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

Abri Group Limited (202423985)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423985

Abri Group Limited

29 May 2025

(amended 1 July 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:

  1. Reports about cracks to the building.
  2. Reports about communal decorations.
  3. Request for the kitchen and bathroom be replaced.
  4. Concerns about the condition of a shed.
  5. Concerns about grounds maintenance.

Background

2.             The resident has an assured tenancy that started on 29 November 2001. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat.

3.             The resident has vulnerabilities. The resident has a visual impairment and experiences anxiety, depression and mood disorders.

4.             The housing officer wrote to the resident on 25 September 2020. The letter addressed cracks to the property, communal decorations, and the condition of shed doors and hedges. The housing officer said further investigations would take place regarding the building cracks and a dropped floor. It would give the date for the communal decoration and the installation of the new shed door. It would also arrange for the grounds maintenance contractor to cut the hedges.

5.             The resident chased the landlord on 15 March 2022, 19 August 2022 and 21 September 2022 regarding the above issues. She requested an inspection on 27 October 2022 to assess the building condition, communal areas and gardens.

6.             The resident complained to the landlord in March 2023 and escalated the complaint in February 2024. She said that:

  1. For the past 3 years, it had not acted to resolve the sinking and cracking to the building. She added that insurers had inspected but she did not receive a copy of the report. She had to constantly chase the landlord for updates and she was concerned about the dropped floor. Her preferred outcome was for the landlord to respond with a clear action plan.
  2. Weeds were present, there were dangerous sheds and communal decorating had not taken place for 23 years.
  3. The landlord had not updated her about the replacement of her kitchen.

7.             The landlord’s complaint responses on 31 July 2023 and 5 June 2024 found that:

  1. An inspection took place in November 2023 which did not detect subsidence. Its contractors would carry out the recommended repairs. It acknowledged the delay in contacting the resident until April 2024 regarding this. When contacted by its contractor, the resident said that she was unwilling to agree to an appointment until she received the insurance report. The landlord apologised for the lack of communication and information.
  2. Planned communal decoration works should take place every 5-7 years. It apologised for the lack of communal decorating and explained the pandemic and the implementation of a new IT system in November 2022 had contributed to this. It said it had added the decoration works to the planned programme for the financial year 2024/2025. Any identified structural works would be completed before it undertook communal decorating.
  3. Kitchens were renewed every 23 years and hers was programmed to be renewed in the financial year 2025/2026. It had arranged a kitchen inspection with the outcome to be shared with the resident. It would also include a report about her bathroom.
  4. It acknowledged the works to repair the sheds were not raised following the stage 1 complaint investigation. The sheds would be assessed. It could not compensate for belongings stored in the shed as the resident was responsible for protecting items from damage.
  5. Between April 2023 to November 2023, its grounds maintenance contractor had attended every 3 weeks. The next attendance would take place between 13 May 2024 and 2 June 2024. The landlord recognised it should have kept the resident informed of any service disruptions. It agreed to review any images she provided and address any outstanding work.
  6. It had learnt from the complaint and introduced a new process for its grounds maintenance team to document work carried out.
  7. It agreed to inspect the windows, floors, guttering and shed and resolve any outstanding issues. The resident would be provided with the condition survey.
  8. Overall, it awarded compensation of £375, broken down as £25 for ground maintenance delays, £100 for poor communication, £150 for complaint handling delays and £100 for repairs delays and the inconvenience and distress caused. The landlord also offered a goodwill gesture of £166 in decorating vouchers due to repairs delays.

8.             After the complaint response ended, the following happened:

  1. The landlord agreed on 5 June 2024 to inspect the shed on a Thursday or Friday to take account of the resident’s work commitments.
  2. On 20 June 2024, it inspected the shed. Its operative assessed the shed as rotten and dangerous. It would first arrange for pest control to eradicate the presence of rats.
  3. The landlord raised a works order on 23 July 2024 for the render and washdown of the gutters, downpipe and porch/entrance doors. The work was completed on 30 August 2024.
  4. The landlord raised works to remedy the external pointing on 30 September 2024 and this was completed on 22 October 2024.
  5. Occupational Health visited on 18 February 2025 regarding adaptations to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom.
  6. The landlord told us in March 2025 that it had commissioned a new structural survey.
  7. The resident told us on 27 May 2025 that the structural engineer would be visiting on 2 June 2025. The kitchen replacement was scheduled to take place within 4 weeks. The bath and wash hand basin had been replaced.

9.             The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this Service. She said the landlord had not resolved cracks to the property and communal areas. The resident added that the shed had not been repaired or replaced and the grounds maintenance contractor had not been seen for months.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10.        The resident has raised concerns about the building intercom, bathroom heater, wall tiles and the condition of a communal washing line. These issues did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration. Therefore, we cannot investigate these as the landlord first needs the opportunity to investigate and respond to those reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint. She may then approach the Ombudsman for consideration of those matters if she remains dissatisfied.

