Aster Group Limited (202404076)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404076

Aster Group Limited

29 November 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. Roof repairs.
2. Reports of damp and mould.
3. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
4. Request for a management transfer.
5. Formal complaint.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has told, and the landlord recorded, that she has previously had throat cancer, and both her children have asthma and autism.
On 1 March 2023 the resident reported damp and mould in the property, even though it had received cavity wall and loft insulation and had been treated. The landlord inspected on 2 May 2023, confirmed there was mould but said it could not find any property defects, however noted water staining on a bedroom ceiling. The resident reported a roof leak on 8 December 2023 and the landlord attended out of hours as an emergency. It raised follow-on works for 12 and 22 December 2023 when it completed temporary repairs to make safe. The resident reported the leak was ongoing on 3 January 2024 and the landlord booked a further repair for 24 January 2024.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 and 8 January 2024 to report that her neighbours were smoking cannabis in their garden shed. She said it had been going on since the previous summer and the smell was strong. This meant she could not have her windows open and so could not ventilate the property to prevent mould. She also said her family were unable to use the garden and explained their medical conditions. The landlord called her on 12 January 2024, opened an ASB case, completed a risk assessment, and sent her a letter with a named contact for her ASB case. It noted that she was going to start reporting the cannabis use to the police.
On 26 January 2024 the landlord contacted the council’s social services department to raise concerns about the neighbours smoking cannabis while their own children were present. It also called the resident and asked her to report the cannabis use to the police too. It explained it would need evidence to assist its ASB case and that it could not simply evict the neighbours as she had requested. The resident chased up her roof repair on 29 January 2024 and the landlord said it referred the job to its contractor.
The landlord emailed social services again on 1 February 2024 and said it had spoken to the neighbours. It called the resident on 12 February 2024, and she told it she had reported cannabis use to the police but that she wanted to move as her household was overcrowded. The landlord chased social services again and they replied to say they had no concerns, as the police had visited and found no evidence of cannabis use. The resident asked the landlord to arrange a meeting to discuss her ASB and repair issues. It raised a repair for her extractor fans regarding her reports of mould and booked an appointment for 2 April 2024.
On 18 February 2024 the resident completed the landlord’s online complaints form to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
1. Being denied a meeting to discuss her damp and mould, repairs, and ASB issues and to request a rent reduction.
2. Having damp and mould, and that she could not open her windows due to the smell of cannabis or use her garden.
3. The landlord not doing anything to stop the ASB, and not moving her to a 3-bedroom property.
The resident called the landlord on 19 February 2024 to report damp and mould throughout the property. It raised an inspection for 26 February 2024. On that date, it said there was a high level of humidity. It said it had booked an extractor fan repair and recommended some internal vents which it booked for 18 March 2024 and arranged a decorating voucher for the resident.
On 27 February 2024 the landlord emailed the police to ask if the local police officer could walk by the neighbours’ property to see if she could smell cannabis. The police officer replied that she had been but not smelt any and would go again.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 March 2024 to acknowledge her stage 1 complaint. She called it on 11 March 2024 to chase her roofing repair. It called her that day to discuss her complaint and following this emailed her on 15 March 2024 to ask for an extension of time as it needed to investigate a few different issues. Its contractor provided a quote for the roofing repair on 22 March 2024.
On 28 March 2024 the landlord spoke to the resident about potentially closing her ASB case due to a lack of evidence. However, it agreed to keep it open and to visit the area to see if it could smell cannabis.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 April 2024 in which it said:
1. It had inspected the property for damp and mould and completed a repair. It was liaising with its contractor about the roofing repair and needed to repair the bedroom ceiling. It did not uphold this part of her complaint.
2. It had opened an ASB case about the neighbours smoking cannabis and advised her to report this to the police and provide crime reference numbers, which she had not done. It had contacted the police who had visited the neighbours but there was no evidence for it to act. There had however been a communication failing.
3. It had reviewed documents the resident had provided in support of a move, but this could only be done via the council or by mutual exchange.
4. It was sorry for its communications failing and offered £100 compensation.
5. How she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
On the same day the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She provided her reasons on 4 April 2024, which included that the stage 1 response was inaccurate, she had been waiting over 6 months for her roofing repair, and that the household’s medical conditions meant there was a risk to life if they were not moved. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 12 April 2024.
The landlord called the resident on 22 April 2024 following her further reports of cannabis use. It said she had said she had been told to report to the landlord by the police, and said she had a support worker. The landlord emailed the support worker, police, and social services following the call. The following day:
1. The police officer said she had visited the area and had not smelt any cannabis. A member of the landlord’s staff had also visited and had not smelt anything.
2. The landlord raised the roofing repair based on the quote it had received.
3. The resident and the landlord exchanged emails. The resident said her daughter had threatened suicide and had been feeling that way for 3 months, as she had not been able to use the garden. The resident had sought help from her GP and wanted to be moved.
4. The landlord emailed the support worker and contacted social services with a safeguarding concern for the resident’s daughter.
On 25 April 2024 the landlord called the resident to check on her daughter’s welfare and she said she was arranging support. It also advised her to report the cannabis use to the police. She did this and sent the landlord a copy of her online police report. The same day the landlord called social services again but noted its reply was they had no concerns.
The resident sent further police reports to the landlord and on 29 April 2024 it said it would visit the neighbours with the police. It also sent an ASB warning letter to the neighbours. A member of its staff visited the area that day but reported back there was no smell of cannabis.
The same day the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response in which it:
1. Confirmed the resident should continue reporting cannabis use to the police, as it was illegal, and the police had more powers, but it would work with the police to take proportionate action.
2. Said it was going to complete extensive roofing works and that it would erect scaffolding week beginning 7 May 2024, with repairs to take a few days to complete. It said it had also arranged repairs for the bedroom ceiling after the roofing repairs. Once completed it said this should resolve the mould.
3. Explained that she did not meet its criteria for a management transfer under its procedure, which specifically excluded overcrowding and medical grounds. It confirmed she was following the correct process by having applied to the council and been awarded a priority banding, and that she could also look for a mutual exchange.
4. Accepted she had asked for a call back on 5 April 2024 to discuss the ASB and her repairs, but this had not happened. It apologised for this failing and offered increased compensation of £300.
5. Said how she could approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Selected events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

