Abri Group Limited (202309751)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309751

Abri Group Limited

31 May 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

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of a leak at the resident’s property, including its communication.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould at the property.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
The following complaint is outside our jurisdiction.
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould at the property.
The resident’s complaint of 12 October 2022 concerned the landlord’s handling of a leak from an upstairs property and the remedial repairs. There is dispute as to whether the resident made a complaint. The landlord has stated that none was made. The resident has informed this Service that they made a number of complaints over the telephone but never received a response. They were verbal due to Mrs R’s autism. The resident contacted their Councillor, but the Ombudsman has not seen any correspondence between the Councillor and landlord.
The leak was localised whereas the damp and mould was in all the rooms, therefore the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the damp and mould was due to the leak, nor did an inspection carried out in December 2022, indicate that was the case.
Paragraph 42 (a) of our Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
As the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident has made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould, we would not fairly be able to investigate the matter. Our Scheme only allows us to investigate complaints which the landlord has had the opportunity to respond to.
While we cannot investigate a complaint about damp and mould in this investigation, the Ombudsman is not making a finding that the resident did not make a complaint. The Ombudsman is mindful that a complaint is defined by our Scheme and the landlord’s policy as an expression of dissatisfaction.
It is open to the resident to make a complaint to the landlord about its handling of damp and mould in their property. On 14 May 2024, the landlord has informed this Service that it would raise a new complaint for consideration, and would check with the resident regarding their wishes.

Background and summary of events

The residents, husband and wife, occupied a 1-bedroom ground floor flat under a fixed–term assured shorthold tenancy which began on 16 March 2018. It was a joint tenancy. The residents will be referred to in this report as Mr R and Mrs R, or as the resident, where they acted jointly.
The landlord informed this Service that Mrs R was diagnosed with autism which it considered to be a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 and treated as a protected characteristic.
The resident suffered a number of leaks from the flat above them, which was owned by a leaseholder of the landlord.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord’s obligations include keeping the main structure in repair, including electrical wiring and doing works within a reasonable time. The resident was required to give access for inspections and works to be carried out.
The landlord’s reasonable adjustments policy stated as follows:
1. The landlord was committed to ensuring that “disabled people are not disadvantaged in accessing our services, and where needed we will make reasonable adjustments”.
2. It would “place customers at the heart of policies and strategies in all of our activities, design and deliver services that are appropriate, accessible, and effective in meeting the diverse needs of our customers, engage with and listen to customers, ensuring that we have considered impacts on protected characteristics and beyond when developing and delivering services or new projects or proposals.”
The landlord’s complaint policy defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its staff, or those acting on their behalf, affecting an individual customer or group of customers.

