Abri Group Limited (202314457)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314457

Abri Group Limited

30 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of its repairs.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 18 February 2008. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord said it was made aware during the complaint process that the resident suffered with physical and mental health issues.
4. On 20 March 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. In summary she said:
   1. She wanted decorating vouchers to redecorate the lounge. The wallpaper had been ruined. There was paint and plaster stains on the walls, carpet and on furniture. She wanted compensation for this. The contractor had tried to clean some parts but had ruined the paintwork.
   2. The new heater in the living room had made a huge black, grey smog which she had not been able to wash off. It was also making a continuous clicking sound.
   3. The plastering on the bathroom ceiling was uneven and very unprofessional. The contractor had also put incorrect items in the recycling bin.
5. On 22 May 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
   1. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It had reviewed the photographs supplied by the resident showing that the plastering and decorating works had not been completed to an acceptable standard. It acknowledged that damage had been caused to the walls, carpet and door handles. It also said that it agreed that rubbish had been wrongly disposed of by the landlord’s decorator and put in the resident’s recycling bin.
   2. It apologised and said that it had relayed the feedback to its contractor. It was evaluating the quality control measures in place to ensure the issues did not happen again in the future.
   3. It apologised for the delays in it responding to the resident’s complaint. It explained that this was because of resourcing shortages and a high workload. It was in the process of receiving additional support to manage the current workload to enable it to meet its timeframes.
   4. It would contact the resident to arrange an appointment to complete the plastering works and review the condition of the extractor fan and the quantum heater.
   5. It offered £200 compensation which it broke down as follows:
      1. £50 for the delays in its complaint response.
      2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused due to the poor standing of plastering and painting works.
      3. £40 contribution to cleaning the carpet.
      4. £60 redecoration voucher.
6. On 29 May 2023, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. In summary she said she could not financially put right the damage caused. She provided a quote from a local painter and a local carpet cleaner. She said this did not include the damage caused or the chargeable waste left in the wrong bins. This had an impact on her health because she had to live in the mess for several months.
7. On 25 September 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. In summary it said:
   1. The decision to uphold the complaint at stage 1 was the correct decision.
   2. It had now visited the resident and assessed the damage. The redress of £200 had not taken into account the extent of the work needed to make good the damage. It offered redress of £1,000 broken down as follows: –
      1. £780 for the lounge to be repainted and wallpaper replaced by a third party in accordance with the quote that the resident had provided.
      2. £80 to cover the cost of having the carpet cleaned in accordance with the resident’s quote.
      3. £40 for the costs of replacing the curtain rail.
      4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
   3. It would feed back the importance of protecting residents homes when completing works to its contractors.
   4. It would raise the repairs to the landing ceiling, the coving and the front door.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service. She did not consider the redress reflected the distress and inconvenience caused and it only covered the cost of a few things.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. The resident mentions that their mental and physical health is relevant to the complaint. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages/costs. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around expenses and any damage to her health are beyond the scope of this assessment. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about her concerns about her health, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of her complaint. The Ombudsman can however assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of its repairs.

10. The landlord has a guide called putting matters right. This guide states that it should consider how it can put the resident back into the position they have been as far as is possible. It will consider financial loss where the cost has been incurred as a result of what has happened because of its actions. The costs should be reasonable and generally they should be evidenced by way of receipts or invoices. It will also consider redress for the impact any of its failings have had on the resident.
11. The guide also states that even if it has offered redress to the resident or remedial action it should still consider whether a case should be referred to its insurers. Particularly where there is a claim for damage to belongings, property or health.
12. It is recognised the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident. This Service is also aware of the residents’ concerns about the expenses she incurred because of damage to her belongings. Its adverse impact on her welfare is also acknowledged.
13. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for its failings. It agreed that the conduct of its staff member and the standard of work had fallen below the expected standard. It sought to remedy matters by arranging to re-attend to make good the works it had already done. It also considered redress which was appropriate.
14. When the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord appropriately visited the resident so that it could see what the issues were and consider the amount of redress it had offered on this basis. This was reasonable in the circumstances and showed that the landlord was listening to the resident and trying to get matters resolved.
15. In accordance with its guidance, the landlord reimbursed the resident for the financial loss that she had provided receipts for which was the cost to redecorate and clean the carpet. This was appropriate. The landlord also offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This was increased from £50 to £100 at the point the stage 2 complaint was concluded.
16. The stage 2 complaint response was issued 6 months after the resident had first raised her concerns about the condition the property had been left in. The resident had to live with the inconvenience of the requirement of redecoration and cleaning for longer that she should have had to. On that basis £100 does not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. Our remedies guidance states that up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where an offer of redress does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident. As such we have determined an order for a further £100 is appropriate to put right the errors in its handling in this case.
17. In this case the landlord acknowledged where its service was less than it should have been. It thoroughly investigated the resident’s concerns, apologised, gave explanations which were reasonable in the circumstances, committed to improve its services by training staff. It offered a reasonable level of compensation apart from the acknowledging the full impact on the resident for the length of time that matters continued.
18. It is acknowledged that the resident does not consider the compensation covers the cost of the damage caused. It is unclear however whether all the damage has been raised with the landlord. Under the circumstances the landlord should have considered providing the resident with details of how to make a claim on its liability insurance. An order will therefore be made to ensure that it discusses any outstanding concerns she has about other damage and provide her with details of its liability insurer, if appropriate. The liability insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s decision or the claims process, aside from passing on the details of how to claim to the resident. We cannot comment on the likely outcome of any liability or insurance claim the resident may submit.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

19. The landlord has a customer relations procedure which sets out how it handles complaints. It has a 2-stage complaint process. It will acknowledge complaints made within 1 working day. It will aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
20. The landlord took 42 working days to respond at stage 1. This was outside of its own timescales. It did acknowledge its delay within its stage 1 complaint response and sought to remedy its failing by offering £50 compensation. This was appropriate. However, it failed to reiterate this offer within its stage 2 complaint response which was confusing.
21. The stage 1 complaint response acknowledged the landlords failings. It sought to put matters right and restore the resident’s position which was appropriate. Its stage 2 complaint response was sent 84 working days after the resident requested the escalation. The landlord failed to address its delays in its complaint response. However, on 7 June 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said that it had reviewed its complaint handling at stage 2. It acknowledged that it had failed to apologise for its delays. It offered £100 in compensation.
22. Whilst the landlord did this, these actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because they took place after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and only after the involvement of this Service. The financial offer for its complaint delay at stage 2 was, however, reasonable and this Service will not be increasing the amount of compensation for the delay at stage 2.
23. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went further as it appropriately visited the resident at this stage to ensure it had fully considered the issues raised. The landlord then considered the evidence provided by the resident and increased the level of compensation accordingly which was reasonable in the circumstances.
24. In summary the landlord failed to respond to the complaints in accordance with its own timescales. It did acknowledge its failing and explain its position at stage 1. It then confused matters at stage 2 as it was unclear whether it was still offering £50 compensation for its delay at stage 1. It then failed to consider its delays at stage 2 until over a year later. This Service considers that this failing amounts to maladministration. An order will be made for the landlord to pay the resident £150 for the delays in its complaint handling at stage 1 and 2 as offered if it has not done so already.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of its repairs.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

27. The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £1,250 compensation broken down as follows:
       1. £1,000 compensation if not already paid as offered in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
       2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of its repairs.
       3. £150 compensation if not already paid for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
28. Within 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to set out its position in relation to the costs claimed by the resident and provide details of its liability insurer, if appropriate. A copy of this letter should be provided to this Service also within 6 weeks.