From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Aster Group Limited (202319962)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319962

Aster Group Limited

21 March 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 reports of a leak.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of a 1 bedroom second floor flat. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 6 September 2022, the resident called his landlord to report an emergency repair. He said that his bedroom was below the balcony of the flat above. It was raining heavily, and water was coming into his bedroom through the light fitting in the ceiling. An electrician attended and disconnected the bedroom light. The upstairs property was not owned by the landlord, and the tenants were not in when the landlord called round.
  3. A plumber attended the property within 2 days but could not find where the leak was coming from. There was another appointment on 13 September 2022 and the operative completed some works to seal joints, but said it was difficult to find the source of the leak.
  4. In October 2022, the resident called again to report the leak. He said that water dripped through the ceiling when it rained, and he was using a bucket to collect the rainwater. The landlord told him to contact his neighbour above to arrange access for the repair. The resident objected to this as he said that it this was not his responsibility. He reported the leak again in November 2022 and the landlord arranged a surveyor’s inspection. This went ahead on 8 December 2022, and they concluded that the landlord needed to raise works to replace or reseal the vents.
  5. On 2 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about the leak. He said that he could no longer use his bedroom, and he was sleeping on the living room floor. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 January 2023 and told the resident that he should receive a response by the 27 January 2023. The landlord later told the resident that it needed extra time to respond to his complaint and gave a new deadline of 10 February 2023.
  6. The landlord responded on 10 February 2023. It said that:
    1. after the operative attended on 13 September 2022, they closed the job down when they could not find the source of the leak when they should have raised a job for a surveyor to inspect the property
    2. the landlord should not have asked the resident to contact the neighbour above, as this was the landlord’s responsibility
    3. the landlord should not have left the resident without lighting in his bedroom, and it had raised a job to fix the light on the 23 February 2023
    4. it raised works on 21 January 2023, and on 7 February 2023 contractors replaced 3 missing vent covers to the wall of the building, but it had not told the resident about these repairs, which it said was “unacceptable”
    5. it would monitor whether the works had been successful and if it was satisfied that the problem was resolved, it would reinstall the light fitting and redecorate the ceiling
    6. it offered the resident £673 in compensation. This included £553 for the loss of the use of his bedroom and £120 for the upset that this had caused him.
  7. The resident replied to the landlord on 13 February 2023 to say that he did not believe the compensation was sufficient as he had to take time off work to deal with the leak. On 20 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for it to escalate his complaint to stage 2. It said it aimed to respond by 17 April 2023.
  8. On 13 April 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. It said:
    1. it acknowledged 6 service failures which included the delay in the surveyor’s visit, poor communication, having to chase works, the delay in the works starting, the lack of suitable lighting in the bedroom and the request that the resident contact his neighbour for access to their property to complete the repairs.
    2. it said that it had calculated the amount of £683.38 for the loss of the resident’s bedroom, but that it would offer an extra £50 for each of the service failures found and £250 for his distress and inconvenience which totalled £1,233.38.
  9. The resident was still unhappy with the level of compensation awarded by the landlord which he felt was too low, given the length of time it had taken to fix the leak and referred his complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In their correspondence with us, the resident has referred to some matters which do not relate to the complaint under investigation. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if necessary.     
  2. The resident has also said that he was unhappy that the landlord did not consider his loss of earnings when assessing compensation. In general, the Ombudsman would not offer a remedy of compensation for loss of wages. We do not make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. We can, however, decide that to make an order that a landlord pays compensation in recognition of inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord must keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including drains, gutters, external pipes, the roof, walls, doors, floors, and ceilings. It must also keep in good repair and proper working order installations for space and water heating, sanitation and for the supply of water, gas, and electricity. 
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy and procedure say that it will respond to emergency repairs within between 4 and 24 hours to make the property safe. It will arrange any follow-on works within its target response timescales. These are 5 working days for items such as plumbing leaks that can be contained, and 20 working days for non-urgent repairs.
  3. When the resident first reported the leak, the landlord attended within its target response timescales to make the property safe. There was a further urgent appointment arranged for a plumber to attend, which went ahead in the timescales outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy, but the plumber could not find the cause of the problem. At this stage it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for a surveyor to undertake a full inspection of the property. It did not do this, which was a failing.
  4. The resident spent time and effort in chasing this up with the landlord in October and November 2022. The landlord told him to speak with his neighbour about allowing the landlord access to the upstairs property. This was inappropriate, as it was the landlord’s responsibility to arrange access to complete repairs.
  5. It was not until December 2022 that a surveyor inspected the property. The landlord should have raised the works once it had found the source of the problem, but it did not do so and no explanation has been provided for this delay, which was unsatisfactory.
  6. It was only after the resident had raised a complaint with the landlord on 2 January 2023 that the landlord raised the works, and it completed them on 7 February 2023. It took the landlord 154 days to repair the leak, which was a significant delay. Furthermore, the landlord did not tell the resident that it had completed the works, which was unreasonable, as it had given him assurances that it would keep him updated.
  7. The landlord raised a job to fix the light fitting in the resident’s bedroom on 23 February 2023, and said as part of its complaint response that it would redecorate the resident’s ceiling. The resident has since informed this Service that, as of the date of this report, the landlord had not painted the ceiling, and it is unsightly because of water damage.
  8. The resident spent time and trouble in chasing the repairs. He said that the dripping water was disturbing his sleep and so he had to sleep in his living room. He also said that the leak had caused damage to his bed. He is a self-employed taxi driver and said that the ongoing problem with the leak, coupled with some health problems he was experiencing at the time, affected how often he could work.
  9. The landlord acknowledged all these failings in its complaint responses. It offered an apology and looked to put things right. It calculated compensation based on loss of the use of the bedroom for the period of 154 days. It also offered compensation for distress and inconvenience totalling £550 which was in line with its compensation policy.
  10. In identifying whether there has been service failure the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure.
  11. In this instance, the landlord’s offer of compensation was within the range of remedies the Ombudsman would award for loss of amenity based on a proportion of the rent for the period of a delay in completing repairs, beyond its target response timescales in its repairs policy.
  12. Further, it also offered the resident compensation of £500 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble. This award was within the range of remedies the Ombudsman would make when there had been a failing that had an adverse impact on the resident.
  13. The Ombudsman would have been satisfied that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress that resolves the complaint satisfactorily were it not for its failure to redecorate the resident’s ceiling. We therefore make a finding of service failure and include an order for the landlord to complete these works.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. if it has not done so already, the landlord must pay the resident the amount of £1,233.38 that it offered the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure and provide this Service with evidence of payment
    2. the landlord must contact the resident to arrange a convenient appointment to repaint his bedroom ceiling
    3. the landlord should provide the resident with details of its insurers, so that he can consider a claim for the damage to his bed