Aster Group Limited (202403236)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403236

Aster Group Limited

28 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.
2. Request for a management transfer.
3. Request for a breakdown of service charges and reimbursement of her rent and expenses.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 1–bed flat in a housing scheme designed for older people.
The resident maintains that 6 months after moving into her flat, she experienced harassment and intimidation from her neighbour above. He was known to the landlord. It has acknowledged receiving intermittent reports from her on this issue for some time.
On 9 April 2024, the neighbour aggressively approached a member of the scheme staff. He made threats to her and in relation to the resident. These threats included making a gesture that indicated slitting their throats. The landlord informed the resident, logged an incident and notified the police. For her safety, the landlord moved her to the guest room of another scheme on 11 April 2024.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 30 April 2024. She said it had temporarily rehoused her while it processed a transfer application. However, she had received no updates or responses to her emails almost 3 weeks later. She said she could not be in a small room for long as it affected her health. She wanted it to find her a 1 bed flat and stop charging her rent on her substantive home. She also said it should have taken legal action on the neighbour for threatening to take hers and the staff member’s life.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 May 2024. It said it had followed procedure but acknowledged there were delays in information being recorded and followed up with the legal team. It recognised that this was a failing and a need for further training. It confirmed it had escalated the resident’s case for legal action which would be managed by its ASB team. A management move had been approved but it could not guarantee when a property would become available. It agreed the temporary accommodation was not suitable for the long-term. It could not stop charging rent as her tenancy was still running, and it had not charged for the guest room. It offered £250 compensation for the disturbance and lack of facilities and £200 for service failure.
The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She said the reports of abuse went back as far as 2021.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 July 2024. It said it had not operated within its ASB procedure following the incident of 9 April 2024. An injunction against the neighbour was being pursued but had not been secured. Facilities in the guest room were limited compared to those in her flat. As such, it agreed a rent reduction and reimbursement of extra food costs for the duration of her stay in the guest room. It referred the resident to its insurers if she wanted to pursue a claim for the effect on her health. It had offered her 2 properties for a management transfer, when the policy agrees to only 1. She had refused both, but it did not consider her reasons for refusal acceptable. It said once it had secured the injunction against the neighbour, it expected her to move back to her flat.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £4779 compensation, and a further offer of compensation would be calculated for any additional time spent in the guest room when she moved back to her flat. The amount was broken down as follows:
1. £350 for the delay to allocate the case to the ASB Team
2. £400 delay in obtaining the injunction in place to safeguard tenant
3. £350 for inconvenience caused by the lack of communication
4. £2320 for extra food costs at £20 per day x 116 days, from 11th April until 4th August 2024.
5. £1309 rent refund to cover the lack of facilities £77 x 17 weeks
6. £50 delay in requesting an extension of the stage 2 response
The resident approached this Service because she thought the landlord had taken too many years to deal with her case appropriately. She also felt the compensation it had offered her was not reflective of its failures.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not raised as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme). This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The resident made her formal complaint to the landlord on this issue on 30 April 2024. It is noted she disputes that this is the earliest date that she made a formal complaint. Her complaint referenced reporting problems as far back as 6 months into her tenancy, however, the primary issue in her complaint related to the landlord’s response following the incident with the neighbour on 9 April 2024. This investigation will therefore consider matters from just prior to this date, which is within 12 months of the complaint.
The resident felt the landlord should have compensated her for the emotional, psychological, and physical distress she had experienced. 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. Therefore, the complaint about the emotional, psychological and physical distress are better dealt with via the court.

