Aster Group Limited (202324111)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324111

Aster Group Limited

7 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
2. Response to reports of drainage issues causing damp and mould at the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a joint tenant of a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The assured tenancy started in July 2021 when the property was allocated based on the household’s medical needs. The property’s bathroom is on the ground floor. The weekly rent averaged £119.94 per week between April 2022 to April 2024.
The resident described the severity of a household member’s health conditions and the importance of hygiene and minimising contact with dust. The landlord is aware of the physical and mental health vulnerabilities within the resident’s household.
On 23 November 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. She said she was unhappy with repair delays to resolve continuous damp and mould in the bathroom. She also said the problem was present from the start of her tenancy and she had purchased a dehumidifier to control black mould. She wanted the landlord to put right the suspected external drainage issues and bathroom repairs.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 December 2022. The resident responded the same day. She said the landlord’s choice of investigating officer was inappropriate as her complaint included that member of staff.
The landlord sent a stage 1 holding letter on 16 December 2022. It said it was unable to respond within its usual timeframe as it was only visiting the property that day. It also said it required time to complete its investigation and hoped to respond by 9 January 2023.
On 11 January 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said:
1. A contractor had removed and replaced wet cavity wall insulation.
2. It would install a new bathroom radiator on 12 January 2023.
3. It had arranged for an independent specialist contractor to complete a damp and mould survey on 13 January 2023.
4. It would arrange any recommended remedial work upon receipt of the damp and mould survey.
5. It agreed to reimburse £132.78 for the dehumidifier bought by the resident.
On 12 July 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the repair progress and reminded the landlord of the household health vulnerabilities. She also expressed concern about the contractor’s competence and attitude. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request the same day.
The landlord sent a stage 2 holding letter on 7 August 2023 and a final response on 17 August 2023. It apologised that the resident had experienced recurring drainage and damp issues for over 2 years. It had identified that drainage to the front of the resident’s property remained the responsibility of the local council as it had not formed part of a stock transfer in 1995. It summarised actions to resolve matters and offered compensation of £1,194.36 (£300 for distress and inconvenience and £894.36 for partial loss of amenity).
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. She said the landlord failed to resolve the drainage issues. As such, her bathroom experienced continuous damp and mould and made it difficult for a disabled household member to wash. She said the damp problems persisted and remain outstanding as of March 2025. She also said the landlord should compensate her household for their mental, emotional, and physical toll.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident says the landlord should compensate her household for the mental, emotional, and physical effects caused by its delays to complete repairs.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability, nor award damages. Whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health requires a decision by an insurance claim or through the courts. Our role is to investigate if the landlord acted fairly, reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages.
While this will not form part of our investigation, we will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. Our decisions consider whether the landlord kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. If we find failure by a landlord, we can consider any distress and inconvenience caused.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom

The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure states it will respond to repairs based on risk. This being critical repairs within 4 hours, emergency repairs within 24 hours, routine repairs within 20 working days, and planned, one-off, or larger repairs within 60 days.
The landlord’s compensation procedure provides a financial range when a resident has experienced distress and inconvenience due to a service failure. The landlord considers the level of impact and time effected. Its highest compensation award is £300.
The landlord’s compensation procedure explains its calculations for the whole or partial loss of an amenity due to planned repairs. It uses the formula T x (U/R x D). Where:
1. T is for time/number of days a room has been unavailable.
2. U is for the number of rooms unavailable.
3. R is for the number of rooms normally available to the household.
4. D is for the daily rent.
The landlord does not dispute allocating the property to the resident based on her household’s medical needs. It also does not dispute that the resident successfully secured a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for work to install an over bath shower on or around February 2022.
Between 6 September 2021 to 9 March 2022 there is evidence the landlord responded to reports of damp patches or bathroom repairs on 8 occasions. While the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns within its routine repair response time, the recurring issues demonstrates the landlord failed to identify the root cause of the problems. This disrupted the household’s use of the bathroom facilities.
In February 2022 the resident expressed concern about the deterioration of the property and the effect on recent bathroom adaptations and decoration. She contacted the landlord for updates on 23 and 28 February 2022 due to reduced access to the bathroom. Given the household vulnerabilities, it was unreasonable that she did not receive communication from the landlord at this stage. This caused her time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience having to chase it for updates.
The evidence demonstrates the landlord started to install the resident’s shower in or around February 2022. However, the effects of the unresolved damp walls and workmanship concerns required the landlord to return to complete further work. This caused distress and inconvenience to the household as it remained on going until October 2023. Given the landlord’s records of a “life threatening medical condition” within the household, this was not appropriate and not in line with the landlord’s planned repair timeframes.
The landlord’s stage 2 response demonstrated a thorough investigation. It accepted things would have been difficult for the resident’s household for over 2 years and offered compensation for partial amenity loss. As the bathroom remained in use, it based its offer on 50% of the rent charge. It calculated this as £894.36 for 606 days between 3 February 2022 to 1 October 2023. We are satisfied the landlord applied this calculation in line with its compensation procedure.
When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was empathetic to the resident’s situation and the effects the delays had caused. It had changed contractors and accepted an initial issue with competence. It also accepted she had incurred additional electricity costs to dry the bathroom for work to progress. As such, it offered £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience and £249.17 for the additional power used. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation procedure.
However, our awards should also recognise the fact that the distress caused to an individual resident is unique to them. Not all residents will experience the same distress in response to the same instance of maladministration. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability (‘aggravating factors’). Consideration of any aggravating factors could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
In this case we find maladministration. And, given the known vulnerabilities and the landlord’s acceptance of the effects on the household over 2 years, we do not find it offered appropriate redress for the failings identified.
While its offer to include a partial amenity loss was reasonable, this was in affect to refund a proportion of the rent paid. It is therefore reasonable to consider whether its separate offer for distress and inconvenience was proportionate. In this case, given the timeframe and aggravating factors, we find that it was not.
Therefore, we order the landlord to pay £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is based on £300 per year. This is consistent with our remedies guide when the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
During contact with the resident, she described having to repeatedly explain the household vulnerabilities to contractors and operatives. While the landlord states it is aware of the vulnerabilities, its records do not specify any considerations required when engaging with the household members. We have therefore made a recommendation to discuss the possibility of a reasonable adjustment with the resident.

Response to reports of drainage issues causing damp and mould at the property

The resident states the property’s bathroom walls were wet at the start of the tenancy. The landlord had only just completed plastering and advised her not to decorate immediately. She says it assured her the plaster would dry in a few days. The resident says this never happened.
Between 17 August 2021 to 26 June 2023 the landlord recorded 9 repairs requiring drainage related work. While we are satisfied the landlord responded to each of the resident’s reports in line with its repair times, it does not dispute its delay to identify the route cause.
The landlord arranged a specialist damp and mould inspection following its stage 1 investigation. The survey identified water penetrating the property’s walls due to a blocked culvert and poor soakaways. In May 2023 the landlord arranged work to a ditch at the front of the property with a target completion of June 2023. This demonstrated the landlord honoured its promised to raise works based on the survey’s recommendations.
That said, the resident had waited almost 2 years for progress and described the problem quickly returning and seeing little to no improvement in the damp walls.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response in August 2023 it identified that it was not responsible for the clearance of the drainage ditch. It identified it did not form part of a stock transfer from the local authority in 1995. As such, it remained the local authority’s responsibility to maintain and clear. Given the time the landlord had been responsible for the property, its lack of awareness of this issue did not demonstrate affective knowledge and information management (KIM).
Without good KIM, a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and the resident safe now and in the future. In this case, the landlord has failed to demonstrate achieving this. Its failure to effectively coordinate or insist on the maintenance of the ditch by the local authority caused damp and mould to affect the resident for an unreasonable amount of time.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used. This includes sharing the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
Had the landlord adopted the approach set out in these recommendations, it may have avoided the service failings identified in this report. Although the landlord made attempts to clear drains, it was on notice of a problem from at least August 2021. Its failure to identify the responsibility for the drainage maintenance sooner, cause the resident to experience damp and mould in a room which was particularly important to a vulnerable member of the household.
Based on our findings with find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter. We have considered the landlord’s efforts to respond to the resident’s recurring reports as mitigating factors. It replaced wet cavity wall insulation and attempted external drainage works. However, this does not prevent an adverse finding. The landlord’s poor property KIM delayed it correctly identifying the route cause. This caused the resident’s household distress and inconvenience for more than 2 years.
While the landlord’s stage 2 response offered a total of £300 for distress and inconvenience, we do not find this proportionate redress across the complaint points we have investigated. Given the identified household vulnerabilities and 2 year period, we order the landlord to pay a further £400. This is consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord’s failures have adversely affected the resident.