Chronology

The landlord provided a chronology for this investigation that will be referred to as a “Summary”. This report will specify where the evidence is from the Summary as opposed to contemporaneous records.
According to the Summary, the resident reported a leak through the light fitting on 7 November 2021 from the property above. The landlord repaired it on 10 November 2021.
On 9 January 2022, the resident reported a leak from a private flat above that had affected the electrics. An electrician attended the same day and checked the electrics. The landlord raised a job to remove the water damaged ceiling and prepare for new plasterboard.
On 7 March 2022, the resident’s mother reported there was an “uncontainable” leak in the kitchen coming from the sink which had “flooded” the kitchen. She was unable to locate stop cock. An electrician for the landlord attended and restored power following a leak.
The Summary stated:
1. On 17 September 2022, the resident reported another leak. The electrics were made safe but the landlord’s plumber was unable to access the upstairs property.
2. On 23 September 2022, it raised a job to repair the bathroom light as did the resident who then cancelled the job. The resident considered it should have been done sooner.
3. On 29 September 2022, the resident cancelled the job raised to check the electrics.
4. On 6 October 2022, the landlord contacted the leaseholder who confirmed that a plumber had been engaged.
According to the landlord’s repair records, on 29 September 2022, the resident reported a “containable” leak in the bathroom from the property above through the light fitting. The light had not been switched for 3 months. The landlord raised a job to repair the leak but, instead, informed the leaseholder it was their responsibility.
On 10 October 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident that it has tried to contact the leaseholder so that they would arrange for a plumber to re-attend as soon as possible.
On 12 October 2022, the resident made a complaint that they were still having issues with a leak from above. It had been ongoing for a year. They were concerned that the leaks had caused internal and electrical damage. The cause of the leak had not been identified. According to the Summary, the resident stated that the leak had abated.
According to the Summary, on 24 October 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident and arranged an inspection of the internal damage, “quickly due to (the resident’s) vulnerabilities”.
On 25 October 2022, the landlord replied with its Stage 1 response as follows:
1. The complaint was about the length of time it had taken to repair the light fitting in the bathroom.
2. The complaint was not upheld.
3. The light fitting had been damaged due to an ongoing leak from the flat situated above. It had been unable to replace the light fitting over the past couple of months due to the water damage needing to dry out and being unsafe to install a new light fitting.
4. An electrician had attended the day before (24 October 2022) to replace the light fitting and a supervisor attended to complete an inspection.
5. It would raise a damp inspection and a decorative job to address the water damage. The “scheduling team” would book a convenient time.
6. Due to the length of time the repair had taken, it offered as “a gesture of goodwill” for the distress and inconvenience caused shopping vouchers in the amount of £50.
According to the Summary, on the same day, the landlord raised a job to instruct specialist damp and mould contractors to carry out an inspection.
On 26 October 2022, according to the landlord’s records, Mrs R contacted the landlord by phone “very angry” that the landlord had been discriminatory. The officer had spoken to Mr R who he reported to have been happy with the resolution and inspection. Mrs R said she was autistic and requested to escalate the complaint.
According to the Summary, on 28 October 2022, the resident reported a fresh leak. The landlord contacted the leaseholder who agreed to attend the resident’s property the following day, as the resident was unavailable that day.
According to the repair records, on 3 November 2022, the resident cancelled the redecoration works pending the damp and mould inspection and because they would not be at home.
The landlord wrote on 11 November 2022 that the investigation was taking longer than expected and therefore would need to extend the timescale for reply to 8 December 2022.
In an undated letter (the copy provided to this Service is undated), but it is assumed on 12 December 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. The complaint was about:
  1. Communication around “sequencing of work to account for the resident’s needs, for example allowing ... extra time to accommodate appointments or changes to appointments”.
  2. “Better sequencing of works so there is less needed to do and then redo work. This would also save the anxiety of having to several trades people visiting and having carry out and then re carry out repairs”.
2. It upheld the complaint.
3. The issue with the bathroom light had been ongoing since January 2022.
