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

Abri Group Limited (202440608)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440608

Abri Group Limited

25 June 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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated remedial repairs.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2020. The property is a 2-bedroom flat, built over a car port. The resident lives there with her 3 children. The landlord is aware that the resident and children have vulnerabilities, including those that affect mobility and breathing.
  2. The resident reported mould to the landlord at the beginning of February 2024 and the landlord carried out a mould wash. On 19 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the mould had returned and raised this as a complaint.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 4 April 2024 advised the resident that it would arrange remedial repairs and a mould wash. It offered a £60 voucher as a gesture of goodwill. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 almost immediately, because she was not satisfied with its response.
  4. The landlord sent a surveyor to the property on 23 April 2024. The surveyor’s report identified the cause of the damp and mould as being insufficient insulation in the wall cavities, loft space, and carport ceiling and recommended a further inspection. A second inspection took place on 1 May 2024, and works were raised to insulate the areas identified.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response was sent on 2 May 2024. It acknowledged that it had not done enough to resolve the damp and mould issue for the resident. It advised that it would arrange repairs to the property that would stop the damp and mould from coming back and offered the resident compensation of £500. 
  6. The landlord reinspected the cavity wall on 7 November and 13 November 2024, and it identified that it would not be possible to insulate the property externally. The insulation to the carport ceiling was completed on 6 January 2025.
  7. On 17 January 2025, a further survey recommended that the property should be thermally boarded from the inside. On 6 February 2025 the landlord communicated this to the resident who declined the work due to the disruption. Since this time, the landlord has been in contact with the resident to discuss the repairs and offered a further mould wash in the property.
  8. The resident has stated when bringing her complaint to this Service that she is seeking further compensation from the landlord in the form of a rent refund for the period of time since her first complaint. She is also wanting a contribution from the landlord towards her gas heating bills for the same period.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

