Abri Group Limited (202304600)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304600

Abri 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to his reports of roof leaks.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupied the property, a top-floor, two-bedroom flat situated in a block of flats, together with his wife, under a shared ownership lease. The lease had been transferred to him in April 2018. The landlord was the lessor. It, in turn, had been granted leases of approximately 4 flats in the block, including that of the of the resident’s property, by the freeholder of the block of flats. The property was managed by a managing agent which this report will refer to as “MA”.

Legal and policy framework

Under the lease, the landlord had an obligation, at the resident’s expense, to use reasonable endeavours to enforce the covenants on the part of the Superior landlord contained in the Head lease. As the resident was a leaseholder, the circumstances fell outside the landlord’s repair policies. The landlord did not provide any policies specific to leaseholders, nor could we identify any on its website.
The landlord operated a two stage complaints process, with a stage 1 response due within 10 days and 20 days within stage 2. Offers of redress were “offered in full and final settlement of the customer’s issue”.

Chronology

The resident did not make any further reports until 20 December 2022 when he made a complaint as follows:
1. He had contacted the landlord about issues in the building and was referred to the MA. No repairs had been carried out.
2. The leaking roof was a problem every winter.
3. He was concerned because this was causing damage to his home and could affect his health. Mould had started to develop “in wet spots”.
On 26 January 2023 the landlord responded with its stage 2 response as follows:
1. It upheld the complaint.
2. It had spoken to the MA. Its contractors were to contact the resident to schedule an appointment in order to assess any and all issues with the property that required attention.
3. It would also attend to put right anything that was the landlord’s responsibility.
4. It would make sure that it communicated more effectively in future.
5. It would continue to monitor to ensure the outstanding actions take place. It provided direct contact details.
According to the landlord, the MA arranged to clear the gutters by 4 January 2023. On 10 February 2023 the resident reported that the MA’s contractors were to attend but the resident was at work. The contractor had not provided an arrival time and would not wait for the resident’s return home. The resident chased the landlord for the inspection on 9,16 and 28 February 2023.
The evidence showed that in March 2023, the MA informed both the landlord and the resident that it had inspected the roof on 3 March 2023 and no works were required. On 27 March 2023, the MA informed the resident that it thought the leaks occurred in “driving rain” and asked the resident to monitor the leaks. The resident wrote to the landlord asking for repairs to be carried out and stating mould would develop. According to the landlord, it left the MA to contact the resident.
On 18 May 2023 the resident made a further complaint that the roof had been leaking for the past 4 years. The MA stated that it did not have the funds to carry out repairs or further investigations. He was told to monitor the leaking.
Internally, it was noted on 29 June 2023 that the landlord had not taken any action. In July 2023, the landlord chased the report of the inspection of 3 March 2023. It transpired that the contractors had not provided a report, only an email, which the landlord chased.
On 25 July 2023, the landlord inspected the property as a result of which it instructed a surveyor who inspected the property on 16 August 2023. The report of 5 September 2023 which concluded as follows:
1. Water was coming through the external section and discharging through the head of the windows and doors.
2. The main roof was intact with no evidence of defect or structural issues.
3. It recommended that the joints of a wing structure were re-sealed to ensure the structure was watertight. The internal walls and ceilings to the flat were dry at the time of inspection. It also noted some “slight staining”.
4. The water ingress was not as a result of condensation. It also noted that there were vents in place and no “improper” use of the property.
5. The report did not identify any damp or mould.
On 12 September 2023 the landlord replied with its stage 2 response as follows:
1. It upheld the complaint at stage 2.
2. The stage 1 response was sent outside its “service level agreement” (in other words it was delayed). The resident was not updated.
3. It referred to the communications and events. It acknowledged that it did not contact the resident to follow up that the damp issues be progressed. It had fed back to its Repair Team to ensure issues reported must be inspected and passed to the management company in a timely manner and the importance of keeping customers updated. It had increased its recruitment in its complaints team.
4. The team did not contact the resident. It apologised.
5. Its Senior Surveyor had inspected the roof on 16 August 2023 using a telescopic ladder from the balcony, as it could not access the roof as this would be classed as trespassing.