ASB

When considering the response to a complaint about ASB, the statutory guidance for frontline professionals requires that agencies must consider the effect that the behaviour in question is having on the lives of those subject to it. The harm, or the potential for harm to the victim, is an important consideration for the landlord in determining its approach, as the more vulnerable can be less resilient to ASB.
The landlord has an ASB policy, which commits to prioritising all reports according to risk. It has set target response times for contacting the complainant and detailing the next steps in accordance with the level of assessed risk. It also commits to staying in contact with victims, keeping them informed, working with partners on solutions and informing all parties on outcomes and required actions.
The landlord said it had been aware of intermittent reports of harassment towards the resident from the neighbour. Following a 7-month gap since the last report, on 27 February 2024, it found an inappropriate note the neighbour left on her window.
Concerned that things were about to escalate, the resident requested a managed transfer from the landlord (exact date unknown). A meeting was arranged for 9 April 2024, between the resident and the onsite staff. This was to discuss the ASB and to complete a management transfer form. This was an appropriate response by the landlord.
Later that day, the neighbour approached a member of the onsite staff in an aggressive manner. He accused her of asking the resident to repeatedly slam a heavy object on the floor, pointed his finger in her face and threatened to slit both of their throats. A caretaker intervened to bring the incident to a close.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will complete an impact assessment immediately on receiving a report of ASB to assess the risk to the resident. Any impact assessment with a score over 11 will be treated with the highest priority. The landlord informed the resident of the potential threat to her safety, recorded the incident on the incident log and reported it to the police. While it took reasonable steps to act, there was no evidence that it completed an impact assessment.
The landlord uses the outcome of an impact assessment to decide what the next steps are and agree an action plan with the victim. Without a completed assessment, it is difficult to see how it could achieve the risk-based response required or agree on an appropriate action plan.
Understandably, following the incident, the resident was very distressed and concerned for her safety. She went to stay with a friend for 2 nights. She then asked the landlord to move her somewhere else for her safety. Its senior management team approved an offer of a guest room in another scheme as a short-term temporary solution.
If a resident cannot remain in their home owing to the threat of violence or harassment, it is usual for landlords to advise them to approach their local council. The council has emergency resources and can assess whether there is a duty to provide emergency assistance in the circumstances. Providing the resident with emergency accommodation was reasonable because, while arranging it was good practice, it did not have an obligation to do so.
In her formal complaint to the landlord of 30 April 2024, the resident said she had been living in constant fear of harassment and violence from the neighbour for some time. This included verbal abuse, banging on the floor, kicking and bashing on her windows and doors with a stick. She said since it began, she had become depressed and anxious. She did not think it had responded appropriately to her previous reports over the years. She now lived in 1 room and was under the threat of having her throat cut. She felt it should have taken legal action for this recent threat.
In the landlord’s complaint response of 22 May 2024, it said that it had not processed the resident’s report of ASB on 9 April 2024 as it should have. It had referred the incident to the ASB team on 18 April 2024. But following implementation of a new housing management system in April and staff shortages, it had not properly recorded or progressed her case. It resumed the process on 1 May 2024, so there had been a delay of 17 working days. It recognised that this was a failing; it identified a need for further staff training and offered the resident £200 compensation. In its stage 2 review, it increased its compensation offer to £350.
We consider the landlord’s actions to be reasonable. It moved her to a safe place and took immediate steps to resume the ASB process. It took learning from the complaint and identified areas for service improvement. The offer of compensation was within the range the Ombudsman would recommend for failings which adversely affected the resident for a period but had no permanent impact.
Having not done so earlier, when the landlord had acknowledged its failings and resumed its ASB process (May 2025), it should have completed an impact assessment. There was, however, no evidence that it had. It is not known whether it did not carry one out or just did not provide it to this Service. While it was clear the landlord was taking action, a risk/impact assessment would have made it easier for us to determine the reasonableness of the actions and whether they fully met the resident’s needs.
The landlord’s ASB policy commits to taking legal action against perpetrators once all other problem solving and non-legal actions have failed. The landlord informed the resident it was taking injunction proceedings. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord acted on this promptly after the incident in April 2024, which was appropriate.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 May 2024. She said verbal reports she had made had not been recorded. Despite gaps in incidents with the neighbour, she still experienced constant anxiety that they could start at any time. She had provided evidence from her GP of her health deteriorating due to the stress. She said the landlord had only started responding because she had made a complaint and £200 for service failure did not reflect the 3 years she had been suffering the abuse.
The landlord advised the resident it was unable to assess compensation for medical claims under its complaint’s procedure. It did, however, provide details for its insurers should she wish to pursue a claim for injury, which was appropriate.
The landlord acknowledged in its complaint review that its earlier communication should have been better. There were examples of the resident having to chase the landlord for updates about her case. In response, it offered her £350 for the inconvenience, which was proportionate and within the range the Ombudsman would recommend for this level of service failure.
There were 2 court hearings that had to be adjourned (June and August 2024). This inevitably resulted in a delay in proceedings, which was inconvenient but outside of the landlord’s control. Despite the delay being outside of its control, it considered the impact it had on the resident. In response, it felt it was appropriate to offer her compensation of £400.
In responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, the landlord identified it had failed to agree to an extension with her within its complaint policy timescales. It apologised for this and offered her £50 compensation, which was also reasonable.
The landlord secured an injunction against the neighbour in October 2024.Although there was some delay, it was evident that the landlord was proactive and timely in its pursuit of the appropriate legal action to resolve the ASB.
The landlord’s ASB policy commits it to regular contact with victims to inform them of any progress throughout the case. It was evident through regular email contact from the landlord’s ASB team, between June and October 2024, that it had adhered to this aspect of its policy.
There is no doubt the ASB experienced by the resident was extremely frightening and distressing for her and caused her a lot of inconvenience. However, overall, we have found that the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy. It instigated a temporary emergency move, and although the accommodation was not ideal, this reduced the risk and made her safe in the interim. It promptly gathered evidence and commenced legal action against the neighbour, securing an order that was proportionate to the serious nature of the ASB.
There was some avoidable delay in the landlord implementing its ASB policy. However, it recognised this, took immediate measures to put things right and offered reasonable redress for that delay. The absence of a risk/impact assessment was remiss, but it was not evident that the resident suffered any detriment. As even without an assessment, it took appropriate and timely action to address the ASB and reduce the threat of harm to the resident. In light of this, we conclude that while some service failings occurred, its efforts to put matters right and the compensation it offered amount to reasonable redress.

