Peabody Trust (202416614)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416614

Peabody Trust

30 June 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 concerns about asbestos and subsequent remedial works.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 1 bedroom first floor flat. She has an assured tenancy with a housing association landlord. The tenancy started in October 2011. The landlord is aware the resident has a long-term health condition affecting her nervous system.
During the complaint period the resident’s current landlord merged with her previous landlord.
On 28 October 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord that during works to replace a fire alarm on her kitchen ceiling, the attending operative told her that asbestos in her ceiling had been previously disturbed. She explained that this caused her anxiety and she was concerned that it had impacted on her health. The resident also said that several years earlier water ingress had caused damage to her ceiling. The landlord had subsequently repaired the ceiling. However, she said that the landlord had not made her aware of the presence of asbestos.
The landlord did not issue a formal complaint response but said it would arrange an asbestos survey. In an email to the resident on 20 January 2023 the landlord’s repairs surveyor confirmed there were minor hairline cracks in the lounge, kitchen, and bedroom ceilings. The surveyor said he believed the textured coating on the ceilings contained low-level asbestos which was common in many properties. He also said he had asked a contractor to attend to provide an update on the necessary remedial works.
In February 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it could not find the original asbestos survey and recommended another asbestos survey of the property. This took place on 6 March 2023. The survey found asbestos in the ceilings of all rooms in the property and described the risk as “very low”. It recommended managing the risk. Additionally, it found asbestos in the loft space above the resident’s property and described the risk as “low”, it recommended encapsulating and managing the asbestos.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 13 November 2023, in which she repeated the concerns she had raised in October 2022. Additionally she said there were cracks in her ceiling which she believed were caused by the historical water ingress. The resident also said:
1. It was concerning that the landlord had misplaced the original asbestos survey, which she understood had been completed several years earlier.
2. It took the landlord until 6 March 2023 to carry out the asbestos survey and until June 2023 to provide the resident with a copy of it.
3. The landlord had failed to carry out the encapsulation of the asbestos in the loft space as set out in the survey.
4. In January 2023 after the surveyor’s visit they said they had arranged for a contractor to visit the resident’s property to consider the remedial works to the ceiling. However, it took the contractor until September 2023 to attend. The resident said that during the visit the contractor told her the cracks in the ceiling were caused by water damage and the ceiling needed to be removed.
5. The landlord had failed to carry out an asbestos survey of the communal hallway.
6. The issues described had caused her anxiety and she did not feel safe in the property.
7. She wanted the landlord to move her to an alternative property.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 20 November 2023. It set out its understanding of her complaint and her desired resolution. It said:
1. It completed an asbestos survey on 6 March 2023.
2. A contractor attended the property in September 2023 and found evidence of water damage on the living room ceiling which had been patch repaired. It also said there were hairline cracks in the kitchen and bedroom ceilings.
3. It had contacted the contractor who attended in September 2023 to establish what action had been taken following this visit.
4. It had advised its surveyors that the encapsulation of the recommended areas had not been carried out. Additionally, it said it had asked the surveyors to carry out another survey, to find out what works are outstanding.
5. By law it was required to carry out asbestos condition checks on all communal areas. It said it had done this.
6. It had considered the resident’s request to move to an alternative property but could not agree this. It said it did not rehouse residents internally unless there was a danger to life and would only do so if a move was supported by the police.
7. It would arrange an asbestos survey in due course.
8. It would monitor progress of the encapsulation and repairs to the communal ceiling and ceilings in her property.
9. In accordance with its complaints policy, it could not investigate the issues she raised dating back to 2014.
The resident escalated her complaint on 29 November 2023. She said:
1. The contractor that inspected her property in September 2023 told her the ceiling in her living room needed to be removed. However, she would rather move to an alternative property.
2. It was not clear why the landlord needed to complete another survey. She said she felt the landlord was delaying works, and questioned why it had not completed the encapsulation work as recommended in the previous survey.