4. The underlying cause had not been addressed and the damp survey still needed to be undertaken. This rendered the repair to the light in the bathroom only temporary in nature.
5. “If at this stage, it was known to (the landlord) that the issue with the bathroom light was likely to ongoing until such time as the source of the leak could be found. This should have been explained to you alongside the reasons for the delay”.
6. It had failed to discuss any reasonable adjustments to support the resident during the repairs and inspections.
7. It had failed to recognise the impact when undertaking the repairs on their daily routine and wellbeing.
8. It apologised for not doing this.
9. To support its neurodivergent customers, it would be working on ways to improve communication and engagement when undertaking repairs including training.
10. As Head of Diversity and Inclusion, the writer invited their views on how the landlord could best support its customers who were neurodivergent. It asked to arrange a telephone conversation with both residents on 20 December 2022 or when suitable.
11. It offered £250 by way of apology for the inconvenience caused over the length of time to carry out the repair and to acknowledge the stress.
12. This was “in full and final settlement” of the complaint.
On 14 December 2022, a damp and mould inspection was carried out and the works approved the following day.
According to the Summary, on 19 December 2022, the landlord called the leaseholder to say that he would need to arrange for a plumber. The leaseholder confirmed a plumber had been booked on 22 December 2022. The landlord relayed this to the resident.
On 22 December 2022, the resident sent a video of a leak of that afternoon.
According to the Summary, some of the damp and mould works took place on 17 January 2023. The landlord arranged site visit for 13 February 2023. The resident did not give access but informed the supervisor that the works had been completed. It is assumed this referred to the damp and mould works. It was agreed the resident would contact the landlord if there was anything further.
Prompted by this Service’s requesting the Stage 2 letter, on 7 August 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident that it had booked an appointment to carry out remedial works identified “during a routine electrical safety check”. It would attend 22 August 2023.
According to the Summary:
1. On 8 August 2023, the landlord scheduled an all-day appointment to visit to the property to inspect the bathroom that day. Mrs R advised that she was upset that they had not been given a precise time for the appointment and had waited in all day.
2. On 10 August 2023, a different officer of the landlord attended. There had been further leaks. It tried to contact the leaseholder. A job was raised for a damp and mould wash for 23 September 2023.
According to the landlord’s completed works forms:
1. On 11 August 2023, the landlord’s plumber inspected the leasehold property. The plumber removed the bath panel. A previous repair had failed. He identified more “leak pipework underneath the water supplier hot and cold”. The leaseholder declined the landlord’s offer to carry out the works and said he would contact his own plumber that day.
According to the Summary:
1. On 14 and 16 August 2023, the landlord contacted the leaseholder, and the leaseholder stated the leak had been fixed.
According to the landlord’s completed works forms:
1. On 21 August 2023, the plumber attended to check the leaseholder’s plumber’s works.
According to the Summary:
1. On 24 August 2023, the redecoration works were raised. The landlord’s, supervisor attended the property above, along with a plumber, to inspect works carried out by Leaseholder’s plumber. The works had been unsuccessful. It would carry out remedial works on his behalf on a rechargeable basis. The landlord also agreed to fit a new bathroom suite (purchased by the leaseholder). The landlord agreed to fit this at a reduced rate so as to best ensure the leak was resolved.
According to the repair records of 28 September 2023, it was noted that the resident did not give access to the landlord for an inspection for remedial works on 11 September 2023. A mould wash was raised and carried out.
According to the landlord’s works completed forms:
1. On 16 or 18 September 2023, the plumber carried out works including fitting a new bath and waste, and fitting a new stopcock.
On 27 September 2023, a contractor provided a variation order having identified works required to kitchen and bathroom included stain blocking, sealant, painting and decorating. An asbestos report would be needed. The works were approved. It was noted ”Customer has gone to the Ombudsman” and that the work was “required from ongoing leak from above that caused damage to property”.
On 19 October 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord that works had been carried out to the kitchen and bathroom. He attached photos to highlight the state of the floor, so that the landlord could assess whether it needed a repair or replacement. A photo of the toilet was provided in order to demonstrate damage. This did not appear to be connected with the initial remedial repairs.