On 30 April 2024 the landlord visited the area and reported it could not smell cannabis. Between 3 and 8 May 2024 the resident reported cannabis use to the police multiple times and sent her reports to the landlord.
The landlord completed the roofing repairs on 9 May 2024.
On 13 May 2024 the landlord offered to contact the council to see if it could help with her application to move. It also offered to arrange mediation between her and the neighbours, which she rejected. It called the neighbours and said it was going to visit the following day with the police. Its note of the call says the neighbours admitted smoking cannabis, but that they would stop doing this in the garden and shed. The neighbours also agreed to mediation. The landlord sent them an ASB warning letter about cannabis use.
The resident and landlord exchanged emails between 22 and 24 May 2024. Following this the landlord agreed to make an internal application for a management transfer, based on the resident’s daughter’s mental health and concerns for her wellbeing. However, its internal panel denied the application on 17 June 2024 as the resident did not meet its policy criteria.
On 12 August 2024 the landlord closed the ASB case. It completed repairs to the bedroom ceiling on 17 September 2024. It replastered the ceiling on 29 September 2024 and painted it on 22 October 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes that there has been a long history of ASB allegations having been made by the resident regarding the neighbours. This investigation has been limited to the subject of cannabis use in line with the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s responses.
In addition, the resident has told the landlord and this Service that her desired outcome is to be moved to a 3-bedroom property. This is not an outcome the Ombudsman can provide. This is because, in line with our guidance on remedies, we would not propose a remedy that would put matters right for the resident but could adversely affect other individuals or mean that the resident had received preferential treatment compared to others in the same situation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s roof repairs

