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

Aster Group Limited (202305562)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305562

Aster Group Limited

17 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Defect repairs.
    2. Her concerns about the location of a radiator.
    3. Bathroom adaptations.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy at the property began on 13 June 2022. The resident lives there with her 2 sons. The resident has a learning disability, autism, mental health conditions and limited mobility.
  2. The property is a new build 3 bedroom semi detached house. It had a 12 month ‘defect period’ during which the developer was responsible for carrying out any repairs. This began on 30 May 2022 when the property was handed over to the landlord.
  3. On 30 May 2022, the landlord completed a ‘snagging form’ for the property after taking handover from the developer. It noted that mastic was missing from the inside of all windows. The resident says that she also raised this issue with the landlord when viewing the property.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 August 2022, she reported an issue with the back door, which had gaps in the frame around its window. She expressed concern about condensation getting into these and ruining the door.
  5. On 16 January 2023, the resident reported mould on the ceiling of the bathroom to the landlord. She said she had removed this, but it returned within days.
  6. On 13 March 2023, the landlord received a report from the resident’s Occupational Therapist (OT) recommending adaptations to the bathroom in the property to replace the bath with a level access shower. The landlord visited the property with the OT on 22 March 2023 to assess the potential adaptations.
  7. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 19 June 2023. She expressed dissatisfaction with its handling of the defect repair issues. She said she felt “let down” and that she had “been avoided” by the landlord. She requested compensation for increased heating bills due to the lack of mastic on the windows. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction that she had not received an update on the bathroom adaptations since April 2023.
  8. The landlord telephoned the resident to discuss her complaint on 5 July 2023. During the call, the resident also expressed dissatisfaction with the placement of the radiator in her son’s bedroom. She said that as the radiator was not below the window it was difficult to fit a bed into the room without obstructing it.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 July 2023. It said that:
    1. Any repair issues arising during the defect period were the responsibility of the developer to address. It had carried out an ‘end of defect’ inspection on 9 June 2023 to capture any such issues that remained.
    2. The developer had informed it that mastic around the windows was not part of the specification for the property. It was also not required to meet the warranty provider’s standards. It apologised for incorrectly advising her that the developer should have installed mastic.
    3. The property had passed an “air permeability test” and had an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of B, with the windows rated as ‘very good’. It therefore concluded the absence of mastic would not have caused heat loss in the property.
    4. The mould on the bathroom ceiling was noted in the end of defect inspection report. The cause of this had been identified as missing insulation in the loft. This had been remedied and an appointment to redecorate the ceiling was booked for 16 August 2023.
    5. It could see she had reported the mould previously and it had failed to log and investigate this in a timely manner.
    6. The gaps in the back door had also been noted in the end of defects inspection report. The developer had not arranged an appointment for this yet.
    7. The location of the radiator in the resident’s son’s bedroom was in keeping with the plans and “installed in the correct position to allow adequate furnishing of the bedroom”.
    8. The resident had contacted it on 9 June 2023 for an update on the bathroom adaptations. It had directed her to her OT to obtain this.
    9. It was offering her £300 compensation composed of:
      1. £150 for service failure in addressing the mould.
      2. £50 for service failure in addressing the lack of mastic.
      3. £100 for inconvenience, distress and time taken pursuing matters.
  10. The resident responded on 24 July 2023. She expressed dissatisfaction with the level of compensation offered and claimed the mould had affected her and her son’s health. She asked for £2,000 compensation to enable her to arrange the outstanding works herself. The landlord escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
  11. The landlord completed the bathroom adaptations on or around 7 August 2023.
  12. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 24 August 2023. It said that:
    1. It felt the stage 1 response had investigated the complaint fully and provided a comprehensive response.
    2. Its offer of compensation was “proportionate” and “in line with what we would typically offer in the circumstances”.
    3. It was unable to offer the resident compensation for medical matters through its complaints process.
    4. She may wish to obtain legal representation and pursue a personal injury claim for this. Alternatively, she could make a claim through its insurers.

Events since landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

  1. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. On 30 August 2023, she said she felt the offer of £300 compensation was not enough and that some works were still outstanding.
  2. The landlord’s records indicate that it completed the repairs to the back door on 4 October 2023 and the bathroom ceiling on 13 October 2023.
  3. On 3 January 2024, the resident accepted the landlord’s £300 compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Defect repairs

