Abri Group Limited (202233472)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233472

Abri Group Limited

28 April 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of problems with her back garden.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident has a 7-year assured shorthold tenancy of the property which began on 30 November 2018. The landlord has advised us that the resident has listed vulnerabilities for mental health issues and from 3 October 2022 she advised the landlord of mobility issues linked to sometimes having difficulty walking due to ankle problems.
The property is a 2-bedroom house built in 2018.
The landlord noted in its end of defects inspection report in 2019 that the back garden had large dips which were causing water pooling when it rained. The landlord raised the issue with the developer as the property had only been built the year before. As a result, the property developer installed new drainage in the garden in 2020 involving digging a new trench and fitting underground drainage pipes to attach to a land drain.
The resident contacted the landlord in 2021 to report further problems with the garden. She reported that the grass was very patchy and was not growing, which meant the garden was very boggy. In January 2022, the developer carried out further work to the garden, which involved rotovating sand into the soil to help with drainage and returfing. In September 2022, at the resident’s request, the landlord also removed gravel boards from under the fence to reduce the height of the fence.
In October and November 2022, the resident reported ongoing problems with the lack of grass and water pooling in the garden and on 9 January 2023 she made a stage 1 complaint. She said she was unhappy that her calls had not been returned and that her children could not use the garden fully because of its condition. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 24 February 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord said that the developer had installed new drainage in the garden and arranged for its landscapers to rotovate the soil with sand and to returf.
2. It confirmed the resident had made contact several times to report that the issues with the garden were persisting. The landlord had sent its surveyor and other colleagues to inspect the garden and they had concluded that the problem was a landscaping issue due to the build of the property.
3. The landlord said that it should have referred the matter to its customer referral team to investigate further. However, this was not done and therefore the landlord apologised for this error and the delay it had caused.
4. The landlord said it had spoken to the surveyor’s line manager about the resident’s report that he had failed to call her back. It explained that the call back requests should have gone to its customer response supervisor and then to the customer care referral team. The landlord explained that surveyors carry out inspections and then report on their findings but the actions taken fall to its customer response supervisors.
5. The landlord apologised that it had not followed the correct procedure when the resident had requested a call back various times. It added that its contact centre and other staff had been reminded of the correct procedure.
6. The landlord said a member of the customer referrals team would arrange to visit the resident to see if the matter should be referred back to the developer. It added that alternative solutions would be explored if the matter could not be referred back to the developer.
The landlord inspected the garden and wrote to the resident in March 2023 to say that the issues relating to the garden were not the fault of construction design, installation or materials used and therefore was not a building defect. The landlord said that the grass would continue to fail as the resident had said she could not maintain the garden due to health reasons.
Following contact from the resident, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 28 March 2023 as the resident had advised the landlord she remained dissatisfied with the stage 1 reply. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 27 April 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord confirmed that its Development Operations Manager had inspected the garden on 2 March 2023 and concluded there was no builder defect present as the garden had been installed as per the design.
2. The developer had connected a land drain and rotovated sand into the soil to aid drainage.
3. The landlord said it had noted during its visit in March 2023 that natural drainage gravel provided by the developer had been removed by the resident and planting had been put in its place. This would impede the drainage and result in the pooling of water.
4. The landlord said the clay subsoil would continue to hold water and would not breakdown while the resident was not maintaining the garden.
5. The resident had asked for artificial grass to be installed. The landlord said this was not something it would offer but the resident could request permission from the landlord to carry out the work herself. However, the landlord said it did not recommend installing artificial grass as this would make the drainage situation worse.
6. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
The resident wrote to us on 20 November 2023 to provide a copy of the stage 2 reply. She asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of her reports of problems with the garden, including the landlord’s communications.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 August 2024 and said it had reviewed its handling of the resident’s complaint. It concluded that the complaint handling had not been to the required standard as it had responded outside of its service level agreement. It offered £100 compensation for the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint. It also offered £100 for poor communication and £100 for not offering her advice on how to maintain and grow grass following the drainage improvement work. The landlord therefore offered a total of £300.
