Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Abri Group Limited (202234501)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234501

Abri Group Limited

12 March 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 handling of repairs to external lighting, a toilet cistern, the back gate, the garden fence, and the front door canopy.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 4-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. The resident is partially sighted, and English is not her first language, and the landlord has recorded this. The resident has been assisted with her complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman by her daughter, who will also be referred to as the resident for ease of reading.
  2. On 29 July 2020 the resident reported her back gate needed to be repaired and the landlord’s records say it repaired it on 10 August 2020. She reported the canopy above her front door needed to be repaired on 2 December 2020 and the landlord carried out a repair on 5 January 2021. She reported that her toilet cistern was very slow to refill after flushing on 5 July 2021 and the landlord raised a repair.
  3. The resident called the landlord on 31 August 2021 to make a stage 1 complaint about the delay in repairs to her back gate, canopy and toilet. She also raised a repair for the external lights at the front and back of the property which were not working. The landlord tried to call her back that day to acknowledge the complaint and left a voicemail. On 21 September 2021 the resident called the landlord to chase up her repairs. It told her the external lights would be repaired that day, which they were. It also raised a new repair for the gate as the resident said the previous repair was a temporary one. It also said it had raised an inspection for the canopy for 26 October 2021. The landlord attended for the cistern repair on 28 September 2021 but did not complete it. The resident called it again on 5 October 2021 to chase the cistern repair and the landlord chased this internally.
  4. On 11 October 2021 the landlord provided its stage 1 response, in which it:
    1. Upheld the complaint and apologised for the delays in completing repairs.
    2. Confirmed it had repaired the external lights and the appointment dates for the gate and canopy. It also said it had passed the cistern repair to a subcontractor who it said would contact the resident to book the appointment.
  5. The landlord repaired the gate on 12 October 2021 and its subcontractor replaced the cistern on 15 October 2021. It inspected the canopy on 26 October 2021. Its records say it had made safe and ordered materials to replace it on 1 March 2022, with an appointment booked for 27 June 2022. The landlord updated the resident on 27 April 2022 who it noted was not happy with the delay. The resident called it on 30 June 2022 and complained that it had not completed the repair or replacement, and had just reinspected the canopy. The landlord emailed her on 5 July 2022 to acknowledge escalation of her complaint to stage 2. It inspected the canopy again on 7 July 2022. It called the resident on 12 July 2022 to clarify her complaint, which she confirmed was about delays to the canopy and back gate repairs. The landlord completed partial repairs to the canopy on 15 July 2022 having previously ordered the wrong part.
  6. On 1 August 2022 the landlord raised a new repair to replace the back gate. The resident reported her garden fence needed to be repaired on 3 August 2022. The landlord replaced the gate on 16 August 2022 and replaced a fence post on 25 August 2022. On that day the resident complained that it had not replaced the fence which she believed should have been replaced. The landlord completed final repairs to the canopy on 22 August 2022. After reinspecting the fence, the landlord raised a repair for a second post to be replaced on 7 October 2022. On the same day it also exchanged emails with the resident about its proposed compensation offer. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 October 2022, in which it:
    1. Upheld the complaint and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the time it had taken to complete repairs. It also apologised for its delays in responding to both stages of the complaint.
    2. Said it had completed all the repairs except for the second fence post which it had booked for the following day.
    3. Accepted it had not communicated clearly with the resident about the repairs and apologised for this.
    4. Offered £400 compensation for delays, poor communication, and having had to be available for multiple inspections. It also offered £100 compensation for its delayed complaint responses.
  7. The following day the landlord replaced the second fence post. The resident emailed it on 19 October 2022 and said she was not satisfied with its compensation offer. She said it did not reflect the level of inconvenience, time and trouble, and unpaid leave taken for appointments. She also said its fencing contractors had been rude. She said she felt £1,000 would have been reasonable compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to external lighting, a toilet cistern, the back gate, the garden fence, and the front door canopy