3. It had failed to carry out regular asbestos surveys of the communal hallway.
4. She had recent medical evidence showing that the property was “aggravating her health condition” and “putting her at risk”.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 2 February 2024. It set out its understanding of the escalated complaint. Additionally, it said:
1. A contractor carried out an air test on 8 August 2023 to determine the ambient fibre levels. The landlord said the results showed the level were satisfactory.
2. It had seen an email from the contractor who inspected the resident’s property on 20 September 2023. However, the contractor did not suggest removing the ceiling.
3. The only follow on work identified was caulking of the junction between the wall and the ceiling. It said this was arranged to be completed on 26 January 2024 at the same time as the removal of the loft insulation board.
4. It had contacted its asbestos team who provided a list of events between November 2022 and December 2023. It listed the following:
  1. It had arranged to do the works in the loft in on 4 October 2023. However, its contractors were unable to carry out the works as they were unable to access the loft via the communal area. The landlord said the resident refused access to her home for this.
  2. The firebreak wall was removed in December 2023 to allow access to the loft via the communal area.
  3. It carried out an asbestos survey of the external areas and ground floor on 4 and 5 December 2023. The landlord said it did not identify any required works.
  4. A survey of the loft on 19 December 2023 noted the same remedial works as the survey in March 2023.
  5. It had re-booked remedial works to the loft for 26 January 2024.
5. It accepted there had been delays arranging the asbestos works, which it said was compounded by the access to the loft area. It said it could not compensate the resident for these delays as it was classed as a communal repair. It confirmed the asbestos had been removed from the loft area.
6. It accepted there had been delays assessing the resident’s ceilings.
7. It had carried out an asbestos survey in her home within its service levels.
8. It was satisfied it was managing the asbestos in her property within the recommended safeguarding measures set out by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
9. It said it had met its legal obligations to assess communal areas on an annual basis.
10. It acknowledged there had been a delay in responding to the resident’s stage 2 response.
11. It had completed a further asbestos survey in January 2024 which recommended works to encapsulate the resident’s ceilings. It said it would arrange remedial works.
12. It offered the resident a total of £350 compensation, which comprised of:
  1. £300 for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  2. £50 for its delay responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.

Post internal complaints process.

On 7 February 2024 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 response. Following on from this the landlord acknowledged there was a severe failing in its complaint handling as it had failed to consider the resident’s original complaint in October 2022. It increased it’s offer of compensation for this issue from £50 (offered in its stage 2 response) to £300.
The resident raised another complaint in September 2024 about the delay in completing the repairs to the ceiling. Additionally, she said she was concerned about paint flaking from the ceiling. The landlord responded to the complaint and offered the resident £150 compensation for her time and trouble. she did not escalate the complaint.
The resident sought advice from a solicitor in October 2024. As part of the pre-action protocol process the resident instructed a surveyor to carry out an asbestos survey in December 2024.
The landlord carried out another asbestos survey in January 2025 and has subsequently agreed to an out of court settlement. It has also agreed to remove and replace all ceilings in the property and permanently decant the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In her complaint the resident raised issues dating back as far as 2014. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to historical issues. A resident is expected to raise issues with both the landlord and the Ombudsman within a timely manner. As such, this investigation will focus solely on the events that progressed through the landlord’s complaint’s procedure that commenced shortly before the resident’s initial complaint on 28 October 2022 and culminated with the landlord’s final response of 2 February 2024.The Ombudsman is also not able to investigate issues that post-date the completion of the landlord’s complaints process, other than to ensure the landlord has followed through on any agreements it might have made during the process.
In her correspondence with both the landlord and with us, the resident expressed concerns about the impact the issue complained about had on her health. We cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Nonetheless, consideration will be given to the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos and the subsequent remedial works.