Management transfer

The landlord’s management transfer procedure states that those residents that require an immediate move will be referred to the local council. Exceptions can be made for residents experiencing severe harassment, or serious nuisance, which can be evidenced through a current case registered on the ASB case management system or supporting information from external partners.
There was evidence the resident had requested managed transfers historically because of the neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord had denied her previous requests because its policy was to address issues of ASB and not move those involved. Additionally, it does not consider incidents of ASB an exception for a managed move under its management transfer policy.
The neighbour’s inappropriate note to the resident in February 2024 prompted her further request to be moved. This resulted in the meeting with the landlord on 9 April 2024.
Before the landlord could process the resident’s transfer request, the situation escalated (as set out above). In accordance with its management transfer policy, it agreed to her request for a managed move. It suggested she also engage with her local council for a move as well.
The landlord’s policy states that any accommodation offered under a management transfer will be within the local council area that the resident currently lives in. This is because cross borough moves are more complex, they need senior management authority and the approval of the borough that the resident wants to move to.
The resident asked to move to a different borough. The landlord was willing to consider this, but it was not possible because the council concerned rejected her application. This was disappointing for the resident but was outside of its control. It did, however, try to liaise with that council for consideration of a mutual exchange instead. This was reasonable, as it had no obligation to do this for her.
The resident also requested to move to a specific block owned by the landlord. It explained it could not assist her with this move because the local council had 100% nomination rights to all properties in that block. This was disappointing for the resident, but again, it was outside of its control.
There is currently a chronic shortage of affordable housing. This is because the high demand for housing outweighs supply. As a result, the landlord, along with many other social landlords and local councils have needed to put strict rules in place on offers of housing.
The landlord has the following rules in place in relation to the operation of its management transfer process.
1. It will only offer a property that meets the immediate needs of the household using the local council’s size eligibility criteria.
2. It limits any offer through the management transfer process to 1 only. If a resident refuses a reasonable offer, it will remove them from the list.
3. If a resident is not flexible when considering an offer of accommodation, it may conclude they are not experiencing a credible threat or danger. Under these circumstances, it can reject a transfer request or remove them from its management transfer list.
Although the landlord claims it has a 1 offer only policy, it does not state this in the policy/procedure documents provided. It relies on its use of language to suggest this is the case. Examples included “aim to offer a property”, “if a customer has refused a reasonable offer” and “an offer will be made”. A significant point such as this should be stated clearly in its documentation. We have made recommendations for the landlord to consider amending its policy wording on this issue later in the report.
In July 2024, the landlord said it waived its policy limit of 1 property and offered the resident a choice of 2 available properties. One was a studio flat which she refused because it was too small. She believed she should have a like–for–like offer of a 1-bed flat. The local council’s size eligibility criteria specifies that 2 adults can occupy a studio flat. As its policy stated, it would use the council’s size eligibility criteria and accommodation is in short supply, it was within its right to consider this a reasonable offer.
The other property the landlord offered the resident was a 1-bed flat. This was near her current flat. She refused this offer because she felt it was too close to where her neighbour lived, and she was afraid she may still experience harassment living that close. This was an understandable concern for her. However, it reviewed the history of her case. All incidents were triggered by complaints about household noises, there had been no incidents from the neighbour outside of the block. She did not dispute this, so it was again within its right not to accept her refusal on the basis it was a reasonable offer. For further reassurance, the landlord did not press the resident to move into the block until it had secured the injunction, which was reasonable.
When the resident refused what the landlord considered to be 2 offers of reasonable accommodation, it determined she was not being flexible and concluded that once it had secured the injunction, it expected her to return to her flat. It made this decision in accordance with its management transfer policy, which it had the right to do.
On receipt of this information, the resident agreed to accept a 1-bed flat in the block near her current flat, once the injunction against her neighbour was in place. Despite having a 1 offer only policy, the landlord reasonably agreed to make her a further offer of accommodation in that block. She moved in, in October 2024.
The landlord exceeded its obligations in providing the resident emergency accommodation while it processed her application for a managed move. It fully adhered to its management transfer policy in approving and progressing assistance with her transfer. Despite the shortage of accommodation in the area, any delay in moving her permanently resulted from the legal process of securing the injunction first. In view of this, we conclude that there was no service failure in its handling of her managed move.