Assessment and findings

While a number of events occurred after the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the Ombudsman would also expect the landlord to monitor the resolution and outcome of a complaint as part of its complaint handling processes. The Ombudsman will therefore consider the events after the Stage 2 letter of December 2022, where the events are closely linked to the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of a leak at the resident’s property including communication.

The landlord’s explanation for the delay in repairing the water–damaged ceiling was because the water damage needed to dry out. A job had been raised on 9 January 2022 to repair the water damaged ceiling. There was no evidence that the repair was carried out. A repair to the light fitting was raised in September 2022. According to the landlord’s Summary, the resident cancelled the job because it should have been done sooner. Given the previous leak occurred in January 2022, there was ample time to dry out the light and repair the light. According to the repair records, which may have been a record of the resident’s own account, the light had not been operating for 3 months. It is reasonable to conclude that there was an unreasonable delay before the light was repaired. However, it was resolved at the Stage 1 response insofar as the repair to the light fitting was carried out. While it did not uphold the complaint, it offered £50 in vouchers. At Stage 2, however, the landlord reasonably recognised that was not sufficient, it acknowledged failings and offered an additional £250.
The redecoration works were raised in November 2022 but access was not provided. Fault is not attributed to the landlord in that regard. However, there was no evidence that the remedial works were pursued once the damp and mould inspection had been carried out in December 2022 until our contact with the landlord in August 2023. While it is noted the resident did not give access in February 2023, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have checked whether or not the resident wished to arrange the remedial works and been proactive. The Ombudsman finds service failure in this regard.
There was a further delay to September 2023 before the works were raised, however in the meantime, the leak was repaired, there was some difficulty with access on an occasion, a mould wash had been carried out, and additional works were raised. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers the time to raise the works was reasonable. The time it took to carry out the works, after one month, was also reasonable.
However, the Ombudsman is concerned to note that the decision to carry out those works was influenced by the resident’s complaint and referral to this Service. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to treat all residents fairly, with the same level of service standards and not prioritise for any other reason than necessity.
It was reasonable that the landlord raised a damp and mould inspection as a response to the report of the leaks. The resident informed this Service that they were unhappy with how the damp and mould in their property was addressed. As stated, the Ombudsman is not investigating that aspect in this report.
The evidence showed that the resident suffered a number of leaks from the property upstairs. The landlord did not provide this Service with the lease, but it would have limited jurisdiction over the flat. A standard lease would contain obligations such as not to cause a nuisance to its neighbours. The leaseholder, and not the landlord, would be responsible for their plumbing and would have a duty of care not to be negligent. The landlord is likely only to have rights of access in an emergency. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to contact and liaise with the leaseholder, in particular given the vulnerabilities of the resident. Where proportionate, it could consider applying for an injunction that the repairs are carried out.
It is noted that the leaks from the flat above occurred in November 2021, 9 January 2022, 17 September 2022, 29 September 2022, 28 October 2022, on or around 19 December 2022, August 2023. The leak on 7 March 2022 was a separate issue. It was reasonable that the landlord contacted the leaseholder, attempted to inspect the property but it was not until August 2023 that it became effectively proactive. Given the frequency of the leaks in the autumn of 2022, the Ombudsman finds the delay unreasonable. While the landlord had been reassured by the leaseholder, it could have inspected the issue for itself sooner.
At that point, the landlord not only reasonably inspected the leaseholder’s bathroom, it offered to carry out the works. Fault is not attributed to the landlord that the leaseholder initially refused the works. It was reasonable to re-inspect the works after the leaseholder’s plumber had attended and exercise its reasonable discretion to carry out the works in order to resolve the issue. The Ombudsman finds that, by contacting the leaseholder and carrying out the works, this resolved the aspect of the leak.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Stage 1 response was not adequate. It did not address the resident’s complaint about delays to remedial works or note the length of time it took to repair the light fitting. Equally, the Stage 2 response did not note that the issue with the leaks had dated back to November 2021. However, it acknowledged its failings, if the explanation itself regarding the remedial works lacked clarity, and offered compensation.
It was also reasonable and appropriate that the response focussed on the resident’s needs and expressed a wish to take the matter more widely within the organisation. It proactively recognised its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
There was, however, no evidence of onward monitoring of the complaint or how the repairs team communicated with the resident. It is noted that in its Stage 2 response, that the landlord had tried to arrange a conversation with the resident in order to understand her needs and it is understood the resident did not agree to this. However, the landlord had noted the issue with appointments. In August 2023, it offered an all-day appointment. That may have been an arrangement that required, and justified, a reasonable adjustment. While the evidence indicated that, additionally, the supervisor was delayed through no fault of his own and tried to contact the resident, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered making a reasonable adjustment, as it had assured it would do in its Stage 2 complaint response. That was unreasonable.
The Stage 2 response used the phrase “full and final settlement”. The landlord should avoid such language as it connotes a legal expression that a resident would not be able to take their complaint further (such as to this Service or a court) if the offer of compensation were accepted. That phrase should be reserved for genuine legal agreements, where there is a legitimate intention and agreement to bind the parties.
The Ombudsman was concerned that the landlord had not provided all the records. Some of this investigation relied on the Summary. There is no reason to deduce it was inaccurate and it reflected the records as were provided. While a summary is helpful, it is not sufficient. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord ensures that it provides all its relevant evidence.

Determination (decision)

In the opinion of the Ombudsman, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould at the property
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of a leak at the resident’s property including communication.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged the delays and communication failures in its Stage 2 response of December 2022 and offered compensation. However, there was a further delay to the remedial works due to the landlord failing to be proactive. However, it contacted the leaseholder responsible for the leak and, eventually, exercised its reasonable discretion to resolve it.
The landlord reviewed its complaint, took steps to resolve the issues including of communication with the resident. However, there was no evidence that it monitored the matter to follow through actual resolution.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £400 in addition to the compensation already offered of £250 and consisting as follows:
  1. £300 in relation to the handling of a leak at the resident’s property including communication.
  2. £100 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should note with frontline staff, if it has not done already, the need to consider making reasonable adjustments if requested by the resident and to ensure appointments are arranged in line with its Stage 2 response. The landlord should evidence that by providing to the Ombudsman a copy, or screen shot, of the relevant records.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should contact the resident in relation to the complaint they wish to make regarding the damp and mould at the property.
2. The landlord should also try and contact the resident again in order to ascertain her specific requests for reasonable adjustments.
3. The landlord should ensure that it provides all its relevant evidence for our investigations.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.