The resident advised us on 15 April 2025 that she had arranged for a company to lay artificial grass in December 2023 and had not experienced any problems with the garden since then. The landlord advised us on 22 April 2025 that it gave the resident retrospective permission for the work she had carried out.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The evidence shows that the resident had reported pooling of water in the garden in 2019. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the garden from 2022. Reference to the events that occurred prior to 2022 is made in this report to provide context.
We have received information showing events and correspondence that occurred after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 27 April 2023. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by us as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
The resident advised the landlord on 9 January 2023 that the reported issues with the garden were causing her mental health to worsen. She also advised the landlord on 20 February 2023 that she had fallen in the garden and had injured her back, which required a visit to her doctor. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of problems with her back garden

The landlord’s customer handbook states that the tenant agrees to keep their home in good condition and maintain the garden.
The landlord’s records show that it had arranged for the developer to attend the property in January 2022 and the developer had rotovated sand into the soil in the back garden to assist with drainage. The landlord’s records state that the developer asked the resident to monitor the situation over the next few months and submit photos showing any continuing problems. At this stage, the landlord had taken reasonable steps to address the problems with water pooling by arranging for the developer to attend and carry out work to improve the drainage of the soil. Having done so, the landlord was entitled to rely on the advice from the developer that the situation should be monitored.
The evidence seen by us shows that the resident did not report further problems or provide photos during the period January to April 2022. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 May 2022 to report that the grass in the back garden was not growing. She said to the landlord that in her view the fence was too high and this was preventing the grass from growing. The landlord therefore raised an order on 19 May 2022 to remove 2 gravel boards from the fence to lower the height. The landlord completed the work on 8 September 2022.
It was reasonable that the landlord had considered and implemented the resident’s suggestion to lower the height of the fence as the height of a fence can affect the amount of sunlight reaching the grass and can impact on its growth. It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that the landlord took over 3 months to carry out the work. However, the work was not a responsive repair and therefore the landlord was under no obligation to carry out the work within a set time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 July 2022 to report smells coming from the soakaway under the back garden. The landlord raised an order on the same day and one of its drainage and plumbing engineers attended on 4 August 2022 to investigate. The landlord had therefore arranged for the reported smells in the garden to be investigated within a reasonable timescale.
The engineer’s notes of the visit stated that the resident asked for the patio to be extended to cover the soakaway. The engineer’s notes show that it considered her requested but concluded that this would exacerbate the drainage issues and lead to increased water pooling. As the engineer had inspected the garden, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on his opinions.
The resident phoned the landlord on 3 October 2022 and requested an inspection of the garden as she was unhappy with the previous advice she had been given. She said that ideally she wanted a bigger patio and artificial grass. The resident also phoned the landlord on 12 October 2022 to chase her previous requests for an inspection. She said no one had called her back. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord returned the resident’s calls during October 2022 and therefore this was unreasonable. The landlord’s service level agreement at the time stated that calls should be returned within a maximum of 5 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 November 2022 and requested an inspection by a surveyor. She said there had not been any rain when the garden was last inspected. She said she kept slipping on the mud in the garden and this was causing additional problems because she had a disability. She again said that she was unhappy that her calls had not been returned. The landlord sent an acknowledgement email to the resident and said it would chase her request for a call back.
The resident then chased the landlord on 5 January 2023 to request a call back and an inspection. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord called the resident back during November and December 2022 to respond to her request for an inspection. This was unreasonable as the evidence shows she had contacted the landlord various times to request a callback. The resident had also advised the landlord that she was slipping on the mud in the garden and was experiencing difficulties due to her disability.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 9 January 2023 in which she expressed her dissatisfaction about not receiving a callback. She again requested an inspection by a surveyor and mentioned she was experiencing difficulties due to her disabilities. She also said the issue was causing her mental health to worsen. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 24 February 2023 and explained that the resident’s requests for a call back should have been referred to its customer care referrals team, rather than to the surveyor. The landlord apologised for the error and the delay this had caused. It said it had reminded its staff about the correct process when it receives call back requests. As the landlord accepted it had not called the resident back despite her requests, it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge its error and explain why the error had occurred.