Under the tenancy agreement the landlord will keep in repair the structure of the property including the roof and internal ceilings. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Under its repairs policy it categorises a roof leak as an emergency repair which it will make safe within 24 hours. It will complete routine repairs within 20 working days and larger complex repairs within 60 days.
When the landlord inspected the property on 2 May 2023 it noted water staining on the bedroom ceiling, but there is no evidence it checked the roof for a leak which was a failing. It attended as an emergency when the resident reported the leak in December 2023, in line with its policy. It raised and completed temporary repairs within its 20-working day timeframe. When the resident reported the leak again on 3 January 2024, the landlord correctly raised a further repair for 24 January 2024. However, it is not clear from its records whether it attended or if it completed any further repairs as the resident chased it 5 days after this appointment and on 11 March 2024.
The landlord received a quote for the roofing works on 22 March 2024 but by this point 105 days had passed since the resident had first reported the roof leak. Although within its stage 1 response on 2 April 2024 the landlord said it was liaising with its contractor, it failed to raise the works or accept the quote until 22 April 2024 causing further delay. There is also no evidence it updated the resident with the date for the repairs until it provided its stage 2 response, which was a failing in communication. It completed the roofing repairs after 153 days, or 5 months, which was an unreasonable delay against its policy timeframe of 60 days and was not within any notion of a reasonable timeframe.
While the landlord did then go onto complete internal repairs to the bedroom ceiling, it delayed in doing so, only completing the works on 22 October 2024. This was again not within its policy or a reasonable timeframe and was a failing.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord accepted its service failure in failing to keep the resident updated when she asked for a call back about the repairs. It offered £300 compensation for this and its ASB communication failing. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to 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 takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord initially followed its repairs policy when the resident first reported the roof leak which was positive. However, it failed to progress, approve, and complete the permanent repairs within its policy timeframe or a reasonable time. Its communication was poor and left the resident chasing for updates and only receiving these via complaint responses. Considering the resident’s family’s medical conditions, and the presence of mould, it should have acted with more urgency to complete the repairs. There was maladministration. To reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £900 compensation, which is inclusive of the £300 it offered at stage 2 of its complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

Under the landlord’s damp and mould policy it will inspect when a report of damp and mould is made. It will check the property’s insulation and ventilation to see if there are any defects or improvements needed and will raise required repairs.
The resident reported damp and mould on 1 March 2023 and the landlord inspected the property. It confirmed there was loft insulation, and cavity wall insulation. The heating was working, and there were no defects.
Following her roof leak, the resident reported damp and mould in January 2024, and said this was made worse as she could not open her windows due to the smell of cannabis, however the landlord took no action. When she raised the issues again in February 2024, it again did not arrange an inspection in breach of its policy, but did arrange a repair for her extractor fan. However, it completed this outside of its 20 working day repairs timeframe which was a failing.
After the resident made her stage 1 complaint the landlord did complete a damp and mould inspection. It found high humidity and raised a repair to install vents which was positive. However, the issue was linked to the outstanding roof repairs, which it said would resolve the issue once they were completed.
While it would have been helpful to have had a copy of the surveyor’s report following the damp and mould inspection the landlord has provided a good reason this was not possible. Based on the surveyor’s notes the cause of the mould was given as condensation based on high humidity and it completed repairs to assist with ventilation. However, the landlord failed to inspect in 2023 until 2 months after the resident reported damp and mould. It again delayed in inspecting when she reported it in 2024 until after she made a complaint. There is also no evidence it offered to complete any mould washes.
There was service failure, which caused inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident in having to pursue the issue. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