  1. At the start of the tenancy, the landlord provided the resident with a ‘new home information guide’ for the property. This advised that any defect repairs occurring in the first 12 months should be reported to the landlord which would arrange for the developer to complete the required works. The landlord’s website states that “we rely on the developer and its consultants to coordinate and action repairs in new build properties as and when they arise. The landlord’s ‘defects process map’ says that where the developer has not confirmed a repair is complete, it will seek confirmation of this from the resident.
  2. The landlord inspected the property when it was handed over on 30 May 2022, and compiled a ‘snagging list’ of defect issues. This included the lack of mastic on the windows. The landlord raised a works order for the full snagging list to the developer on 1 June 2022.
  3. On 4 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report an issue with the bathroom extractor fan. Within this email she stated that “the rest of defaults have been addressed”. It was reasonable for the landlord to close the works order for the snagging list based upon this, which it did on 7 July 2022.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 January 2023 to say that the mastic on the windows had still not been done. The landlord appropriately raised a new works order to the developer for this.
  5. Emails provided by the landlord show that the developer advised it on 2 February 2023 that it did not mastic the internal of windows as part of the specification of the development. It is unclear from the information provided exactly when the landlord informed the resident of this. However, it is evident that it did so prior to her making her complaint – in which she expressed dissatisfaction with this fact.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that it had checked the property’s warranty provider’s ‘technical guidance’ which confirmed mastic around windows was not a requirement. It also reasonably relied on the property’s air permeability test and EPC to conclude that the lack of mastic had not caused heat loss from the property or additional expense to the resident.
  7. The landlord did acknowledge that it had failed to manage the resident’s expectations by incorrectly advising her that the windows should have had mastic applied. It apologised for this and offered her £50 compensation. This amount is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances of service failure. Due to the limited detriment caused to the resident, this was a reasonable offer.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord and reported gaps in the property’s back door on 10 August 2022. She included pictures of the door within the email. However, the landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it had had difficulty receiving these. The landlord raised a works order to the developer on 11 August 2022. The developer contacted the landlord the same day asking it to provide pictures of the issue. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it passed the resident’s pictures on to the developer or requested that she supply it with further pictures.
  9. On 20 September 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to ask if the developer had completed the back door repair. Only then did it ask her to provide pictures if the repair was still outstanding. The landlord said that if it did not hear from the resident within 7 days it would assume the repair had been completed and close the works order. On 28 September 2022, after receiving no response from the resident the landlord closed the works order. This was in keeping with its defects process map.
  10. The landlord raised a second works order for the back door on 24 March 2023, after the resident contacted it again. The landlord followed up with the resident by email on 22 April and 22 May 2023 asking whether the developer had completed works. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident responded to either of these emails. However, on this occasion the landlord kept the works order open.
  11. At the landlord’s request, the developer contacted the resident on 2 June 2023 to book an appointment to carry out works to the back door. The developer reported that the resident wished to wait for her end of defect inspection, scheduled for 9 June 2023, for the back door to be picked up alongside other outstanding issues. The landlord closed the works order on 7 June 2023 due to this.
  12. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to make “adequate attempts” to resolve its difficulties in receiving the resident’s pictures, which had delayed the works. It said it had factored this into its offer of compensation.
  13. As of the date of the stage 1 response, 21 July 2023, the landlord said that the developer had not yet scheduled the work to the back door. It confirmed that this was part of the property’s “end of defects list”, which the developer had begun addressing. The landlord asked the resident to contact it if the door had still not been repaired by 16 August 2023.
  14. It is apparent that this was the case, and on 30 August 2023, the landlord raised a works order to carry out the repairs to the back door itself. Its ‘dispute resolution process map’ allows that it will do this where the developer fails to carry out defect repairs in a timely manner and recharge the developer. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
  15. The landlord completed repairs to the door on 4 October 2023. The Ombudsman notes that an earlier appointment, scheduled for mid September, was cancelled by the resident due to illness.
  16. In summary, the landlord’s failed to pass on the resident’s photos of the back door to the developer, or request them again, in August 2023. This meant it missed the chance for the defect to be remedied at the earliest opportunity and led to the delays which followed. The landlord recognised this service failure in its stage 1 complaint response and appropriately factored it into its offer of compensation.
  17. The first record, provided for this investigation, of the resident mentioning mould in the bathroom was within her email to the landlord on 16 January 2023. Although the landlord raised a works order for the missing window mastic on this date, it failed to respond to the resident’s report of mould.
  18. The landlord noted the mould when inspecting the bathroom for adaptations on 22 March 2023. The resident told it that she had already reported this, however the landlord checked its records and found there was no open works order. It emailed the resident on 23 March 2023, requesting pictures of the mould. However, the landlord had already taken its own pictures on 22 March 2023, copies of which were provided for this investigation. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident responded to the landlord’s request, and it appears it did not raise a works order due to this.
  19. The resident raised the issue of mould with the landlord again on 18 April 2024, when it enquired about the outstanding extractor fan repair. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it had assumed the mould was linked to the lack of extractor fan and so failed to take any action to investigate further. Whilst in hindsight this proved to be incorrect, it was a reasonable assumption for the landlord to make.
  20. On 9 June 2024, during the end of defect inspection, the developer identified that the mould was caused by a gap in the loft insulation above the ceiling. It is apparent that the insulation had been rectified by the time of the landlord’s stage 1 response on 21 July 2023. The landlord said that the developer was scheduled to remove the mould and stain block and decorate the bathroom ceiling on 16 August 2023.
  21. The developer attended on this date and stain blocked the ceiling but did not have enough time to complete the decoration. It said it could reattend to complete the works on 20 September 2023. Due to the length of this delay, the landlord raised a works order to complete the decoration itself. However, the soonest appointment it was able to offer was 19 September 2023 – just 1 day earlier.
  22. It appears both the developer and the landlord attended the property on 19 September 2023. However, there was a dispute over who was completing what works and no works were carried out. The landlord then attended the property on 13 October 2023 and completed the decoration of the bathroom ceiling.
  23. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £150 for the service failure in its handling of the mould. This was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances of maladministration and represented a reasonable offer given the circumstances.
  24. Following the stage 1 response, the resident told the landlord she believed the mould had affected her and her son’s health. The landlord told her that it could not offer compensation for ill health through its complaints process. This was in keeping with its compensation procedure which states that “all claims for ill health and injury following an allegation of a service failure will be dealt with via a Personal Injury Claim in consultation with Aster’s insurers and not via the complaints process.” The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to these channels.
  25. The Ombudsman notes that the resident requested compensation of £2,000 from the landlord as a resolution to her complaint. This was based on a figure of approximately 25% of rent over the year defects were outstanding. The Ombudsman would only order compensation of this nature in instances where there is a ‘loss of amenity’, such as a room in the property being unusable. There is no evidence that the resident or her sons were unable to use the bathroom due to the mould and so this would not be appropriate in this case.
  26. In summary, the landlord acknowledged its failures in the handling of the defect repairs and offered a total of £300 compensation to the resident for these. The Ombudsman finds that considering the level of failings identified, the level of detriment caused by the outstanding defects and the resident’s vulnerabilities this offer represents reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Bedroom radiator