Breakdown of service charges and reimbursement of rent and expenses.

In her complaint to the landlord, the resident requested it stopped charging her rent while she was not living in her flat.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised the resident that as the tenancy was still running on her flat, it had to charge rent. It confirmed it was not charging her for the emergency accommodation in the guest room. Its advice was correct, the tenancy was running. She still had furniture and belongings in the flat, and it could not be re-let it as it was not empty. It therefore had a right to continue to charge her rent. However, in acknowledgement of “the disturbance” to her and the lack of facilities available in the room, it offered her £250 compensation.
The resident was not satisfied with this response. In her escalation request on 24 May 2024, she said she was paying for “a whole flat” and living in only a room. She said it was appropriate that the landlord should not charge for the room, as it was its duty to protect her. She said the sum of £250 offered to her, for living in the room for an undetermined period was appalling.
As stated earlier, the landlord did not have a duty to provide the resident with emergency accommodation, as she believed. So, its agreement to provide her with the guestroom and waive any charges for it exceeded its responsibilities.
The landlord’s review of the resident’s complaint considered the facilities available to her in the guest room compared to the facilities at her flat. It decided the charge to her should be reduced. It compared her weekly rent with the rent on one of its shared facility properties. The difference was £77 per week. It agreed to reimburse her this amount per week for the duration of her stay in the guest room, which totalled £1309. The resident’s flat was still in use, storing her furniture and belongings. As a result, it could not re-let the flat and secure payment for the full rent. Its agreement to reduce her rent and withstand the loss was very reasonable and not something it had to do.
The resident complained that the lack of facilities available to prepare food in the guest room had increased her cost of food to £45 per day. The landlord had agreed to her use of the communal kitchen, but this only had a kettle, microwave and toaster, which limited her ability to cook food. It accepted that buying already prepared food was more expensive than cooking. It calculated that if she were living in her flat, she would pay a cost for food per day. It agreed to contribute to the increased cost of buying prepared food, but not the whole cost. It offered her reimbursement of £20 per day towards food for the duration, which totalled £2320. This, alongside the other financial subsidies offered on accommodation and costs it incurred, such as removal fees, was reasonable.
The resident wanted a breakdown of service charges from the landlord for her flat. It provided a full explanation of how service charging worked in the housing scheme. It advised there were 2 categories of charge, eligible and ineligible service charges. The eligible service charges cover the services provided for communal areas such as cleaning and grounds maintenance (it included a breakdown of the charges for her). It said the ineligible service charges related to heating and hot water for the individual property. Benefits can be claimed to cover the cost of the eligible service charges; however, ineligible service charges were paid directly by the tenant as benefits will not cover these charges. This provided an appropriate and informative response to her request.
In response to the resident’s complaint about her rent, service charges and reimbursement of her costs, the landlord acted reasonably and fairly. It adhered to its policies, considered her out-of-pocket expenses and subsidised the rent. In addition, it provided clear and detailed explanations of charges and its calculations for reimbursement. In conclusion, there were no findings of any service failure by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the ASB satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour.
2. The resident’s request for a management transfer.
3. The resident’s request for a breakdown of service charges and reimbursement of her rent and expenses.

Recommendations

The landlord may want to consider revising the wording in its management transfer policy / procedure. This is to ensure it is clear it will provide only 1 offer of accommodation through this process.