Abri Group Limited (202318461)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318461

Abri Group Limited

27 February 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 request for compensation due to failings in its handling of her mould reports.

Background

2. The resident is a joint assured tenant with her partner. The tenancy started on 27 May 2021. The property is described as a new build 2-bedroom property located on the 1st floor.
3. The resident lives at the property with her young children. Her partner has asthma.
4. The resident made 2 requests on 21 December 2021 and 11 January 2022 for the landlord to offer reimbursements for belongings affected by mould. The resident said some items disposed of had sentimental value and she had followed the advice given to remove the mould.
5. On 17 January 2022, the resident provided pictures of the damaged belongings. Two days later, the landlord emailed the developer to advise it found mastic had contributed to the damage to the resident’s belongings. The landlord asked the developer to confirm that they would compensate the resident.
6. The developer responded on 20 January 2022, informing the landlord it had completed a joint visit to the resident’s property. The inspection noted:

a.     The damaged items were in a cupboard.

b.     The walls had no signs of mould.

c.      The developer did not believe they were liable for any damage to the resident’s belongings and would not take responsibility for this.

d.     The developer agreed to repair the mastic to the windows as a gesture of goodwill.

e.     The extractor fans were not operating at the time of the visit.

f.        Clothes were on the radiator and the property did not have a tumbler dryer.

7. A damp and mould inspection was arranged for 28 November 2022. The resident advised that a wall mounted extractor fan with heater had not been installed as promised. The resident made further contact on 29 January 2023 to say, among other things, that the mould remained unresolved and she provided pictures of the damaged items.
8. On 21 February 2023, positive ventilation units (PIV) were installed in the bathroom and kitchen. The installer noted the PIVs were in addition to the existing systems which were compliant with statutory requirements.
9. The resident complained to the landlord around 17 March 2023. Relevant to this complaint, the resident:

a.     Asked the landlord to explain why damage occurred to items placed in the bedroom.

b.     Said her belongings placed near the external bedroom wall were more likely to be damaged.

c.      Requested the landlord inspect the property.

d.     Said the landlord had violated her human rights and she would not pay rent until the matter was resolved.

10. On 27 March 2023, the resident provided photos of the items she advised were damaged by the mould that she said were worth £2,625.
11. The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 6 April 2023. Relevant to this complaint, the landlord said:

a.     The damage claim related to her belongings was received on 8 March 2023.

b.     Two inspections had been done and the Associate Director of Development was satisfied the property did not have a defect.

c.      It was aware the personal items had been damaged by mould.

d.     It was not responsible for the damage. It recommended the resident claim for the items on her home contents insurance. If she did not have home contents insurance, it said she could make a liability claim from its insurer.

e.     It apologised for communication failures and understood the frustration experienced.

f.        It awarded compensation of £300, broken down as £150 for poor communication, £100 for the delay installing PIVs and £50 for its complaint handling failures.

12. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the compensation offer and escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident said the award did not compensate for the loss of her belongings and the impact on her partner’s health and that of her 2 children.
13. On 18 July 2023, the landlord provided its final complaint response. Relevant to this complaint, the landlord said:

a.     It was sorry it had misinformed the resident as it had given the impression, she could contact its insurer and make a liability claim.

b.     At the time, the insurer had put damp and mould claims on hold as a review of the policy coverage was being undertaken. The resident’s claim was placed on hold.

c.      It was aware its insurers acknowledged a possible interest in the case and this may have given the resident false hope.

d.     Its insurer then said they would not progress the claim.

e.     For the incorrect referral to its insurer, it partially upheld the complaint and made a compensation award of £300.

f.        It could not compensate for loss or damage to belongings and such a claim would need to be determined by the resident’s home contents insurance.

g.     It had learnt from the complaint and would change its guidance on eligibility for damp and mould claims to its insurers.

14. The compensation award of £600 was paid to the resident on 24 July 2023.
15. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 February 2024 to say it had completed a complaint review and identified complaint handling failures. For this, it awarded £50 for delays at its first stage and £100 for delays at its final stage. The landlord also requested that the resident’s partner provide consent for it to record his medical information.
16. The resident remained dissatisfied with the compensation award and escalated the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of complaint investigation

17. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
18. The Ombudsman determined a complaint on 2 October 2024 (under case reference 202201157) regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould between 2 November 2021 and 6 May 2022 (when the landlord issued its final complaint response). The determination noted the resident had made a further complaint to the landlord regarding her requests for it to offer reimbursement for the damage to her belongings and to waive her rent arrears.
19. The resident’s stage 2 complaint escalation was focused on the insufficient compensation awarded by the landlord at stage 1. The resident said that the £300 offered at stage 1 did not recognise the impact of the damp and mould on health and it did not go near to the damage caused. She referred to throwing out £3,000 worth of possessions and wasting money on cleaning supplies, washing supplies and electricity bills. This investigation has therefore focused on how the landlord considered the resident’s requests for compensation and reimbursements for the impact of damp and mould.

Landlord’s policies

20. The landlord’s customer relations procedure says that when claims are made against its insurers, the resident should be given the insurer’s contact details. Residents should also be informed they can obtain independent legal advice. The claim can be accepted or rejected depending on whether the landlord is legally liable. An outcome cannot be guaranteed. The landlord should put the insurer on notice that a claim may be made.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation due to failings in its handling of her mould reports.

21. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence or consider the outcome of insurance claims. This is because the Ombudsman is unable to make legally-binding decisions in the way that a tribunal or the courts might. However, the Ombudsman will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of the damage to her belongings.
22. It is not disputed that there were delays by the landlord in installing the PIV between May 2022 (the point to which the Ombudsman previously investigated the matter) and February 2023. In mitigation, the landlord had no evidence that the property was not habitable at this time and it did offer advice to the resident on reducing moisture build up. Through its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord awarded £250 for the delay and its poor communications through this period. It was fair of the landlord to recognise that its failure adversely affected the resident.
23. The resident reported damage to her belongings within 6 months of moving into the property. It was reasonable that the landlord arranged for the developer to inspect the property to determine the reason for the mould reported by the resident and the subsequent damage. The information shows the developer was accompanied at the inspection. It is likely this was a member of the landlord’s staff. Nevertheless, it is not reasonable that the records are not clear about the status of the other person in attendance.
24. The developer gave reasons in January 2022 for refusing to accept liability. They said the damaged belongings were stored in a cupboard, the walls were free of mould and the extractor fans were not operating, even though clothes were drying in the bathroom. The developer agreed to carry out repairs to the mastic and this was agreed by the landlord.
25. However, there is no evidence the landlord told the resident what the developer decided. This meant the resident was not able to provide an explanation for the mould being present only in the items stored in the cupboard. This was a missed opportunity, especially as it had determined the shrunk mastic had contributed to the reported damage and it was aware the resident was experiencing problems ventilating the property. There was essentially a lack of response throughout 2022 to the resident’s claim for reimbursement due to damaged items.
26. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to provide pictures regarding her claim for reimbursement for the damaged items. Before the pictures were taken, the landlord requested that any surface mould be removed. This allowed the landlord to accurately assess the damage to the items. The resident provided pictures in January 2023 and listed £2,625 of damaged items in March 2023.
27. The resident also requested the landlord waive the outstanding rent arrears instead of providing financial compensation for her damaged belongings. It was reasonable that the landlord obtained advice from its legal team and insurers before responding to the resident’s request.
28. The landlord’s insurer said that in the first instance the resident should claim on her home contents insurance policy. Alternatively, the resident could make a liability claim and its contact details should be given. It was reasonable that the landlord relied on the advice received from its insurers and this was provided to the resident in the initial complaint response of April 2023. This is because the assessment of damaged items would be the responsibility of insurers.
29. The resident made an insurance liability claim as recommended by the landlord. The date is not provided. It is apparent that this claim was put on hold and then refused. It was reasonable that the landlord accepted in its final complaint response that it had misled the resident when it referred her to its insurer to made a liability claim. The landlord explained that, at the time, its insurer was reviewing its policy coverage and such claims were paused. The landlord acknowledged that it had raised the resident’s expectations that its insurers would provide a resolution.
30. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord repeated that the resident could make a claim on her home contents insurance policy for the damage to her belongings. Home contents insurance policies usually cover unforeseen, sudden events. Mould usually occurs gradually over time and this is what the resident informed the landlord of. It is unlikely therefore that a contents insurance policy would cover the type of damage claimed by the resident. Also, the landlord records show in June 2023 it knew that the resident did not have home contents insurance which meant she could not make a claim.
31. The landlord told the resident that its liability insurer had decided not to progress the claim. The landlord has said its insurer had changed its eligibility for claims resulting from damp and mould and it would amend its guidance to reflect that. This Service cannot comment on the insurer’s decision to change its policy coverage and its impact on the resident’s claim.
32. The landlord’s compensation policy is silent on its approach to handling insurance claims when liability is denied by its insurers. This Service does not expect landlords to take actions that would affect its insurance cover or do something contrary to its obligations under its insurance policy. However, we do expect landlords to apply discretion to consider resident claims for out-of-pocket expenses (such as energy costs and cleaning supplies in this case).
33. Once the landlord received the insurer’s decision not to progress the resident’s claim, it should have considered whether the resident was entitled to discretionary compensation for the damage to her belongings. The landlord did not do so. This is unreasonable as the insurer had not assessed the merits of the claim and it earlier accepted failings in its handling of damp and mould (through its stage 1 response). It would have been fair for the landlord to consider the claim instead and decide if it had sufficient evidence of fault and damaged items.
34. The landlord did award compensation for its failure to accurately signpost the resident and said it would update its guidance around eligibility on claims related to damp and mould. However, given the missed opportunity for the landlord to answer the resident’s claim in 2022, the inaccurate signposting and the failure for it to consider discretionary compensation once the insurer referred the matter back to it, the Ombudsman is of the view that the landlord failed to put things right and the £300 compensation award was insufficient.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation due to failings in its handling of her mould reports.

Orders

36. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures outlined in this report.

b.     Pay the resident an additional £200 for the inconvenience caused by the failings in its response to the resident’s request for compensation for her damaged belongings (this amount is in addition to the below).

c.      If it has not already done so, pay the resident the £600 it awarded through its complaints process and the £150 it awarded in February 2024 for complaint handling failures.

d.     Consider the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her belongings and costs due to increased energy usage and cleaning supplies. It should write to the resident with its findings and provide a copy to this Service.

37. Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to review its compensation policy to bring it in line with this Service’s guidance on complaints involving insurance (Guidance on complaints involving insurance).
38. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.