11.        The resident said she has been concerned with the cracks to the building for some time. Although the landlord’s insurer carried out investigations into subsidence in September 2020, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from March 2022 (which were considered during the landlord’s more recent complaint responses and were within 12 months of the complaint being submitted). This is because residents should raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. Any reference to events that occurred prior to March 2022 are included in this report to provide context only.

Policies and procedures

12.        The landlord’s repairs policy says it will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the building. It will also meet the decent home standards with bathrooms replaced after 30 years and kitchens after 23 years. Some components may exceed the predicted life cycle.

13.        The landlord’s estate standards set out its various service standards. Grass is maintained between April to October with minor works completed in the winter. Hedges are cut between September and March with a need to avoid nesting birds.

Reports about cracks to the building

14.        Section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement that the landlord will keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. The legal obligation starts when the landlord is notified of an issue; the landlord then has a reasonable period of time to carry out works for which it is liable.

15.        The landlord can make claims under its building insurance policy for damage to its properties. This includes damage to the communal areas of the building. The landlord contacted its building insurer in September 2020 regarding cracks to the building. The landlord is responsible for informing its insurers of any known risks to its assets and of any possible liability.

16.        The insurers determined the building did not have subsidence. There was evidence of thermal movement and distortion in a floor was considered a construction defect. The insurers dismissed the claim in December 2020 as the cracking to the building was not an insurance matter. The landlord had an obligation to resolve the identified movement. Without evidence that it did so, the Ombudsman can only conclude the landlord did not take any action at this time.

17.        There was a gap in reports from the resident until March 2022 when she raised concerns about the cracks. By September 2022, the landlord carried out an inspection of the building. Its records do not show when the visit took place, what the inspection found or the steps taken to resolve the cracks. This was not reasonable. Landlords should carry out inspections within a reasonable timescale, record what is found and communicate the actions to be taken. Had it provided feedback to the resident, this would have minimised the uncertainty experienced and avoided the complaint in February 2023.

18.        The landlord made a new insurance claim in March 2023. It chased the insurance team for its response and the insurers informed it of capacity problems which had impacted their response. The landlord provided the resident’s contact details and agreed to undertake a site visit. These were reasonable actions to ensure the resident was involved in the building inspection and repairs were completed in a reasonable timeframe.

19.        The insurers told the landlord on 29 November 2023 that there was no subsidence. They said there was thermal movement caused by adhesive failure, cracks to the ceiling and coving due to poor workmanship and further cracking due to movement of a beam. They recommended pointing repairs and internal filling as part of routine decoration. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional opinion they received from the insurer’s surveyor.

20.        The landlord appropriately appointed contractors on 1 December 2023 to carry out the recommended works. The landlord is responsible for ensuring required repairs are completed in a reasonable timescale.

21.        In its June 2024 complaint review, the landlord acknowledged the delay between December 2023 and March 2024 in its contractor making contact with the resident to carry out the recommended repairs. The landlord’s records show it chased the contractor but the reason for the delay remained unexplained.

22.        The contractor informed the landlord on 25 March 2024 that they were experiencing difficulty contacting the resident. The resident advised on 8 April 2024 she was unwilling to agree to an appointment until she had seen the report from the insurance company. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is required to provide access to the landlord for repairs. It was reasonable for the landlord to speak with the resident to try to get the appointment agreed.

23.        However, the landlord missed an opportunity to explain to the resident whether it was prepared to share the insurance report with her. Had it done so, this may have addressed her concerns. The resident told us she wanted to see the insurance report as she was unhappy with the quality of the insurance surveyor’s inspection as they did not take measurements. The landlord could have better managed the resident’s expectations by providing information about the purpose of its contractor’s attendance and answered whether it was willing to share the insurance report with the resident.

24.        In its final complaint response, the landlord agreed to inspect the windows, floors and guttering and complete an action plan. The landlord has said it completed the recommended works from the insurance report in October 2024. These related to external pointing and internal filling of cracks.

25.        It completed window repairs in March 2025. This was around 9 months after the stage 2 complaint response when it said these would be included within the structural related works. The landlord’s repairs policy does not give a timeframe for non-urgent repairs. However, it should generally complete planned works within 60 to 90 days. It significantly exceeded that in this case.

26.        The landlord told us the resident’s complaint did not include the condition of the dropped floors. This is not accurate as the resident raised her concerns about the floor in her complaint escalation and this was considered as part of the stage 2 review of the complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed or resolved the reported concerns about a hallway floor. The resident has a visual impairment and any changes to floor levels could have a negative impact. An order is made about this below.