Events post completion of the landlord’s ICP

In contact with us in March 2025, the resident’s said the landlord never resolved the drainage issues with the local authority. As such, she continues to experience damp walls and mould. We have therefore made an order to survey the property and raise the matter again with the local authority.

Complaint handling

The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. It would acknowledge complaints at stage 1 and 2 of its internal complaints process (ICP) within 5 working days. At stage 1, it would respond to complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. This was appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), 1 April 2022.
The Code says landlords must respond within 10 working days of the complaint. There are exceptions when landlords may provide an explanation to the resident having a clear timeframe for when they will receive a response. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
The Code says if the landlord needs an extension beyond 20 working days to enable it to respond to the complaint fully, both parties should agree this.
The resident complained on 23 November 2022. It was therefore reasonable for her to expect an acknowledgement by 30 November 2022 and a response by 7 December 2022. The landlord did not achieve either of these dates. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy.
On 2 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord regarding its chosen complaint investigating officer. She said she considered its choice inappropriate as her complaint involved that member of staff. While it was appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns, it simply said it had passed her complaint to someone with the appropriate knowledge. It did not demonstrate it considered her concerns and removed her opportunity to feel fully listened to.
Precisely when the resident first raised a complaint about the landlord’s officer is unclear. However, given she expressed concern during the complaint acknowledgement stage, the landlord’s response was dismissive.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 December 2022. It explained it would need more time to send its response. And it hoped to respond by 9 January 2023. While this showed the landlord attempted to communicate, its reason was due to it only visiting the property that day. It is unclear why the landlord did not anticipate this delay sooner and make sure it informed her of the delay in advance.
The landlord’s letter to extend the response date beyond 20 working days states it was operating in line with our expectations. While the landlord made some effort to communicate the delayed response, we have found no evidence that it agreed this extension with the resident. Its handling of the extension and delayed response was therefore not appropriate and not consistent with the Code.
Furthermore, the landlord sent its stage 1 response a further 2 working days later than the deadline it promised. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 response demonstrated empathy for the resident’s situation and arranged a specialist survey. It was reasonable in the circumstances that it agreed to reimburse the dehumidifier cost of £132.78. This demonstrated the landlord’s steps to put things right. However, the response contained no evidence of learning or how the landlord would prevent similar failings happening again.
The landlord sent a stage 2 holding letter on 7 August 2023 and its final response on 17 August 2023. This was 8 working days beyond its complaint policy response time.
While the landlord sent a holding letter on 7 August 2023 to extend its response date, there is no evidence it discussed or agreed this extension in advance with the resident. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for delays of over 2 years and demonstrated a thorough investigation. That said, while the resident acknowledged it had completed bathroom adaptations and repairs, the drainage problems continued. As such, damp and mould immediately returned to the bathroom. Therefore, the landlord’s complaint handling failed to resolve all matters for the resident.
Based on our findings we find maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to recognise the resident’s desire to include the investigating officer which left her feeling unheard. While it sent some communication regarding response delays, it did not demonstrate agreeing these in advance with the resident.
Furthermore, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that its complaint handling resolved the matter fully for the resident. As such, we order the landlord to pay £150 compensation. This is consistent with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of drainage issues causing damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £2,044.36 compensation. The compensation is made up of:
  1. £894.36 in recognition of the partial loss of amenity, if not already paid.
  2. £600 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom. The landlord may deduct £300 offered during its ICP, if already paid.
  3. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to reports of drainage issues causing damp and mould at the property.
  4. £150 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Within 8 weeks we order the landlord to arrange a suitably qualified professional to inspect the resident’s property for damp and mould. The landlord should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a report which includes any recommended remedial work and timeframes.
3. Within 8 weeks the landlord should discuss the recurring drainage issue with the local council. It should provide the resident and us with an action plan regarding the maintenance of the drainage affecting the property.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord ensures that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the circumstances of the resident’s household. And that it considers the need for a reasonable adjustment when undertaking work to the resident’s property.
We recommend the landlord reoffers the resident £132.78 to reimburse her for the purchased dehumidifier, if not already paid.
We recommend the landlord reoffers the resident £249.17 for the additional electricity used to run a dehumidifier, if not already paid.