Aster Group Limited (202233480)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233480

Aster Group Limited

30 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Request for a new kitchen.
3. Request for the landlord to relocate the radiators.
4. Request for the landlord to remove the artex decoration.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy at the property which commenced in October 2022. The resident was aged 67 at the time of the complaint and has breathing difficulties including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). He lived at the property with his wife.
The resident complained to the landlord on 26 January 2023. He said he had the following issues:
1. There was damp and mould throughout the property, particularly in the kitchen units.
2. The external walls were cold.
3. The pathway from the property did not extend fully to his car parking space.
4. The fence and gate were in a poor state of repair.
5. The radiators needed relocating.
6. There was no outside light.
7. The light switches were in poor positions.
8. There was potential asbestos in the kitchen and bathroom ceilings.
The landlord surveyed the property on 24 February 2023 and sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 1 March 2023. It said the cause of the mould was condensation and identified works to resolve this. It said this would also help with the cold external walls. It noted the kitchen would be soon due for replacement and it would consider this after it had resolved the condensation issue. It noted it had already resolved the lighting issue prior to its inspection and said it had raised an order for the fencing issue. It said it would not be extending the pathway to the parking space and would not relocate the radiators as there was no requirement for it to do so.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate his complaint on 29 March 2023. He wanted confirmed dates for all the work outlined in the stage 1 response. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 20 April 2023. It said the condensation work would be completed by July 2023 and the kitchen would be assessed for replacement in the next financial year. It said it would reconsider the resident’s request for an extended pathway and to relocate the radiators if the resident could provide evidence of a medical requirement, such as an occupational therapy assessment. It confirmed the asbestos in the artex ceiling decoration would not be removed as it was low risk. The landlord offered £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred the complaint to this Service in May 2023. In referring the matter, the resident said the landlord had not completed the work to resolve the mould within the timescales provided. He wanted the work completed as soon as possible and an increased offer of compensation. He also wanted the landlord to replace the kitchen sooner, to reconsider relocating the radiators and to remove the artex ceiling decoration.
The landlord issued a further response to the resident on 13 July 2023 and reconfirmed its position that it would not be replace the kitchen, remove the artex or relocate the radiators. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s health concerns and increased the offer of compensation to £400 for overall distress and inconvenience.
The resident pursued a legal disrepair claim with regards to the damp and mould and his solicitor sent a letter before action to the landlord in January 2024. The landlord settled the claim prior to court proceedings being issued and paid the resident £500 in settlement.
The resident then applied for rehousing through the local council who offered him alternative accommodation. The resident accepted the offer and moved out of the property in August 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