6. It explained that it would be for the MA to carry out the repairs. If it encountered any issues, it would “take action” against the MA to ensure the repairs get completed.
7. It offered £400, comprising of £300 for the delay in progressing the works and the lack of communication and £100 for the delay in resolving the stage 2 complaint. It also offered decorating vouchers, for when the work was completed to decorate the resident’s home. This was in full and final settlement of his complaint.
On the same day, the landlord sent the surveyor’s report to the MA. It chased the MA who did not reply until 24 October 2024.
The resident informed this Service on 7 January 2025 that, after the Stage 2 response, the landlord kept in contact with him. He was told the landlord was going to identify another contractor.
On 3 April 2024, the MA had instructed contractors to investigate the roof area. It was going to carry out a repair but in one section the box guttering cover had lifted. It made recommendations for repair. The landlord informed this Service and the resident in January 2025 that it had not been aware until then of this job it referred to as a “repair”.
There was a further gap in the evidence. On 29 July 2024, the resident reported that the roof was leaking. The landlord made internal enquiries and chased the MA. According to an internal meeting of 8 August 2024, the landlord had left the MA to liaise with the surveyor. On 10 September 2024, the MA reported they had received a quotation from its contractors. The works were to be carried out in the following 2 weeks although the works were weather dependant.
On 7 November 2024, the resident chased the landlord. The MA initially misinformed the landlord the works had been carried out due to a confusion about which block.
On 4 December 2024 the works had been carried out. On 5 December 2024, the landlord said it would chase the MA for the dye test it had promised. At that time, the landlord had provided a single point of contact (POC) who reported that the contractors identified that significant gaps were noted around the flash bands. On 23 December 2024, the landlord noted a report of signs of leak and stated that it would carry out a dye test.
The landlord’s surveyor carried out a post inspection on 17 December 2024 as follows:
1. There was no evidence of damp and mould in the property.
2. There was evidence of water damage in places but they tested as dry.
3. There was no evidence of damp but some humidity levels were high.
4. The internal walls and ceilings to the flat were dry at the time of the inspection however the ceiling reveal above the lounge patio door tested with high moisture readings, and the water ingress which had been reported was a result of the issues with the architectural wing/ parapet wall. The architectural features had been repaired but there was still water ingress through the patio doors.
5. The surveyor recommended a dye test be carried out.
The roof was showed there were signs of a leak and high moisture by the patio doors. The resident had also reported a leak. The POC chased the MA but was not able to contact them for a time but contacted the contractors direct.
The landlord informed us as follows:
1. The contractor had attempted to complete the repairs to the gaps in the flash bands, but these repairs had not been successful. They had not completed a full investigation as recommended by the landlord’s surveyor.
2. Its surveyor met with the MA’s contractor on 9 January 2025.
3. The contractor advised they would attend again and complete a dye test to determine where the ingress of water was coming from and following this, they would provide a report to the landlord of their findings.
On 23 January 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident with a review of its stage 2 response as follows:
1. There have been further delays in the works being completed and lack of communication from the MA. It apologised.
2. On 21 January 2025, the MA informed it for the first time that repairs had been carried out in April 2024.
3. The MA’s contractor was due to carry out a dye test and then carry out the necessary repairs to the roof and any decorating works.
4. The landlord would offer the resident temporary accommodation whilst the works were completed.
5. It would continue to provide weekly updates and liaise with the MC.to ensure the roof leak was resolved.
6. It offered a further £1,000 comprising of £500 in recognition for the further delays, £300 in recognition for the remedial works he had had to complete and £200 for the lack of communication.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

There was a dispute as to when the roof leak arose. It is understood that the resident reported a leak in January 2021 and some repairs were carried out in March 2021 to the roof seams. According to the landlord, the fresh leaks were unrelated to the repairs of December 2024. Those repairs had arisen from the resident’s reports in December 2022. We cannot determine whether the January 2021 report related to the December 2022. In any event, there was a sufficient gap between the reports of early 2021 and December 2022 to treat the incidents as separate. In the circumstances, this investigation will focus on the events December 2022 onwards.

