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

Abri Group Limited (202342265)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342265

Abri Group Limited

2 December 2024


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 the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about the property’s condition when it was let.
    2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  2. On 11 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord after receiving the keys to her property. She expressed her dissatisfaction, stating that she was promised vinyl flooring in the hallway, the window in the lounge was not functional and the window locks were missing, she had no handset for the intercom, the letterbox had no guard and overall, the property was in poor condition.
  3. The resident complained on 8 November 2023. She reported experiencing noise disturbances from the neighbour above her, which she described as stomping, arguments, and a dog barking in the early hours of the morning. The resident explained that she had received the keys to the flat on 11 September 2023 but the experience had been difficult and stressful.
  4. On 15 December 2023 the landlord confirmed that the resident was responsible for laying flooring except in the kitchen and bathroom. As a goodwill gesture, the landlord would provide vinyl in the hallway. Following reports of domestic disturbances from the resident, an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case was opened on 14 November 2023 and the resident was assigned a community safety officer (CSO) for support. To address some of the noise issues reported, the landlord laid carpet in the neighbour’s flat and added soft-close tape to the doors to reduce slamming. The resident was advised to use a noise app to record disturbances. The landlord offered £150 in compensation: £50 for time spent resolving the complaint, £25 for not replacing the intercom handset, and £25 for an additional missed repair.
  5. On 5 March 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 response after the resident escalated her complaint, stating that the ASB issue had not been resolved. The landlord confirmed that it was still investigating the ASB and committed to providing further communication on the matter. Additionally, the landlord offered the resident £300 as compensation, which was broken down as follows: £100 for the time taken to resolve the complaint, £100 for the lack of communication regarding the ASB, £50 for the failure to repair the living room window, and £50 for a failure to repair the bathroom radiator.
  6. The landlord issued a second stage 1 response in April 2024 regarding the ASB reports. This response confirmed that the CSO had attempted to contact the resident on March 6, 8, and 20, as well as on 2 and 3 April. The attempts were to inform the resident that the CSO had contacted a professional witness service to arrange for someone to observe the reported noise issues.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint because she felt unsafe in her home, which impacted her well-being. The landlord confirmed that the noise recordings did not qualify as ASB. The CSO provided headphones, guidance on reporting ASB, and referrals for mediation and victim support. It had also encouraged using a noise app and conducted inspections of all involved flats to assess noise levels. As compensation, it offered £200, broken down as follows: £100 for not fully addressing the complaint during stage 1 and another £100 for poor communication and the frustration it caused.
  8. The resident requested an investigation into her complaint due to her dissatisfaction with how the landlord addressed the issues. She wishes to move from the property. Both the resident and the landlord have confirmed that the resident’s neighbour has moved out of the flat above her, and the ASB case has since been closed.

Assessment and findings

Condition of the property when let

  1. The landlord’s minimum lettings standard ensures that the property will be delivered to the resident in a clean and hygienic condition. All windows and doors will be secure and in good working order. Additionally, slip-resistant flooring will be installed in the kitchen and bathrooms.
  2. After the resident collected the keys on 11 September 2023, she reported several issues, including a lack of flooring in the hallway, non-functioning windows missing keys, and no letterbox guard or handset for the intercom.
  3. While some reasonable repairs may be required after a resident moves into a property, the landlord acknowledged that these repairs should have been identified and completed before the resident moved in. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging the necessary work, and all repairs, except for the windows, were completed in September.
  4. The landlord apologised and offered £150 in compensation for failing to complete the repairs in line with its letting’s standard. Furthermore, to demonstrate a commitment to a resolution, the landlord installed flooring in the hallway, even though it was not required to do so. This action reflects a proactive approach to resolving the matter.
  5. Although the landlord took steps to address the situation, it failed to fully recognise the resident’s individual circumstances or her previous experiences before allowing her to move into the property. Understanding her past could have highlighted why the issues with the windows—specifically the missing keys and their inability to open and close properly—were particularly distressing for her. Additionally, she did not have an intercom handset, and her hardened letterbox was not installed. To better support vulnerable residents, the landlord should have prioritised these safety measures and ensured they were completed before allowing her to move in. While the evidence confirms that the landlord was not notified of the letterbox as early as it should have been, it still had an obligation to complete the other repairs.
  6. The records show that the lounge window repair was not completed until 19 March 2024. This significant delay is a departure from the landlord’s Empty Homes Standard, which mandates that all window fittings be in proper working order before letting the property. Although the landlord’s website does not outline specific deadlines for non-emergency repairs, 133 working days is unacceptable, particularly considering the resident’s safety concerns.
  7. We have identified maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this situation. Although the landlord made efforts to resolve the issue, it did not adequately consider the resident’s circumstances and the distress this likely caused. The £50 offered for the delayed window repair was insufficient in the circumstances. It is also unclear whether the landlord identified the cause of the long delay and took action to learn from this to prevent a recurrence. As a result, we are awarding an additional £250, which is broken down into £100 for the delay in repairing the window and £150 for the distress experienced by the resident, who had valid safety concerns. This amount is consistent with our remedies guidance, as the landlord’s failure negatively impacted the resident. We have also made an order for the landlord to take learning from this failing.