The landlord used its stage 1 reply to outline the work it had already carried out to the garden, including improving the drainage and returfing. It confirmed that its customer care referrals team would contact the resident to arrange an inspection to check whether the matter should be referred back to the developer. As the resident had requested an inspection on various occasions, it was reasonable for the landlord to reassure the resident that it would arrange the inspection.
The inspection was carried out on 2 March 2023 by the landlord’s Development Operations Manager and therefore the landlord had arranged and carried out the inspection of the garden within a reasonable timescale following its stage 1 reply on 24 February 2023. The manager who inspected the garden concluded that the issues with the garden were not a build defect and was therefore not the developer’s responsibility. She said that the clay subsoil meant that grass would not survive unless it was maintained, which the resident had advised she could not do because of health reasons.
The resident phoned the landlord on 17 March 2023 to ask about its plans for the garden. She explained that she had not received any information following the inspection on 2 March 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 March 2023 to confirm the findings from the inspection. The landlord advised her that the grass would continue to fail to grow without maintenance by the resident. It said that its housing team might be able to signpost the resident to organisations that could help if she was unable to maintain the garden.
It was unreasonable that it had taken 3 weeks from the date of the inspection to provide the resident with the findings and conclusions of the inspection. During this 3-week period, the resident had chased the landlord for a response on 17 March 2023 and had contacted us for assistance with her complaint on 22 March 2023. The landlord was aware from the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 9 January 2023 that she was anxious about the condition of the garden and had reported difficulties using the garden due to her disabilities.
In terms of the findings from the inspection, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice and opinions of the Development Operations Manager. She had advised the resident clearly that the condition of the garden was not a design or construction fault and the clay subsoil meant that the garden would need ongoing care and effort by the resident for the grass to grow.
As the resident had indicated to the landlord that she could not maintain the garden due to her health, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that she could contact its housing team for information on organisations that may be able to help her maintain the garden. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident was responsible for maintaining the garden. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to expect her to make alternative arrangements if she was unable to maintain it herself.
During April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord various times to raise concerns about the lack of communication regarding her garden. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 27 April 2023 and reiterated that it had inspected the garden on 2 March 2023 and concluded there was no builder defect present. It mentioned that the developer had previously placed gravel to the left of the fence to provide natural drainage. However, it said the resident had removed the gravel and replaced it with plants and this had affected the natural drainage in the garden. The landlord clarified that it would not install artificial grass and did not recommend the resident do this as it would make the situation worse. In our view, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it would not install artificial grass because:
1. The landlord was not obliged to carry out this work under the tenancy agreement as it was not regarded as a repair.
2. Under the tenancy agreement the resident was responsible for maintaining the garden.
3. The landlord had concluded that the condition of the garden was not due to any building or design defects.
4. The landlord had concluded that installing artificial grass would exacerbate any drainage problems and the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its staff.
Although the resident was unhappy with the level of communication from the landlord during April 2023, we have found that the landlord had taken the following reasonable steps to communicate its position in relation to the garden:
1. It wrote to the resident on 23 March 2023 setting out the findings of the inspection that took place on 2 March 2023.
2. It sent an acknowledgement letter to the resident on 28 March 2023 saying that her stage 2 complaint about the garden had been logged and a reply would be sent within 20 working days.
3. The landlord phoned the resident on 3 April 2023 to let her know that it would take up to 20 working days to investigate her complaint.
4. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 27 April 2023 reiterating its previous advice and its position regarding the garden.
In summary, the landlord took the following steps in response to the resident’s reports of problems with the garden:
1. As a follow-up to the earlier drainage work carried out by the developer, the landlord arranged for the developer to rotovate sand into the soil in January 2022 to help with drainage.
2. At the resident’s suggestion, the landlord lowered the garden fence in September 2022 by removing 2 gravel boards.
3. The landlord inspected the garden in a timely manner on 4 August 2022 following the resident’s report of smells coming from the soakaway.
4. The landlord inspected the garden again on 2 March 2023 and advised the resident of the findings on 23 March 2023. The landlord used the email to advise the resident she could contact its housing team for possible signposting to organisations that could help her maintain the garden.
5. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 2 reply on 27 April 2023 that the removal of the gravel from the garden had, in its view, affected the natural drainage in the garden.
Overall, we have found that the landlord (with the assistance of the developer) attempted to improve the drainage, inspected the garden and was clear in advising the resident of its position. However, the landlord’s communication was poor. In particular:
1. The landlord failed to arrange a call back to discuss the resident’s concerns about the garden during October 2022.
2. During November to December 2022, it did not respond to her request for an inspection. This was despite the resident advising the landlord on 3 November 2022 that she was slipping on the mud in the garden and was experiencing difficulties due to her disability.
3. It took 3 weeks from the inspection on 2 March 2023 to notify the resident of the findings and outcome. During this 3-week period, the resident chased the landlord for a response and contacted us for assistance with her complaint.
We have found that although the landlord’s communication was poor, this was unlikely to have changed the overall outcome for the resident. This is because the landlord was clear that the condition of the garden was due to a lack of maintenance and that the resident was responsible for maintaining the garden. We also noted that the landlord used its complaint responses to apologise for its errors in not calling the resident back and showed it had learnt from the experience by reminding its staff of the correct procedure. We have therefore found there was service failure on the landlord’s part due to its poor communication.
We have noted that the landlord wrote to the resident on 16 August 2024 and advised her that it had reviewed its handling of the complaints and found that it had failed to respond within its service level agreement timescales. It also found that its communication was poor. It apologised for its failings and offered compensation of £300 (£100 for delays in dealing with the complaints and a total of £200 for poor communication and a lack of advice given to the resident regarding maintaining the garden).
While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and made an offer of redress, it is not clear why the landlord did not make this offer when considering the complaint within its own complaint procedure, rather than a year after its stage 2 reply. As set out in paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we are unable to consider the landlord’s offer as reasonable redress because the offer was made after we accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation. However, our view is that the amount of compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the failings we have identified. Therefore, we have not ordered any additional compensation for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of problems with the garden.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 1 working day. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord may extend these timescales for responding. However, the extensions will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. Where the timescales are extended, the landlord will contact the resident to confirm this, explain why, and agree with the resident how often it will keep them updated on progress.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 9 January 2023 and the landlord sent an acknowledgement on 10 January 2023. The landlord had therefore acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 24 February 2023, which was 33 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord took an inappropriate length of time to respond to the complaint as it was much longer than the 10-working day timescale in its policy. The landlord did not use its stage 1 reply to explain the delay in responding nor to apologise for this. However, its records show it had phoned the resident on 20 February 2023 to explain that it would need to look into the issues further and would respond to her complaint within 5 working days. The landlord kept to this timescale by replying on 24 February 2023.
The landlord’s records show that it logged a stage 2 complaint on 28 March 2023 as the resident remained unhappy with the outcome from stage 1 and she wanted the landlord to escalate the complaint. The landlord sent an acknowledgement to the resident on 28 March 2023 and therefore it acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 27 April 2023, which was 21 working days after it had acknowledged the stage 2 complaint. Although this was slightly outside the landlord’s 20-working day timescale stipulated in its complaints policy, the landlord had responded to the stage 2 complaint within a reasonable timescale.
Overall, we have found there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling due to the delay in responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 August 2024 and advised her that it had reviewed its handling of the complaints and found that it had failed to respond to the stage 1 complaint within its service level agreement timescale. It apologised for this and offered compensation of £100 in relation to its complaint handling.
For the reasons stated earlier in this assessment, we are unable to consider the landlord’s offer as reasonable redress because the offer was made after we accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation. However, our view is that the amount of compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the complaint handling failings we have identified. The amount is in line with our remedies guidance for service failures that cause distress and inconvenience but may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident. Therefore, we have not ordered any additional compensation in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of problems with her back garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Pay the £200 compensation offered on 16 August 2024 for its response to the resident’s reports of problems with her back garden if this has not already been paid.
2. Pay the £100 compensation offered on 16 August 2024 for its handling of the associated complaints.