The resident informed the landlord and this Service that this situation had a detrimental impact on his health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. He may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health was affected by any action or failure by the landlord. 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.
The evidence shows the resident commenced a legal disrepair claim regarding outstanding repairs within the property. This Service is unable to consider complaints which concern matters that were the subject of formal court proceedings. However, in this case the claim was settled prior to court proceedings being issued and full details of the settlement have not been provided to this Service. Therefore, this investigation has given overall consideration to the landlord’s response and the amount of compensation offered in settlement.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s condensation and mould procedure says that it will inspect all cases of reported mould within 10 working days of receiving the report. In this case, the resident first reported the mould in his complaint on 26 January 2023. The landlord inspected the property on 24 February 2023 which is outside of its 10-working day timescale. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay in either of its complaint responses and this is a failure. The landlord’s compensation policy notes it may make offers of compensation where it has failed to meet its service standards. Therefore, an order has been made below to reflect this.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it had not found damp on its inspection and concluded that the mould was caused by condensation. The landlord said it had found issues with the pointing to the external walls, the loft insulation and the cavity wall insulation. It confirmed it had requested approval to complete these works under a planned programme. The landlord’s repairs procedure says it may refer works to a planned programme where more significant investment is required, or the works are complicated. The landlord acted appropriately in referring these works to a planned programme.
In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed it would complete the works by July 2023. The evidence shows it completed the insulation work on 19 June 2023 and the repointing work in January 2024. The resident had to chase for an update on this work on several occasions. This included contact with the landlord on 14 June 2023 when the landlord told the resident that work was due for completion by 31 March 2024.
Although it is positive that the landlord met the timescale it set out in its stage 2 response for the insulation, it is unreasonable that it did not have an update for the resident 5 days prior to it then completing the work. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident resulting in the resident chasing for information and this is a failure. It also failed to offer an explanation as to why it did not complete the repointing at the same time and why it took a further 6 months to complete. As above, an offer of compensation would be appropriate to remedy this failure, and an order has been made below.
The landlord’s condensation and mould procedure says that if mould is caused by defects within the property, the landlord will complete a mould clean at the time of repairing the defect or sooner if required. The resident specifically raised concerns about the mould affecting the kitchen cupboards since the kitchen was not due to be replaced straight away. There is no evidence of the landlord completing a mould clean at any stage. This was inappropriate especially given the resident’s potential vulnerability due to his age and breathing conditions.
The landlord is responsible for keeping the property free from hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). It lists damp and mould growth as hazards. This Service published a spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021 which included the following recommendations:
1. Landlords should ensure responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
2. Landlords should evaluate what mitigations they can put in place to support residents in cases where structural interventions may not be appropriate and satisfy themselves, they are taking all reasonable steps.
By taking a month to inspect the mould and a further 4 months to complete the work to resolve the mould, the landlord has not demonstrated that it deemed the issue urgent. There is also no evidence of the landlord offering the resident any support or interim solutions, such as dehumidifiers or mould cleans, to help the resident manage the situation. This Service has not seen any evidence that would suggest the landlord had satisfied itself it was taking all reasonable steps to manage the situation. This is a significant failure given the resident’s vulnerability and an order for compensation has been made below.
The landlord’s repairs procedure notes that issues with pointing and insulation should be assessed and repaired when properties are empty as part of the void process. The landlord acknowledged this process had failed and offered the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience of needing to deal with the issues while he was living there. The landlord later increased this offer to £400. This offer is proportionate to this failure in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for failures that had a significant impact on the resident. It was appropriate that the landlord recognised it could have been prevented had it followed its procedure correctly.
In January 2024 the resident sought legal advice and initiated a legal disrepair claim about the condition of the property. The case was settled prior to issuing court proceedings, with the landlord agreeing to compensate the resident a sum of £500. The particulars of the claim and the settlement agreement have not been shared with this Service however the resident and the landlord agreed that the claim included the matter of damp and mould.
This Service is aware that the resident received £250 of the £500 paid as his solicitor took 50% of the settlement to cover their fees. This was paid in addition to the £400 the landlord offered in its response of 13 July 2023. Combined, it awarded £900 for its failures in handling the damp and mould repairs, of which the resident received £650.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman 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 the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
While the landlord acted fairly in offering £900 compensation for the failure to address the mould prior to the resident moving in, it failed to acknowledge the other failings identified in this report, namely:
1. Its failure to inspect the issue within the 10-working day timescale outlined in its policy.
2. Its failure to approach the mould issue with an appropriate level of urgency given the resident’s potential vulnerability.
3. Its failure to offer interim solutions to manage the mould while awaiting the planned insulation works.
4. Its failure to adhere to its policy and complete a mould clean at any stage of the complaint.
5. Its failure to update the resident on when the insulation work would be completed.
6. Its failure to complete the repointing work within the timescale it set out in its stage 2 response.
The sum of £650 received by the resident was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident because of the failures set out above. The impact on the resident was significant and not just limited to the landlord’s failure to address the issue prior to him moving in. It is also noted that the landlord has failed to demonstrate how it has learned from the outcome of this complaint.
Therefore, this investigation has found maladministration. An order for an apology and an additional £250 compensation has been made below. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for failures which had a significant impact on the resident where the landlord has failed to proportionately put things right.

The resident’s request for a new kitchen.