  1. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her family’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and the associated remedial repairs that the resident complained about on 19 March 2024. That complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 2 May 2024. However, in the interests of fairness, we will consider the way that the landlord has handled the same remedial repairs since its final complaint response.
  3. There is evidence that the resident and landlord were in communication about a damp and mould issue in January 2022. There is no further communication until February 2024. The Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period.” We believe it is important that complaints are raised as quickly as possible. It becomes more difficult for both parties to present information and recall events accurately as more time passes since the issue occurred. For this reason, the investigation will not consider the matters raised prior to February 2024.
  4. The resident has made other complaints to the landlord about her property and housing situation which are out of the scope of this investigation. This is because those complaints have been brought to the landlord and assessed through the landlord’s complaints procedure separately to this one.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated remedial repairs.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep the structure of the property in repair, including gutters, roofs, outside and internal walls (including plasterwork), floors and ceilings.
  2. The landlord was required by section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It was also responsible for making sure the property was fit for human habitation under s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The existence of any hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System was a relevant factor to assessing fitness for human habitation. Related repair or other remedial action was required within a reasonable period. 
  3. The Ombudsman released a ‘Spotlight on damp and mould’ report in October 2021 (Spotlight report) which emphasised that landlords should take responsibility for damp and mould. Some of the recommendations in the report were for landlords to “ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”.
  4. The landlord received a report of damp and mould from the resident on 1 February 2024. On 22 February 2024 the landlord completed a damp and mould survey, including a mould wash. There is no further communication between the resident and the landlord recorded until the resident submitted her stage 1 complaint on 19 March 2024.
  5. However, the landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will provide a proactive, prompt and thorough approach to damp and mould. It commits to communicating the required treatment solutions with the resident, along with a timeframe for resolution and review. After the surveyor attended on 22 February 2024, there is no evidence that the landlord reviewed findings from the visit to consider remedial actions to prevent the mould from returning.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 4 April 2024 acknowledged that it should have done more to investigate the underlying cause of the damp and mould. It apologised and advised that it would speak with the surveyor who visited and raise any necessary repairs. It offered a £60 shopping voucher.
  7. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy at that time stated that it would consider the length of time a situation had been ongoing, and the frequency of its occurrence, when determining its remedy. When this is considered, its stage 1 response was reasonable and proportionate.
  8. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 immediately and stated that the flat was cold and she had incurred a lot of additional expenses:
    1. Heating the property more than should be necessary.
    2. The purchase of extra thick underlay and carpet.
    3. Carpets that she purchased have gone mouldy around the edges.
    4. Replacement beds due to mould on the wooden frames.
  9. The landlord arranged for a new damp and mould survey to be carried out at the property on 16 April 2024. The actions recommended following the survey were:
    1. Clear blockage to downpipe and reinstate missing sealant at roof level.
    2. Mould wash and stain block affected areas in hallway, bedroom 1, and living room.
    3. Inspect cavity wall, loft, and carport ceiling insulation.
  10. The landlord completed a mould wash on 24 April 2024, and a repair to the gutters 2 days later. The landlord inspected the carport ceiling insulation on 1 May 2024.
  11. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 2 May 2024. It communicated the outcome of the survey and the recommended repairs that had been organised. The landlord apologised for the delay in resolving the damp and mould and offered compensation of £200 in accordance with its damp and mould policy, and £300 for the resident’s inconvenience.
  12. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  13. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged its failings and offered the resident an action plan with timescales. Also, it offered compensation that was in line with the remedies guidance published by this Service. Two of the recommended repair actions had already been completed before the stage 2 response was sent.
  14. However, the remaining actions outlined in the stage 2 response were to complete remedial repairs relating to insulation. Despite having arranged a further survey, the landlord did not progress the repairs within a reasonable timeframe after the landlord’s final response. Therefore, the landlord’s stage 2 response did not fully put things right for the resident.
  15. There were further surveys of the insulation carried out by the landlord on 27 August 2024, 7 November 2024 and 17 January 2025. The resident was frustrated at the number of surveys that had taken place, and at the length of time that the remedial repairs had been outstanding.
  16. On 3 April 2025 the landlord determined, after consultation with its contractor, that the property would need to be thermally boarded from the inside. The resident advised the landlord that this work would be too disruptive for her family, and she felt unable to be temporarily rehoused due to the vulnerabilities of her household. The resident has applied to be rehoused due to her wider circumstances.
  17. It was 14 months after the resident first reported the damp and mould, that the landlord came to understand the cause and to communicate the resolution to the resident. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report reinforces the importance of focusing on an accurate diagnosis at an early stage.
  18. The resident has also described how she did not feel listened to or communicated with about the repairs. The evidence provided by the landlord indicated that the resident contacted the landlord multiple times for updates because she did not always know what action the landlord was planning to take or when. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that customers who report damp and mould will receive clear and timely communication. However, this did not happen on this occasion.
  19. There was a large volume of communication between the landlord’s complaints handling, repairs and asset management departments. However, the landlord missed the opportunity to use a joined-up approach to resolve the issues efficiently for the resident. This also resulted in the resident having multiple points of contact but not always receiving a direct response. She resorted to contacting the local MP and environmental health for assistance in resolving the case.
  20. The resident contacted the landlord at least 4 times during the winter of 2024–2025 to request help with paying her energy bills. The resident advised this Service that, in addition to the gas heating system, she was also using several plug-in electric heaters around the property.
  21. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy booklet for residents states that it will compensate customers for the use of heaters or dehumidifiers in their homes. There is evidence that the landlord provided at least 2 prepayment cards of £100 each for the resident to use towards the cost of her energy. However, the resident stated that this was not sufficient to cover the cost that she incurred to heat the property during the winter of 2024.
  22. On 2 July 2024 the landlord provided the resident with a £250 voucher for B&Q. This was an appropriate response by the landlord to help cover the resident’s expenses as a result of the ongoing situation. However, it is not clear on what basis the sum was calculated as this Service has not seen communication regarding it.
  23. The landlord was aware that the resident had a child with breathing problems. It listened to the resident’s concerns about treating the mould with chemicals that could trigger the medical condition and instead used a vinegar-based solution. The landlord acted reasonably when it made this adjustment in empathy towards the resident’s household medical circumstances. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the vulnerabilities of the household when making decisions about timescales of the works required or the frequency of damp and mould washes.
  24. In summary, the landlord satisfactorily completed some repairs to the property in a reasonable time. It identified its failings in its stage 1 and 2 responses and offered reasonable redress at the time. However, it failed to correctly identify the extent of the works set out in its stage 2 response and has since failed to rectify the issue within a reasonable time. It did not communicate effectively with the resident by providing timescales and updates, despite its commitment to do so. Given the above failings, a finding of maladministration has been made.
  25. When bringing the complaint to this Service, the outcome that the resident wanted was to receive was a partial rent refund for the period. This Service has also taken into consideration the extent of the mould at the property, which the surveys suggest has affected multiple rooms within the property but mainly in a localised way. For this reason, a more appropriate remedy is compensation in consideration of the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  26. The resident has refused the works proposed by the landlord on 15 April 2025, and this Service understands that the resident has communicated her reasons for doing so. However, since this work would resolve the damp and mould within the home, the compensation that the landlord is ordered to pay is for the period following the landlord’s stage 2 response (2 May 2024) up to 15 April 2025.
  27. We order the landlord to pay additional compensation to the resident of £300. This amount is within the parameters set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. This amount should be paid directly to the resident and not to her rent account
  28. We also order the landlord to communicate to the resident how she can make an application under its policy to be reimbursed, or make a claim under its insurance, for:
    1. The additional costs that she incurred when providing additional heating in the property during the winter of 2024-2025 due to the inadequate insulation, taking into consideration any energy prepayment cards already provided.
    2. Any additional expenses that the resident incurred for the period 1 February 2024-15 April 2025 as a result of the damp and mould, which was not covered by the B&Q voucher provided in July 2024.
  29. We understand that the landlord has recently met with the resident to discuss a solution to the damp and mould at the property, given the resident’s reluctance to be temporarily moved, and that discussions are ongoing.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated remedial repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay directly to the resident (and not to the rent account) £300 compensation for the resident’s distress and inconvenience likely caused by the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould and associated remedial repairs.
    2. Communicate to the resident how she can make an application under its policy to be reimbursed, or make a claim under its insurance, for:
      1. The additional costs that she incurred when providing additional heating in the property during the winter of 2024-2025 due to the inadequate insulation, taking into consideration any energy prepayment cards already provided.
      2. Any additional expenses that the resident incurred for the period 1 February 2024-15 April 2025 as a result of the damp and mould, which was not covered by the B&Q voucher provided in July 2024.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.