Reports of ASB

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, residents must not cause nuisance, annoyance, disturbance, or intimidation to anyone else. This includes noise nuisance, such as loud music, slamming doors, or shouting. The agreement also says the landlord expects residents to resolve neighbourhood disputes themselves first, use mediation if offered, and report ASB to other agencies such as environmental health or the police.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it will respond quickly to reports of ASB in an efficient sensitive and consistent manner. It will investigate complaints fairly and thoroughly, offering support. It will encourage all parties of a case to consider mediation as a means of dispute resolution where appropriate. It will work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle ASB. The policy also says that the landlord would carry out an assessment to establish if either party is considered vulnerable and make referrals to support agencies to assist.
  3. The resident reported ASB on 8 November 2023, the same weekend she moved into the property. The behaviour reported by the resident was arguing, heavy footfall, door slamming, noise nuisance, and a dog barking. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord was expected to investigate and take reasonable steps to resolve the reports identified following its investigation.
  4. The landlord responded promptly, contacting the resident within 2 days of receiving her report. During the conversation, the resident said that she had left an abusive relationship but was now subject to the sound of domestic abuse occurring next door. The resident mentioned that her neighbour had also been shouting and intimidating her. She also said that her neighbour had been shouting at and intimidating her. After this initial call, the landlord contacted the police and addressed concerns directly with the neighbour. These actions were appropriate and aimed to reach a swift resolution.
  5. In November 2023, the landlord conducted a risk assessment with the resident, identifying a medium risk level. A follow-up assessment in January 2024 revealed a high risk. In response to these assessments, the resident was referred to additional support services, which was a reasonable action in line with the ASB policy and demonstrated the landlord’s consideration of her needs. The resident has not signed the assessments, raising concerns about their validity, and therefore, it is unclear if the assessments were conducted with the resident in accordance with the ASB procedure. 
  6. In its stage 1 response on 15 December 2023, the landlord agreed to several actions, including assigning a community safety officer to the resident, carpeting the neighbour’s flat, and applying soft-close tape to the doors to prevent slamming. A referral for mediation was completed on 12 December 2023, and the resident and her daughter received wireless headphones on 18 December 2023. On the same day, a door strip was delivered to the neighbour to help reduce the noise from slamming doors.
  7. The resident applied to the local authority for a Right to Review of the landlord’s handling of the matter. The local authority concluded that the times of day that the resident’s noise app submissions would generally not be considered antisocial, and the types of noise recorded were often typical daily living noise. It noted that the landlord had acted on the resident’s reports since October 2023.
  8. On 9 January 2024 the landlord sent a reminder to all residents regarding using appliances during unsociable hours and provided advice on how to minimise noise impact on others. On 25 January 2024 the landlord completed a housing condition report, which confirmed no defects or signs of compromised sound or thermal insulation. The report also confirmed that carpets had been laid in the neighbour’s flat. All these actions were reasonable steps taken to mitigate the noise issue.
  9. The landlord offered to provide a professional witness to assess the noise issue. The records show that initially, there was a delay in this progress due to staff sickness, which we appreciate was likely frustrating for the resident. The landlord apologised for this. However, the evidence also indicates that the resident cancelled this service several times and said that the neighbour had been informed about the witness’s intended visit. We cannot verify if this information is accurate, but the landlord has demonstrated a willingness to explore all options to gather evidence to support the case.
  10. Between March and May 2024, the landlord put forward a series of proposals aimed at improving relations between the resident and her neighbour. These proposals included the installation of fire-safe soundproofing materials to reduce noise disturbances, the creation of a good neighbour agreement to set clear expectations and boundaries, and the option to refer the involved parties to mediation to facilitate constructive discussions and resolutions.
  11. Despite these suggestions, it remains unclear if any of these measures were implemented or followed through. However, available evidence reveals that on 6 March 2024, the landlord took a proactive step by sending the neighbour a good neighbour agreement. This set clear expectations. However, there is no evidence that the agreement was signed.
  12. In its stage 2 response on 29 May 2024, the landlord confirmed that it was aware the resident did not feel safe in her property, and as an interim measure, she had been staying with her parents. After carefully reviewing the noise recordings, the landlord concluded that the noise was typical everyday household sounds and was not recorded during unsociable hours. As a result, it did not meet the criteria for ASB.
  13. We understand that the resident was particularly vulnerable to noise disturbances, given her previous experiences with domestic abuse. The impact of the reported incidents weighed heavily on her emotional and mental well-being. However, the evidence shows that the landlord dealt with the reports in line with its policy.
  14. The landlord acknowledged that communication with the resident could have been better in its final response. It appropriately put right the communication failings by apologising for these and offering £100 compensation, which is in line with our own remedies guidance where there has been a failing that adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact. Therefore, we have found the landlord provided a ‘reasonable redress’. The resident expressed a desire to move from the property and has confirmed that the landlord has informed her of her options to move. She has confirmed that she was provided information on completing a mutual exchange and applying on the Local Authority’s housing list.

  Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s customer relations policy states that it operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s initial complaint was not addressed within the required timeframes and offered £100 in compensation. Additionally, based on this complaint, the landlord recognised the need for improvement and confirmed that it had recruited more staff to reduce response times for future complaints. 
  3. The landlord also apologised for not adequately addressing the ASB aspect of the complaint at stage 1 of the complaints process and offered an additional £100 for this oversight. Another £100 was offered due to poor communication and the frustration it may have caused the resident. The landlord recognised the importance of maintaining regular contact with residents.
  4. In total, the landlord’s offer of £300 for its handling of the complaint was consistent with our remedies guidance, and we believe this offer was reasonable to remedy the impact of the failings under the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition when it was let.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. The complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £750, comprising:
    1. £100 for the adverse effect caused by the delay in repairing the lounge window.
    2. £150 for the distress caused by letting the property with security repairs to a vulnerable resident.
    3. £300 offered at stage 2 in relation to the initial complaint (this can be deducted from the total if already paid).
    4. £200 offered at stage 2 in relation to the ASB complaint (this can be deducted from the total if already paid).
    5. This should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed unless the resident agrees otherwise.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, if not already done, the landlord should review its process for letting void properties to vulnerable residents and identify learning from this complaint.
  3. The outcome of this review should be shared with our Service within 6 weeks.