27.        The landlord has told us that it has arranged for a further structural survey of the building and we understand an appointment was made for 2 June 2025.

28.        The landlord was not solely responsible for the above delays. Nevertheless, through its complaint responses, it accepted that it failed to effectively communicate with the resident and did not regularly update her. This caused her to chase it for information about the action it intended to take. The lack of communication likely affected the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to address her concerns.

29.        The landlord awarded £100 for poor communications and £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by its repairs delay. This was not proportionate given the delays extended over several months and poor communications meant there were missed opportunities for an earlier resolution. It is also of concern that the flooring issue apparently remains unaddressed.

30.        The landlord made a goodwill offer of £166 in decorating vouchers due to the delay. The resident said that she is unable to carry out decoration due to her health so is unable to use the vouchers. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will give consideration and support to vulnerable residents. An order is made below for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the appropriateness of the vouchers and consider alternatives in light of the resident’s disability.

31.        In summary, the time taken to resolve the structural related repairs, after receipt of the insurance report, was unreasonable. There was delay outside of the landlord’s control but its communications also contributed to this. The resident’s report regarding the condition of the floors in the property remains unaddressed and the compensation award was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.

Communal decorations

32.        The landlord should usually undertake programmed communal works every 5- 7 years. It advised the resident of this through its stage 1 complaint response.

33.        The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that it had not undertaken communal decorating for a considerable period of time. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer reasons why the communal decoration may not have been delivered. It said its services were disrupted by the pandemic and an IT system change; it acknowledged that the latter affected the accuracy of its records.

34.        Planned works are programmed to ensure the decorations in the building are of a satisfactory standard. The landlord acted reasonably through the complaints process. It offered to inspect and then brought forward the communal decorations to 2024/2025.

35.        The landlord agreed to wash down and repaint the communal areas. It said that it would undertake works to fences, gates and doors when required. It completed works to the gutters and porch/entrance doors in July 2024. These actions indicate that it attempted to put things right and improved the communal areas as promised.

36.        The landlord has advised that the possibility of further structural works means it has passed decorations of the communal areas. This approach is reasonable given pending repairs may mean follow up decorations are needed.

Kitchen and bathroom

37.        The landlord’s repairs policy says it will normally replace kitchens within 23 years and bathrooms within 30 years.

38.        The landlord’s records show the previous kitchen installation took place in 2002 and, at the time of the complaint, there were 2 years remaining before it should be replaced. The resident disputed whether the landlord had assessed the kitchen. After checking its records, the landlord agreed that the stock condition survey it had undertaken did not include these flats and it arranged an inspection. This was a reasonable approach to obtain an accurate assessment of the resident’s kitchen.

39.        The landlord later said the kitchen was to be replaced in 2025/2026. During the kitchen assessment, the resident explained there were difficulties resulting from her visual impairment and due to the lighting. The landlord made a referral to the occupational therapist. This was reasonable to allow the kitchen design to meet the resident’s needs.

40.        The resident recently told us that the landlord has arranged for the kitchen replacement to take place within the next 4 weeks. This is in line with the programme of works previously outlined for the property and with the timescale shown in the landlord’s repairs policy.

41.        The bathroom replacement is programmed to take place in the financial year 2031/2032. In the meantime, the landlord should undertake any necessary works in line with its repairing obligations. In line with this, the landlord assessed the bathroom in July 2024. The resident told us that the bath and wash hand basin has been replaced. This is reasonable as the landlord is responsible for keeping the bath and wash hand basin in repair pending any wider planned works.

42.        Overall, the landlord appropriately assessed the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. The kitchen replacement is to take place shortly and the landlord has already replaced components of the bathroom.

Shed

43.        The resident’s tenancy agreement describes the premises as a 1-bedroom flat. This includes fixtures, fittings and any outbuildings.

44.        The resident raised concerns about the condition of the shed on 21 September 2022. She described the shed as damp and rotten. The landlord took nearly a year to request an inspection (in July 2023). It advised in its stage 1 complaint response that it would inspect the shed.

45.        However, the landlord did not arrange for the shed assessment until 7 June 2024. This was an delay of over 18 months. The landlord’s repairs policy does not give a timescale for the completion of routine repairs. However, the standard industry timescale for these is around 28 working days. The landlord significantly exceeded this timescale even to arrange an inspection. This likely caused inconvenience and uncertainty to the resident.

46.        The landlord notified the resident of the appointment date for the shed inspection. It said it would not normally arrange an appointment for a communal repair. The resident asked the landlord to rearrange the appointment as she was not available that day and wanted to be present at the inspection. The landlord rearranged the appointment to 25 June 2024. This was reasonable.