Asbestos was used in many buildings until it was banned in 1999. According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), asbestos is not dangerous for occupants if it is in good condition and not disturbed. Asbestos may be left in place, monitored, and managed to ensure it is not disturbed.
The HSE advises not to remove asbestos unnecessarily, as doing so could release asbestos fibres into the air, which would likely be more dangerous than leaving it in place and managing it. This is repeated by ‘the health and safety rating system guidance for landlords and property related professionals,’ which states that asbestos that is in good condition and unlikely to be disturbed can be managed and monitored in situ, with a record kept of the location of the asbestos in the building.
The resident’s original landlord started a process to merge with her current landlord In April 2022. They fully integrated in April 2023. As part of its evidence submission the landlord provided a copy of the asbestos policy dated July 2023 for the original landlord. We have therefore considered this policy as the one it was using during the complaints process.
The landlord states it manages asbestos in line with the HSE. It confirms that it will not touch asbestos unless it is damaged, or a repair or improvement is taking place near where it has been used in a property. Additionally, it states that it will encapsulate, repair or remove asbestos when the risk assessment indicates the asbestos represents an immediate danger.
The HSE states that those with a duty to monitor asbestos must write and monitor an asbestos management plan which should include a schedule for monitoring asbestos containing materials and how it will share the asbestos register with contractors doing maintenance work.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the timescale for dealing with repairs dependent on their priority. It categorises works that are complex in nature and require a specialist contractor and/or a technical lead to diagnose and mange the works, as ‘specialist’ works and states it aims to complete these works within 60 calendar days.
In her original complaint on 28 October 2022 the resident explained that she was not aware that asbestos was present in her property until an operative attended to install a fire alarm. She said the discovery of asbestos caused her concern, particularly as several years earlier water ingress caused damage to a ceiling in her property.
The landlord immediately advised that it would carry out an asbestos survey of the property. This was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord was keen to resolve the issue.
We understand that between the date the resident made her complaint and the date of the asbestos survey on 6 March 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident that the original asbestos report would have been done by the resident’s previous landlord. It said it could not locate a copy of that asbestos survey. Consequently, it suggested the best course of action was to complete a new survey. This was a reasonable suggestion. However, its inability to locate the original survey demonstrated poor record keeping.
Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management published in 2023 explains that a merger is an opportunity to carry out due diligence on systems, to assess their compatibility and conduct risk assessments. Merging landlord’s should identify possible issues with compatibility of its systems and give sufficient time to ‘stress test’ systems to avoid data loss.
It took the landlord until 6 March 2023 to carry out this asbestos survey. The landlord’s asbestos policy post-dates the concerns raised by the resident in October 2022. Therefore it would be unfair to assess the landlord against this. Nevertheless, the policy states that where the landlord or resident identifies an asbestos hazard the landlord will check if an asbestos survey already exists. If one does not exist it will arrange for one to be completed with 24 hours and provide a report as soon as possible.
The landlord took 88 working days to carry out the survey after the resident first raised her concerns. Although, in this case we cannot assess the landlord’s response time against the timescale set out in its policy, 88 days to complete the survey is unreasonable given the concerns expressed by the resident and the anxiety she described to the landlord. Additionally, it exceeded the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy for a specialist repair. The resident was clear about her concerns and how the issue complained about caused her anxiety. The delay in completing the asbestos survey was unreasonable.
The asbestos survey completed on 6 March 2023 formed the basis of the required asbestos management plan. It found a very low level of asbestos risk in the affected areas inside the resident’s property and a low level of asbestos risk in the loft above the resident’s property.
The survey recommended the following:
1. Managing the areas highlighted as very low risk in line with legislation.
2. Encapsulating, managing, and removing asbestos debris from the areas of low risk.
However, the survey was not made available to the resident until June 2023. Additionally, there is no evidence of the landlord actioning the recommendation for encapsulation in the loft at that time. This was not reasonable. Given the anxiety expressed by the resident about the asbestos and the concerns she expressed about the potential impact on her health. The landlord should have taken steps to action the recommendations as soon as it was aware of them.