Under the tenancy agreement residents must not cause nuisance, annoyance or disturbance, to any other person, which can include the use of illegal drugs.
Following the resident’s reports of cannabis use in January 2024, the landlord contacted her within 5 working days. It followed its ASB policy by speaking to her and completed a risk assessment. It categorised the ASB as priority one and followed its procedure by assigning an ASB officer, providing a letter with contact details, and confirmed that she needed to report cannabis use to the police. Due to its concerns for the neighbours’ children, it also followed its policy and made a safeguarding referral to social services. It is not clear whether the landlord created an action plan, but it did explain that the matter was criminal and that it would need evidence from the police to assist it. It also managed her expectations, in line with its policy, about the action it could not take at that stage.
In line with its policy the landlord engaged in partnership working with social services and the police. It asked the police to investigate the cannabis use, which they did. When the landlord had not received any evidence, in line with its policy, it considered closing the ASB case. However, after discussing this with the resident it decided to keep it open which was positive. It also arranged for several members of its staff to visit the area at different times, as independent witnesses under its policy, to see if they could smell cannabis as reported by the resident.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord was honest about the lack of evidence it had and explained what actions it had taken to investigate. It again correctly advised the resident to report cannabis use to the police. Following further reports from the resident it again contacted the police and social services for assistance. After the resident provided evidence that she had reported the matter to the police, the landlord arranged to visit the neighbours with the police, which was solution focused. It also sent an ASB warning letter in line with its policy.
Following the end of the complaints process the landlord continued to visit the area as the resident continued to report the issue, however, did not witness any cannabis smoke. On 13 May 2024 the neighbours admitted to smoking cannabis, but said they would do so elsewhere going forwards. The landlord visited them again with the police and issued a further ASB warning. It also offered mediation to the neighbours and the resident, which was provided for under its policy. While it may have been more helpful to have offered this at an earlier stage, the landlord’s policy does not specify a timeframe for this. Before it closed the ASB case it completed a review, as per its policy, and determined the issue had been resolved due to a lack of evidence of further cannabis use.
The landlord managed the reports of ASB in line with its policy. It treated it as a priority case and followed its procedures to investigate, work with the police and social services, and advise the resident on how best to gather and report evidence. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer

Under its management transfer policy, the landlord can consider whether to offer a move to a resident who has an urgent housing need which cannot be met by the council, which had primary responsibility to rehouse residents. Any applications are made internally by the landlord. The criteria to be considered are whether the resident is “a victim of a serious crime, serious sexual assault, domestic abuse, severe harassment, or serious nuisance”. However, it will not consider a management transfer due to overcrowding, medical conditions, or unsatisfactory property conditions which are specifically excluded.
The resident told the landlord that she wanted to move in February 2024 due to overcrowding. She explained her children needed their own bedrooms due to their needs and so she had to sleep in the living room with her partner. She raised the issue again as part of her stage 1 complaint regarding not being able to use the garden due to cannabis smoke. In its stage 1 response the landlord explained that it had considered the evidence she had supplied for a move, but she needed to apply to the council for a move, or seek a mutual exchange, which was its policy.
When the resident escalated her complaint regarding wanting to be moved, she said there was risk to life in not moving due to her partner’s medical condition. Within its response the landlord confirmed that applying to the council, which the resident had done, was the correct process to seek a move along with mutual exchange. It also explained that it had considered applying for a management transfer but that she did not meet the criteria. Under its policy there is no requirement for it to make an internal application and so it was reasonable for it not to have done so considering the criteria which needed to be met.
After the end of the complaints process, out of concern for the resident’s daughter’s mental health and welfare, the landlord did make an application which was solution focused. However, it rejected this in line with its policy which was consistent, and the correct outcome based on its criteria. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 18 February 2024. Under its complaints policy the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, but it failed to do this, and instead took 9 working days. It called her to discuss the complaint and asked for an extension of time following this, after understanding the complexities of the complaint. This was reasonable and in line with its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. However, by the date of the extension of time request 19 working days had already passed and that was a failing in breach of its policy and paragraph 5.1 of the Code.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 2 April 2024. Within its complaint response it failed to give a date, or timeframe, for the roofing repairs which meant it did not provide a full and clear response to all elements of the complaint. Following her escalation request the landlord failed to acknowledge this within 5 working days. It provided its stage 2 response within its 20-working day timeframe and in compliance with the Code.
Due to its minor delays in acknowledging both complaints, and its mishandling of timing for its extension request at stage 1, there was service failure. This caused inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident. To reflect this, an order has been made that the landlord pay £50 compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s roof repairs.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Formal complaint.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB.
2. Request for a management transfer.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the service failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £1,050 made up of:
  1. £900 (inclusive of the £300 it offered at stage 2) for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling the resident’s roof repairs.
  2. £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. £50 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaints handling failings.
3. Remove “in settlement of my complaint” from its compensation acceptance form or include a clear statement within its complaint response which says accepting compensation does not prevent a resident from bringing their complaint to this Service.
4. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.