47.        The landlord inspected the shed and assessed that it was rotten and dangerous. It found pest control was needed to first eradicate rats found in the sheds. After that, the sheds would need to be rebuilt.

48.        The landlord told us that works to the shed were completed in October 2024 and provided a picture of the rebuilt sheds. The resident disputes this, advising that rats are still present and landlord the has not carried out the works. We have made an order below for a new inspection.

49.        The resident said belongings stored in the shed were damaged. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence or consider the outcome of insurance claims. The Ombudsman is unable to make legally binding decisions in the way that a tribunal or the courts might. However, we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of the damage to her belongings.

50.        There is no evidence that the landlord requested the resident to provide evidence of the damaged items or that it arranged an inspection to determine whether it was responsible for damaged items. This was a missed opportunity considering the landlord had assessed the shed as rotten and dangerous. As it did not request details of the damaged belongings, it is not evident how it accurately assessed it was not responsible for that damage.

51.        In its complaint response, the landlord said it was not responsible for items stored in the shed and the responsibility for the belongings lay with the resident. The landlord did not refer the resident to its insurers to make a liability claim or give the resident information about how she could do so. This was not reasonable. The landlord’s putting it right policy says that when it receives a claim, it should consider whether the resident is able to evidence the damages claimed. In such circumstances, it may be appropriate to request the insurers consider the claim where the damage to the property may be the fault of the landlord. There is no evidence that the landlord requested evidence of the damaged belongings before it determined they were not its responsibility.

52.        The Ombudsman has found service failure given the delays in the assessment of the shed and the faults in its response to the resident’s report of damaged items.

Concerns about grounds maintenance

53.        The landlord’s estate standards set out its grounds maintenance schedule to achieve clean and safe neighbourhoods.

54.        In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord gave the resident the dates its ground maintenance contractor attended in July 2023. It agreed to give feedback to its contractor regarding the rubbish left at its last attendance and explained that problems with resources had affected the delivery of its services. The landlord recognised it had not communicated this to the resident, apologised and offered £25 compensation. Given the limited impact of its failings, this was reason

55.        The resident complained about the quantity of weeds in August 2023 and that the grounds maintenance contractor had not returned. The landlord responded and the grounds maintenance contactor sprayed the weeds. The resident said on 9 October 2023 that the grounds maintenance contractor had not removed the weeds. The landlord asked the resident to provide images but she did not do so. It was reasonable for the landlord to seek evidence to inform its next steps. Its improved process to collect its own images should resolve this kind of disputable.

56.        There was a gap until 13 February 2024 before the resident told the landlord that the grounds maintenance contractor had only attended twice since her last complaint. The hedges had been cut and the weeds sprayed. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed to the resident that this was in line with its service standard as the hedges should be cut twice a year.

57.        It also advised that its contractor had attended every 3 weeks between April 2023 to November 2023. It added that they were due to attend again by 2 June 2024. This was to give assurance that its grounds maintenance contractor had met its obligations. The landlord agreed for the outstanding issues raised by the resident be referred to the senior manager and resolved. This was reasonable.

58.        The landlord recognised that it did not have images to support its position that the work carried out by its grounds maintenance team met an acceptable standard. It is reasonable that it learnt from the complaint and changed its process to include images of works carried out. This would demonstrate improved monitoring of grounds maintenance and enable it to evidence the works done.

59.        Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the concerns raised by the resident. It was transparent about the dates when grounds maintenance works were completed and explained how these were in line with its service standards. It awarded £25 compensation and improved its approach to monitoring grounds maintenance as a result of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

60.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about cracks to the building.

61.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about communal decorations.

62.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the kitchen and bathroom be replaced.

63.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of a shed.

64.        In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

65.        Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination, the landlord is to:

  1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
  2. Pay the resident compensation of £500. This includes the £200 it awarded in its complaint response. The additional compensation is broken down as:
    1. £200 for the inconvenience and distress caused by the failings in its response to her concerns about cracks to the building.
    2. £100 for the inconvenience caused by the failings in its response to her concerns about the condition of a shed.
  3. Review the goodwill offer of £166 decorating vouchers it made in its complaint response. It should write to the resident advising of the options available if she is unable to use the vouchers.
  4. Write to the resident following the June 2025 inspection with the outcome of the survey. It should let the resident know if the full report can be shared with her and provide a schedule of works required to her property with timescales for completion.
  5. Contact the resident and arrange a convenient time to inspect the shed. Write to the resident with the outcome of the inspection.
  6. Review the resident’s claim for compensation for damage to her belongings in line with its putting it right policy. It should request any information it needs and it write to the resident with the outcome of her request.

66.        The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

67.        If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £25 compensation it offered for its failings in regard to the grounds maintenance. Our reasonable redress decision was made on the basis that this is paid.

68.        The landlord should reply to this Service to confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation.