Aster Group Limited (202421702)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421702

Aster Group Limited

30 January 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.
2. Repairs to the main entrance door and reports of intruders.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat and she lives there with her young child.
The resident reported a non-resident asleep in a communal area of the block on 18 October 2022. On 16 February 2023 the resident reported that a neighbour and their guests were constantly disturbing her at all hours of the night. The resident continued to report problems with this neighbour and damage to the main entrance door throughout 2023 and on 11 December she raised a complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 18 January 2024, in which it said:
1. The main entrance door was broken and beyond repair. A new door with an intercom system was due to be fitted within the next 3 weeks. It had been delayed due to an issue with the supplier which had now been resolved. This new door would stop easy access into the building by those not living there. It offered £250 compensation for the delay to this repair.
2. The police were periodically patrolling to deter, move on or arrest those engaged in criminal activity. The landlord was working closely with the police and other agencies.
3. It would be using CCTV to identify if any residents, or their visitors, were complicit in allowing non-residents into the building. It had written to all residents asking them to report any ASB to it and the police.
4. It believed it had identified the perpetrator of ASB but due to vulnerability concerns it had to engage with relevant partners for assistance.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 22 May 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 25 June, in which it said:
1. It was liaising with partners about ASB in the block.
2. It was sorry that the resident had experienced further problems with rough sleepers since the new door was fitted. It said this was largely outside of its control as people had got used to accessing the block when the old door was not secure. It asked her to continue to report issues to the police.
3. It would provide a letter of support for her to give to the local authority to improve her rehousing prospects.
The resident remained unhappy with this response. She contacted this Service on 28 August 2024 and asked us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has told this Service that she has been experiencing issues with ASB for a number of years. She has provided copies of complaints that she raised with the landlord in April 2018 and April 2022. As these were raised more than 2 years before the resident brought the current complaint to this Service, this investigation has not considered the issues raised in these complaints.
Residents are expected to bring complaints to this Service within 12 months of the landlord issuing a final response, while they are still ‘live’ and while evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. It is not clear from the information provided by the landlord whether it issued final responses in relation to these 2 complaints. However, this Service would have expected to the resident to escalate matters with the landlord if it had not responded to her within a reasonable timeframe.
The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint. However, this investigation has only considered the landlord’s actions regarding ASB from December 2022 onwards, 12 months prior to the resident raising her most recent complaint.

ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy gives examples of behaviour that it would treat as ASB, such as drug use, vandalism and damage to property, verbal abuse and hate-related incidents. It sets out the following commitments:
1. To respond to reports of ASB in a timely manner.
2. To stay in contact with victims and witnesses, keeping them informed of progress.
3. To work in partnership with others in order to find solutions.
4. To clearly inform all relevant parties the outcome of the required action.
The landlord’s earliest record of ASB is an ASB case report of 14 January 2023. This said that drug needles had been found in a communal area and the resident’s neighbour was suspected to be the perpetrator. This report also said the main entrance door was repeatedly being subjected to criminal damage by the neighbour, and others, which was attracting non-residents into the building.
On 16 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say that the neighbour and their guests were constantly disturbing her at all hours of the night.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 July 2023 to say she was fed up of unwanted guests in the building, people leaving the bin door open, and unwanted bikes being dumped outside the building.
On 14 September 2023 the landlord let the resident know that it had carried out a face to face meeting with the neighbour. It said it could not disclose the actions taken due to data protection requirements. While it may not have been able to give full details, it offered reassurance to the resident that it had taken action. This was in line with its ASB policy, which commits to informing all relevant parties about action taken.
On 21 September 2023 the resident sent photos to the landlord of items left outside the neighbour’s flat. On 22 September the landlord met with the neighbour advising that they needed to remove their items left in the communal area within 14 days and issued a torts notice in writing. On 25 September the resident emailed the landlord to say the neighbour was again dumping rubbish.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour again on 6 October explaining its concerns. It set out the neighbour’s responsibilities and the actions it would take if they did not comply. This was a reasonable action for it to take.
On 11 October 2023 the landlord liaised with other agencies to ask for help in managing the situation. The landlord emailed the resident on 20 October and explained that it was trying to tackle the problem but required support from other agencies. It said that it had engaged with other agencies to get more targeted support. These were positive steps, in line with its ASB policy.
The resident raised a complaint on 11 December 2023. She said she had been experiencing ASB from the neighbour and their visitors and that the neighbour was dumping rubbish outside their flats.
On 13 December 2023 the landlord met with the neighbour to discuss its concerns. It opened an ASB case and sent letters to both the resident and the neighbour on 15 December, setting out a list of incidents that had been reported.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour about further incidents on 20 December 2023 and 9 January 2024. It said the latter letter served as a final warning. However, following a further incident, where the resident reported being racially abused by the neighbour, the landlord sent a further warning letter. Previous warning letters had failed to modify the neighbour’s behaviour. Therefore, given the serious nature of the allegation, the landlord’s actions at this time were not proportionate. It should have considered other options, rather than continuing to send warning letters which were proving to be ineffectual.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 18 January 2024 focussed mainly on the issues related to the problems with the main entrance door. It did say that due to vulnerability concerns it had to engage with other relevant agencies for assistance in relation the neighbour’s ASB. This response did not acknowledge the impact this issue had on the resident. It did not demonstrate that it had taken the resident’s concern about the neighbour seriously.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 22 May 2024. The escalation request focussed mainly on the issue with the door, but did also refer to the issues with the neighbour. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not comment on the neighbour specifically, which was not appropriate.
On 22 July 2024 the resident reported that the neighbour had dumped rubbish outside the flats again. The landlord told her this would be collected that day and it would hand deliver a warning letter to the neighbour. At this time, this action was proportionate, as it had been 6 months since the last incident.
During a call with this Service during our investigation, the resident told us that there have not been any recent incidents of ASB by the neighbour.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour. While it did initially take actions in line with its ASB policy, there is no evidence it considered what other tools it could have used when warning letters were not working. It has not provided evidence that it reviewed the case regularly, or kept the resident clearly updated. During its internal complaints process, it failed to recognise the impact this issue had on her. Its policy is not clear on what actions it should take when, which likely impacted its handling of this case.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its handling of the ASB. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidelines. An order has also been made for the landlord to review its ASB procedure and policy to ensure that cases are escalated appropriately.

Repairs to the main entrance door

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out 4 types of repair:
1. Critical emergency – any situation that has the potential to endanger life or limb. These should be made safe within 4 hours.
2. Emergency repair – any issue that puts the health and safety or security of residents at immediate risk. This should be completed within 24 hours, but can consist of a make safe only initially.
3. Routine repair – a non-emergency repair to a property. This should be completed within 20 working days.
4. Batch repair – minor works or any defect typically larger in nature. These should be completed within 60 days.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 October 2022 to say that she had found a non-resident sleeping outside her flat that morning. She told the landlord she had contacted the police but they could not attend as it was not an active crime. An internal email on that date said that the main entrance door lock needed repairs as it could be pushed open. The landlord’s records do not show what repairs, if any, were carried out that that time, which was not appropriate.
In the ASB case report of 14 January 2023 the landlord said that the main entrance door was being repeatedly vandalised, which was attracting non-residents into the building. This report did not set out any actions to deal with the repeated vandalism. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment to consider the risk to residents at that time, which would have been an appropriate action.
On 2 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say that she was fed up of unwanted guests in the building. On 23 August the landlord wrote to all residents to say that the door was beyond repair and an urgent request to replace the door had been raised. An internal email of 30 August said a door supplier would be surveying the following week and then the specification could be discussed.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 September 2023 and said that the replacement of the main door had been escalated to senior colleagues. On 4 October it wrote to all residents to say that the door replacement had been approved. It said the door had been ordered and would be ready in 8-10 weeks.
The landlord has not provided a copy of its repair records showing which repairs priority it categorised the door replacement as. However, based on its repairs policy criteria, the damaged door put the safety of residents at immediate risk. The building was not secure and the landlord was aware that non-residents were gaining access and sleeping in the stairwells.
As such, the landlord should have treated this as an emergency repair. This means it should have implemented a make safe repair within 24 hours. No evidence has been provided that it took any action to make the door secure while a replacement was ordered. Despite the door being unsecure, it took the landlord 3 months to place an order for the replacement door. This demonstrated a lack of urgency from the landlord and represented an unreasonable delay.
In her complaint of 11 December 2023 the resident said that she had found non-residents sleeping in the stairwells on many occasions. She said that she did not feel safe living in the building with a young child. On 15 December she reported a further incident, where she found that intruders had urinated on the stairs.
On 18 December 2023 the landlord contacted the local Community Safety team and asked for help with persistent issues. This was a reasonable action for it to take, however it could have done this sooner. On 18 December it wrote to all residents to say there was a delay in the replacement door being obtained. It asked residents to report any incidents to the police and advised that CCTV would be commissioned that day. It was appropriate for it to keep the residents updated and put CCTV in place.
On 20 December 2023, the landlord’s records showed that it chased up a quote for the door, despite having told residents 2 months earlier that it had been ordered. An internal email of 10 January 2024 said that it now had a quote and an order had been raised. On 14 January the resident reported finding a drug needle and a bottle of urine on the stairs. She said that this needle could have been a risk to her daughter.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 18 January 2024. It said that delays in installing a new door had been due to issues with a third party contractor, which had now been resolved. It said that the police would be patrolling the area periodically and CCTV would be used to identify any residents complicit with allowing non-residents into the building. It offered her £250 compensation to recognise the unacceptable length of time it had taken to secure the door.
The landlord arranged an urgent multi-agency meeting as a result of the incident on 14 January 2024, which was a reasonable step to take. This meeting took place on 24 January. The Community Safety team agreed for Community Support Officers to carry out regular checks of the building while the door remained unsecure. The landlord’s records show that that checks were carried out and no intruders were found during those visits.
On 5 February 2024 the landlord wrote to all residents to update them that there had been delays during the manufacturing process. It now expected the door to be installed on 27 February. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what date the door was installed. However, it wrote to residents on 11 March who had been unavailable to give access for new intercom sets to be installed, so the door had been replaced by this time.
On 4 April 2024 it was identified that the trade button on the new intercom system could be pressed by anyone. This meant the building still remained as vulnerable as it was prior to the new door installation. On 15 April the resident reported 2 non-residents on the stairs who were aggressive when she asked them to leave.
On 17 April 2024 the trade button was disabled. This represented an unreasonable delay, as the security of residents remained at risk and this should have been treated as an emergency repair. Had the landlord taken swifter action to disable the button, the resident may not have had to deal with the incident on 15 April.
