaster and reseal a window, and repair roof felt.
8. The same month, the landlord confirmed it would complete the works, and a timber specialist inspected concerns about woodworm, identifying some evidence of infestation in a stairway area but not in other areas, for which some timber treatment was quoted. The resident was also offered a new property via the local authority bidding process which she progressed.
9. In April 2023, the landlord completed works at the property, and a damp company inspected. They noted that the household of 4 people and 11 pets would contribute to moisture levels, and that external cladding was in good condition. However, they said that bathroom and kitchen fans were not suitable, and an existing positive input ventilation system was not working and should be replaced.
10. The same month, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It noted the resident’s dissatisfaction and actions it had taken, including recent ones. It addressed concerns she raised. It noted that the local authority had visited in February then March 2023 when a number of works not identified in the first visit were recommended, which it had scheduled in line with her availability. It noted that she had had to contact and chase multiple times about the same issues, and that it had no record of some repairs being completed, and apologised for its poor service, communication and recordkeeping. It said it was taking steps to address these, and a head of service and senior manager would also visit the resident. It noted that she sought compensation that included £5,075 she had incurred on the property. It awarded £5,400, which comprised the £300 at stage 1, £200 decorating vouchers, £3,000 for decorating costs, £1,300 for household and garden costs, £200 for time and trouble, £200 for inconvenience, and £200 for its poor records that had made it difficult to fully investigate the concerns. 
11. The resident subsequently moved out of the property in May 2023, and the landlord informs the Ombudsman that it disposed of the property in December 2023. The resident said that the offer did not reimburse all her costs at her previous property but she accepted it as she felt it was fair. However, she noted that no works had started at the old property when she moved out. She raised dissatisfaction that she was put in a property with water ingress and compromised insulation which was difficult and expensive to heat, unlike her new property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. The resident complains about issues going back to 2020, however the main focus of the Ombudsman’s investigation is on events from around 2023, when the resident made her formal complaint. This is in line with our Scheme, which sets out how we investigate complaints, that complaints should be made within a reasonable time of the issues complained about. This is because the longer time goes on, the more difficult it becomes to conduct an effective investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs reports concerning her previous property

13. The resident has detailed many concerns about the property and the impact of issues such as holes in the bathroom ceiling on her children. The Ombudsman recognises that the issues were very upsetting for the resident and her family, and caused them substantial worry, disruption and inconvenience.
14. The landlord seems to have been generally responsive to the repairs reports, and completed works where these have been identified to be necessary. However, it is clear that some issues were of a repeat nature, and that there was ineffective communication at times between the landlord’s staff, contractors and the resident. The resident will have understandably found the ongoing or repeat nature of some issues distressing, and understandably found having to redecorate on multiple occasions inconveniencing and costly. It is also understandable that she may have lacked confidence that all issues were fully acknowledged and resolved.
15. The landlord seems to have acknowledged and responded to the resident’s concerns and complaint in a generally appropriate manner, however. It responded to the current repairs reports, arranged surveyor and specialist inspections and raised identified works, completed works recommended by the local authority in a swift manner, acknowledged relevant service issues that it said it would remedy, and awarded a large amount of compensation which the resident acknowledged was fair.
16. The landlord did not seem to address the lack of a walk-in shower when the resident moved in, but as noted at paragraph 12, events 3 years prior to the formal complaint are not the main focus of the Ombudsman’s investigation. The landlord did however detail how occupational therapists could assess the resident’s current needs for any necessary works to be considered, which seemed reasonable advice given the time that had passed.
17. The resident said that the compensation did not reimburse all her expenditure at the property. The Ombudsman recognises the resident’s understandable desire not to be out of pocket, but it is not within our authority or expertise to make definitive decisions about negligence and liability. However, the compensation clearly reflected the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s concerns and claimed costs, in line with what we would expect to see, and seems reasonable based on the evidence seen and our remedies guidance.
18. The Ombudsman therefore finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs reports concerning her previous property, as while there were service failings and the resident and her family experienced much worry, distress and inconvenience during the course of events, it is also evident that the landlord sought to respond to and acknowledge the concerns and sought to provide what is a reasonable level of redress on the evidence.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs reports concerning her previous property.

Recommendations

20. The landlord is recommended to review how to ensure that, when an issue requires repeated repair as with the kitchen ceiling, appropriate consideration is given to the options available for an effective and lasting resolution, for both the issue and its cause.