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, boundary fences and gates. It is also responsible to keep in repair toilet flushing systems, and electrical wiring, sockets and switches. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Under its repairs policy the landlord has a 24-hour emergency repairs timescale and an appointment-based approach for non-emergency repairs. It says it aims to enable residents to book appointments which suit their needs, and it will keep them informed about the timescales and progress of their repairs. The policy does not provide any timescales for non-emergency repairs.
  2. The landlord correctly raised a repair for the external lighting when the resident reported it. It booked an appointment, which it attended and completed the repair. It took 15 working days to complete the repair. While the landlord’s policy did not have a set timeframe, which would have been helpful, it did complete the repair within a reasonable time based on industry standards.
  3. The landlord correctly raised a repair for the toilet cistern when the resident reported it. It says it attended an appointment on 28 September 2021, but it has not provided notes regarding what it did. It replaced the cistern after 74 working days, which was not within a reasonable timeframe and was a failing. It also failed to keep the resident updated, as evidenced in her having to call it for an update.
  4. When the resident first reported her back gate in 2020 the landlord completed a repair within 15 working days, which was a reasonable timeframe. She reported it again within her stage 1 complaint, but the landlord failed to raise a repair until the resident chased it on 21 September 2021. It completed the repair after 15 working days from that date which was within a reasonable time. The resident said she was still waiting for a repair on 12 July 2022 when clarifying her stage 2 complaint. There is no evidence that she told the landlord, or that it was aware, before this date that its earlier repair had been ineffective or had failed. The landlord delayed in raising a new repair which was a failing. It did however replace the gate within 11 working days of raising the repair, or 25 working days from the date she re–reported it, which was within a reasonable time.
  5. The resident reported her garden fence needed to be repaired on 3 August 2022 after she had escalated her complaint. The landlord booked in and attended a repair 16 working days later. It assessed the fence and decided to replace a post. While the resident was dissatisfied with its approach the landlord was entitled to rely on the assessment of its contractors as to the works required. Positively, the landlord post inspected the repair and raised a new repair for an additional fence post to be replaced, which it did 6 working days later. While the landlord should have identified that 2 posts needed to be replaced on its first appointment, it did complete the repairs needed.
  6. After the resident reported that her front door canopy was damaged in December 2020 the landlord promptly carried out repairs in January 2021. The resident said that these were temporary repairs when she raised her stage 1 complaint on 31 August 2021. There is no evidence, or records, which suggests the landlord considered its repairs to have been temporary, or that it knew further repairs were outstanding until the resident made her complaint. Positively the landlord then raised a new repair. However, it failed to tell the resident, or when the appointment date was, until she chased it on 21 September 2021.
  7. While the landlord attended the booked appointment and made safe, it did not arrange follow-up works until 1 March 2022. It booked an appointment for 80 working days later, which was an unreasonable and unexplained delay. It failed to order the correct parts which meant this appointment was a further inspection, which further frustrated the resident. Positively it did complete a replacement, but left the underside of the canopy exposed, and had to return to complete the works. In total it took almost a year to complete the repairs, which was a significant failing.
  8. Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly accepted it had delayed in completing repairs and apologised for the inconvenience it had caused. It said how it would learn from the complaint and offered £400 compensation. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  9. The landlord demonstrated the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. It accepted its failings and apologised for these. It said how it would try to prevent future failings. It offered compensation in line with its compensation policy, which collectively was within its high impact banding. The landlord’s offer was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and in line with our approach not to order compensation for loss of earnings. Overall, there was reasonable redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 31 August 2021 and the landlord provided its response after 29 working days. This was in breach of its 10-working day timeframe under its complaints policy. The policy permits the landlord to request an extension of time when needed but it failed to do so, or to keep the resident updated about her complaint. It also failed to offer any redress for its delay within its stage 1 response.
  2. When the resident made a further complaint about the delays to the canopy repair, the landlord correctly identified this as an escalation request, which it acknowledged within 3 working days. It provided its response after 72 working days, in breach of its 20-working day timeframe under its complaints policy. This was also in breach of paragraph 5.13 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in use at the time. Positively, the landlord apologised for its delayed responses at both stages and offered £100 compensation. The compensation offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and there was reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to external lighting, a toilet cistern, the back gate, the garden fence, and the front door canopy.
    2. The complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay directly to the resident the £500 it offered within its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
    2. Review how it quality assesses its repairs, and consider whether a call back, email, or online survey should be used to check residents are satisfied with repairs marked as completed.