The roof repairs

While the landlord had an obligation to the resident to keep the roof in good repair, the landlord was limited in what steps it could take as the roof belonged to the freeholder not the landlord. The issues were a matter for the freeholder through its MA to resolve. Our report on the relationships between landlords, the superior landlord and their management agents Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on managing agents March 2022 sets out the potential challenges of those relationships and the difficulties that they can present for a resident.
However, while some of the works were outside the landlord’s control, we would expect the landlord to take such steps as it was able to and to consider its obligations towards the resident. There were enforceable contractual agreements between the landlord and the freeholder. The landlord should consider the freeholder obligations towards it, to make reasonable efforts to liaise with the MA and carry out as many works as it was authorised to.
It was, initially, reasonable to accept the MA’s report that the roof did not require repairs and to offer to take any necessary action regarding the damp in the property. However, the landlord did not take any action. It was also inappropriate to leave the resident to communicate with the MA directly. The contractual obligations were between the landlord and the resident. It was for the landlord to monitor what steps the MA was taking and to consider its position. The evidence showed that the complaints officer began to chase the MA and they sought to push the matter along internally.
The evidence showed that the MA was difficult to make contact with. There was a lack of clarity whether the MA ever sent its findings of March 2023 to the landlord to send to the resident. Internal discussions indicated that the landlord considered it should challenge the MA’s conclusions, given its own expertise. This was reasonable.
The landlord eventually arranged an inspection of the resident’s property for 25 July 2023 and, as a result, determined to arrange for its senior surveyor to inspect the roof on 16 August 2023, as far as he was able to, given they were not able to access the roof without the MA’s permission. This was reasonable. The evidence showed that the landlord sought to take steps to remedy the situation, given this Service’s involvement. While it was positive the landlord was prepared to be proactive, we would expect landlords to treat all cases the same, regardless of our involvement.
It was reasonable that the landlord wrote to the MA on 12 September 2023 with its report and findings about the roof and suggested it discuss the findings with its surveyor. Following a period of chasing, the MA responded on 24 October 2023 and appeared willing to move the matter forward.
However, the landlord did not take any steps until the resident’s report on 29 July 2024. This was unreasonable. There was no evidence that any particular team or individual had taken ownership of the issue. It is noted that a repair was carried out in April 2024, which the parties did not appear to have been aware of and did not resolve the issue in any event, It again had left the MA to liaise with the resident. This was unsatisfactory.
While the lack of reports by the resident between October 2023 and July 2024 indicated that the resident did not suffer any leaks in that period, or none the landlord was aware of, this meant that nothing progressed. We would expect the landlord to have followed up its assurances it made in its Stage 2 response. While it had explained appropriately that it was for the MA to take action, it had also, reasonably, stated it would “take action” against the MA to ensure the repairs get completed. There was no evidence that the landlord’s approach to the MA was robust.
There was a further delay. We note however that the landlord’s communication improved. Further contact by the landlord proved to be fruitful and the MA obtained a quotation. It then took a further nearly 2 months to undertake the repairs, partly due to a confusion on the part of the MA as to which roof was repaired which we do not attribute to the landlord. It was reasonable that the landlord had arranged for a POC for the resident. The POC liaised with the MA which improved communication and monitoring of the MA’s actions.
It is not disputed that the works carried out on 4 December 2024 did not resolve the matter. However, the evidence shows that the landlord was taking a more proactive approach. It is reasonable that the landlord’s surveyor again inspected the roof and the resident’s property on 17 December 2024 and met with the contractors on 9 January 2025. It is also reasonable that it offered to carry out remedial works to the property and offer a decant. It appears that the landlord was doing what was within its powers.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, 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 assesses 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.
We noted that the resident has reported to us that when it rained hard, he used cloths to soak up the water. He was concerned the lounge/kitchen floors had been affected by the constant dampness. Black mould was present around the windows during wet weather. It was not so evident in the summer. The resident provided some photographs of water damage and the surveyor noted the same in his September 2023 report. This was not disputed and the landlord reasonably offered decoration vouchers. The photographs were undated but it is understood they date from May 2023. The resident had referred to his concern that mould would develop. We conclude it was likely there had been some damp and mould. We also note that the condition of his property had improved in December 2024 in that there was no evidence of mould.
On 12 December 2024, the landlord told us that that it recognised that its approach to leave the resident to liaise with the MA “could potentially lead to delays and unclear communication”. It intended to “take a more proactive role in managing and monitoring repairs”. It would “gather and record detailed job information and timelines from managing companies” in order to have a comprehensive view of the progress of repairs. This is a welcome approach which was lacking from much of the landlord’s actions. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that this is followed through.
We do not attribute blame to the landlord that the most recent repairs were not successful. We note that, while the repairs have not been resolved, the landlord has become more proactive and its communication had improved, including providing a POC and updating the resident at agreed and frequent intervals. It was reasonable to involve its surveyor who attended again at the property.
We note that this has been frustrating and distressing for the resident. However, given the limits on the landlord in resolving the matter, its improved communication and proactivity, we consider that the landlord’s actions and offer of compensation constitutes reasonable redress.
We accept that this compensation offer represented an attempt to put things right. However, it offered this a considerable time after the complaints process was exhausted. An increased offer of redress should be identified as part of the complaints process. Additionally, it appears to have been prompted by this Service’s intention to investigate the complaint.
In this case, we have noted the challenges that the landlord faced in working with the MA, and the improvements it made. Given the protracted time taken to progress matters since the end of the complaints process, and that some of this delay was outside the landlord’s control, it was appropriate for it to reconsider its position regarding compensation. This took into account events and the impact on the resident since its final response.

The landlord’s complaint handling

We are concerned about the timing of the offer, just as we were due to make a determination, given it was made a considerable time after the conclusion of the Stage 2 review. We would expect the landlord to have followed up on its assurances it made to resolve the complaint and, where the repairs have not been resolved, review its response sooner than it did. The landlord stated that it would not close the complaint in order to monitor that it fulfilled its assurances, without this, the matter is not properly resolved. The evidence showed that while the landlord made assurances in its complaints responses and recognised the delays, it did not follow up those assurances. There was a lack of monitoring of its own actions and ownership, so the matter was allowed to drift over the period between December 2022 and July 2024.
We have noted that the landlord had made compensation offers after the complaint was escalated to our Service in two other recent cases.
In the circumstances, we find service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling because it did not review the complaint in a timely manner. This meant that there was a lack of oversight and monitoring of its assurances. However, the complaint handling had improved noticeably after July 2024, and the evidence showed that it recognised its failings. In the circumstances, we will not order additional redress.
We have noted that the landlord policy refers to the landlord offering redress in “full and final settlement”. It is inappropriate to refer to an offer as “full and final settlement”. That is a legal phrase indicating that, if it were accepted, the resident would not be able to make a further claim. It should not use the term “full and final settlement” in the context of a complaint as the resident is entitled to refer their complaint to this Service. It should refrain from using the term (which has a legal connotation) altogether unless the parties have agreed enter into a legally binding agreement, in which case it should explain the full implications of such a phrase and advise the resident to seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in this regard.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of roof leaks.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Order

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £50 in relation to the delay in reviewing the complaint.
2. Within 2 weeks, the complaints team should confirm to the resident and to the Ombudsman that it will continue to monitor the works and update the resident at reasonable but regular intervals.
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 ensure that it carries out its assurances it gave to this Service on 12 December 2024. Those assurances included “(taking) a more proactive role in managing and monitoring repairs”. It would “gather and record detailed job information and timelines from managing companies”.
2. The landlord should ensure that:
  1. it monitors that it carries out its assurances made in its complaint responses to residents:
  2. it reviews its complaints in a timely manner.
3. The landlord should avoid the use of the phrase “in full and final settlement“ within its complaint correspondence, policy and procedure unless both parties agree to and intend to enter into a legally binding agreement.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord should provide feedback to the Ombudsman in relation to these recommendations.