The resident continued to report non-residents sleeping in the building several times during late April and May 2024. On 21 May she reported that a non-resident had threatened her and subjected her to racial abuse. She said changing the door had not made a difference. On 22 May she asked the landlord to escalate her complaint as she felt it was not doing enough to prevent intruders.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 25 June 2024 in which it said that it was largely out of its control. It said that people had gotten used to getting access to the building when the door was not secure. The landlord has a duty to ensure that the building is secure and this response did not demonstrate that it took ownership of the problem. The resident made in clear throughout her complaint and reporting of issues that she felt unsafe, however the landlord’s response failed to acknowledge the impact the situation had on her.
The resident reported further incidents in August 2024 and in October she advised the landlord that the door mechanism was broken again and intruders were still gaining entry. The landlord’s internal records indicate that it was looking to install new CCTV but it has not confirmed to this Service whether this has been installed. An email from the landlord to the police on 11 December 2024 said that CCTV was currently unavailable and the property was not under active monitoring. It said this meant that it was unable to identify crucial evidence. It requested an increased police presence.
During a call with this Service during our investigation, the resident told us that the door lock remains broken.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the main entrance door and reports of intruders. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what actions it took between October 2022 and July 2023 to repair and secure the door. However, it is clear that during that time there were repeated issues with the door.
The landlord concluded that the door was beyond repair in August 2023 and told residents it would be replacing this urgently, as its repairs policy required it to do. Whilst the Ombudsman appreciates a new door needed to be ordered and some lead time is inevitable, the landlord did not place an order for the door until almost 4 months later, which was an unacceptable delay.
The landlord has provided no evidence that it put in place any additional measures between August 2023 and mid-January 2024 to reduce the risk of intruders gaining access to the building. Since the door was replaced it has continued to be vandalised and has been unsecure since October 2024. There was also a problem with the CCTV in the building, hindering the landlord’s attempts to identify perpetrators. There is no evidence that this has since been repaired, or a new system implemented.
The ASB report of 14 January 2023 stated that the landlord was aware of repeated vandalism. Despite this, there is no evidence it has carried out any risk assessments or considered what further steps it could take to reduce future vandalism.
The landlord has failed to maintain the security of the building in line with its repairs policy. Its lack of action has resulted in the resident having to deal with many incidents with intruders where she has felt threatened and does not feel safe living in the building.
Orders have been made for the landlord carry out repairs to the door, and to carry out a risk assessment and put together a proposal for actions it will take to reduce the risk of continued vandalism to the door.
The landlord has also been ordered to pay the resident additional compensation of £1,500. The resident has a young child with a health condition and it is clear from her communication with the landlord that this issue has caused her a great deal of distress and worry. The compensation amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s redress guidance where there has been severe maladministration. It recognises the landlord’s failure to secure the building over a prolonged period, and it not recognising the impact of this during its internal complaints process. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £1,750.
A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to consider liaising with local services that may be able to support the people who are intruding in the building, with the aim to reduce the threat of vandalism to the door. The landlord should also consider repair or replacement of the CCTV, if this has not already been done.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour.
2. Severe maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of repairs to the main entrance door and reports of intruders.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £2,050, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
1. £300 in relation to ASB.
2. £1,750 in relation to the main entrance door.
The Chief Executive of the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology, recognising the impact the action and inactions had upon her. A copy of this letter should be provided to this Service.
Carry out repairs to the door and provide evidence that this has been completed, or that a new door has been ordered, if required. If a new door is required, an estimated delivery and installation date should be provided.
The landlord to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord to:
1. Carry out a review of its ASB procedure and policy to ensure that it sets out a clear escalation process. A copy of the review should be provided to this Service.
2. Carry out an evaluation of the current situation with the door and carry out an investigation and risk assessment in relation to continued vandalism of the door to establish if it can take any further appropriate actions to reduce the ongoing risk of vandalism. Evidence of the investigation, risk assessment and action plan should be provided to the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider liaising with local services that may be able to support the people who are intruding in the building, with the aim to reduce the threat of vandalism to the door.
The landlord to consider repairing or replacing the CCTV, if it has not already done so.