For the avoidance of doubt, this section of the report is only concerned with the resident’s request for a new kitchen based on its age and functionality. The resident’s concerns around damp and mould affecting the kitchen have been addressed in the section above.
The resident did not ask for the kitchen to be replaced in his initial complaint. In his escalation request he said the kitchen was not in an acceptable condition and he wanted it replaced. The landlord’s repairs procedure says that major works such as kitchen replacements are usually placed on planned programmes and attended in order of urgency.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord confirmed that it considers kitchens have a 20-year life span. It told the resident that the kitchen was installed in 2004 and therefore was due to be assessed for replacement in the financial year ending March 2025. It said the resident could ask for it to be assessed sooner if he did not feel this was correct. There is no evidence of the resident requesting this and the landlord reconfirmed its stance on the matter on 19 May 2023, 14 June 2023 and in its additional complaint response on 13 July 2023.
The landlord’s internal emails show it considered the resident’s request for a new kitchen and that it felt the kitchen was in serviceable condition. It noted it had done some minor repairs before the resident had moved into the property.
There is no evidence that the kitchen needed urgent replacement, and the landlord confirmed its stance to the resident clearly throughout the complaint. This investigation has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter.

The resident’s request for the landlord to relocate the radiators.

In his initial complaint the resident asked the landlord to relocate the radiators to underneath the windows in each room. He felt this would help keep the property warmer. The landlord’s heating team reviewed the current positions of the radiators and said there was no requirement to move them. The landlord confirmed this to the resident in its stage 1 response. The landlord noted the planned insulation replacement should make a difference to the overall heat of the rooms. The resident sought advice from the local council who said, on 12 April 2023, that the landlord’s approach seemed “logical” and it felt the location of the radiators would have little impact on the overall heat of the rooms. The landlord reconfirmed its stance in its stage 2 response, by email on 19 May 2023 and in its additional email response on 13 July 2023.
There is no evidence that the radiators needed relocating and the landlord confirmed its stance to the resident clearly throughout the complaint. This investigation has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter.
It is noted that after the complaint, in July 2023, the resident sought an occupational therapy assessment which recommended the radiators be relocated to underneath the windows. The landlord commenced the application for a disability facilities grant to fund the work on 28 July 2023 however there is no evidence as to what happened next. As the resident has since moved out of the property, no further investigation has been made into this matter.

The resident’s request for the landlord to remove the artex decoration.

In his initial complaint, the resident raised a concern about asbestos in the artex decoration on the kitchen and bathroom ceilings. The landlord failed to address this concern in its stage 1 response which was unreasonable.
In his escalation request of 29 March 2023, the resident raised his concern again, with specific mention of his health, and requested a copy of the asbestos survey. It is understandable this subject may have been concerning for the resident, given his breathing conditions. There is no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with a copy of the asbestos survey. Nor is there evidence of the landlord reinspecting the artex or considering if it should take any further action based on the resident’s health concerns. If the landlord had a reason for not sharing the asbestos survey with the resident, then it should have explained this. It is also unreasonable that the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about his health. These are failures and the landlord is ordered to issue an apology to the resident.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that asbestos within artex ceiling coatings is considered low risk. It said it manages artex ceilings and would not remove them. It advised the resident not to disturb the artex or drill through it. The landlord has not provided this Service with its policy on managing asbestos. However, in line with expectations around managing asbestos under the HHSRS, this is deemed an appropriate response.
In conclusion, although the landlord acted in accordance with its policy by classing the artex decoration as low risk, it failed to offer reassurance to the resident, such as providing the asbestos survey, when he raised a concern about his health. It also failed to demonstrate flexibility by failing to consider if it should reassess the risk upon hearing the resident’s concern. This investigation has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter. Orders for an apology and £50 compensation have been made below for the landlord’s failure to consider the impact this issue may have had on the resident.
As the resident has since moved out of the property, we have not made an order for the landlord to share the asbestos survey with the resident. However, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider how compliance information, such as asbestos surveys, can be made readily available to residents in the future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the landlord to relocate the radiators.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the landlord to remove the artex decoration.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an additional £300 compensation comprising:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience incurred because of the landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience incurred because of the landlord’s failures in handling the residents request for the artex to be removed.
All payments ordered by this Service must be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies owed by the resident.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider how it can make compliance information, such as asbestos surveys, readily available to residents.