  1. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of the resident raising concerns over the position of the radiator in her son’s bedroom prior to 5 July 2023. On this date the landlord phoned her to discuss her complaint, and she asked to add the matter to it. The resident said she was unable to satisfactorily position her son’s bed without it obstructing or being directly next to the radiator.
  2. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that the position of the radiator in the bedroom was in keeping with the original plans. It provided a copy of the heating and plumbing design for the first floor of the property which showed this. The landlord also included plan of the first floor drawn to include furniture, showing how a single bed, table and chair, wardrobe and chest of drawers could be accommodated in the bedroom without obstructing the radiator. Based upon this the landlord’s position that “the radiator has been installed in the correct position to allow for adequate furnishing of the bedroom” was reasonable.
  3. The landlord’s ‘new home information guide’ says that “dissatisfaction with correctly installed and functioning systems are not defects”. As such, there was no obligation on the landlord to relocate the radiator. The resident had viewed the property prior to signing the tenancy agreement and accepted it as it was. There is no evidence of maladministration by the landlord.

Bathroom adaptations

  1. An internal email shows that the landlord received the resident’s OT’s report on 13 March 2023. This recommended the replacement of the bath at the property with a level access shower.
  2. The landlord’s aids and adaptations procedure says that “when more significant and/or complex aids or adaptations are requested it “will request that an initial assessment of the home is undertaken.” The landlord completed such an inspection promptly on 22 March 2023.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 April 2023 confirming that it had approved the adaptations to proceed. Whilst this was over a month after the inspection, the landlord’s procedure requires it to meet with the OT to discuss the case before making its decision. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord was unable to carry out any adaptation works whilst the property was still within the 12 month defect period – which ran until 30 May 2023.
  4. The landlord’s letter said that the case had “now been passed on to the area surveyor within the planned maintenance team, who has been sent instructions to proceed and will be scheduling a visit to measure up and quote for the works required.
  5. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it for an update on the adaptations on 9 June 2023. It responded on 12 June 2023 and directed her to her OT to obtain this. In her complaint, made a week later, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that she had not received any updates from the landlord since its letter of 24 April 2023.
  6. The landlord’s procedure says that its independent living team “will oversee the delivery of the aid and/or adaptations and will act as the main point of contact for the customer from start to finish.” Considering this, and the fact that the next step was for the landlord’s surveyor to visit the property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided the resident with an update directly. It is unclear why it instead directed her to her OT.
  7. In its stage 1 response, the landlord again directed the resident to contact her OT and failed to provide an update on the adaptations. The Ombudsman finds that this was not in keeping with its procedure and so represents service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident for its handling of defect repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the location of a radiator.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of bathroom adaptations.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of bathroom adaptations.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with this order to us.