The resident told us that during their visit in September 2023 the contractor verbally told her the ceilings in her property would need to be removed. While we do not dispute the resident’s version of events, the email evidence we have seen does not suggest this.
Landlords are entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors when determining what repairs are required. The asbestos survey completed on 6 March 2023 recommended managing the asbestos in the resident’s property in accordance with legislation. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to leave the asbestos undisturbed. Additionally, in September 2023 although the resident has told us the contractor said the ceilings would need to be removed, it did not recommend this course of action to the landlord.
However, the asbestos survey recommended that the landlord should encapsulate the asbestos in the loft. At the time of the resident’s complaint on 13 November 2023 this work was still outstanding. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to carry out the works within a reasonable timescale especially given the resident’s concerns for her health.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it would advise its surveyors that the encapsulation work was still outstanding and said it would arrange for a survey to establish the outstanding works. It apologised for the delays and said it would monitor the works.
Additionally, it confirmed that it had checked its records and was satisfied that it completed all asbestos checks on communal areas as was required by law. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of these records.
It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for the delays and offered to monitor the works. However, it is not clear why it would need to carry out another survey, given that the asbestos survey it completed in March 2023 made recommendations for an appropriate course of action.
The resident explained that the delays caused her distress and anxiety.
The landlord failed to action the recommendation to encapsulate the areas affected by asbestos in the loft above the resident’s property until at least 26 January 2024. This was 227 days after the contractor completed the asbestos survey and far exceeded the landlord’s timescale for specialist repairs. This was not appropriate.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord stated that the resident denied access to her property to allow for the encapsulation works in the loft. However, the resident has explained to us that there was no access to the loft space from inside her property. This is also confirmed by the landlord’s statement that ‘the loft area could only be accessed via the communal area once the fire break wall was removed.’ The landlord’s suggestion that the encapsulation works were delayed because the resident denied access to her property was therefore unreasonable.
The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in carrying out an inspection of her ceilings and offered her £300 for her time and trouble and the inconvenience it caused.
However, the landlord failed to consider the distress caused to the resident by its delay carrying out the initial asbestos assessment and the subsequent delay actioning the recommendation for the encapsulation works to the loft area.
Additionally, the landlord stated that it carried out another survey on 26 January 2024. The resident has not disputed that an inspection took place on that date. However, we have not seen a copy of the survey. This demonstrates poor record keeping.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that in accordance with the new survey it would encapsulate the ceilings in the resident’s property. It said it would contact her to arrange the works.
However, the resident raised a further complaint in September 2024 about the landlord’s failure to complete the encapsulation works. This complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process and therefore we will not assess its response. However, in its response on 24 September 2024 it apologised for the delay and told the resident it would ensure the ceiling repairs were completed in a timely manner. Additionally, it offered the resident £150 for her time, trouble, and inconvenience.
Evidence showed that the works to encapsulate the resident’s ceilings were still outstanding at the time of this investigation. The landlord has failed to follow through on the commitments made during the complaints process. This has caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
Having carefully considered the evidence provided we find maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos and the subsequent remedial works.
The landlord failed to carry out an initial asbestos inspection within a reasonable timescale. Additionally, it failed to action the recommendations for encapsulation of the asbestos in the loft space within its published timescale for a specialised repair. This caused the resident distress and anxiety.
Although the report did not make any recommendations at that time for remedial works to the ceilings in the resident’s property. The subsequent report in January 2024 did. Despite the landlord confirming in its stage 2 response that it would action the recommended works, the works are still outstanding. This was not appropriate.
We understand the landlord is actively taking steps to resolve the issue.
We accept that the resident expressed concerns on the impact to her health of a temporary move to allow for the works to be completed. However, evidence showed that the landlord did not propose a temporary move until at least February 2025, this was over a year since the survey recommended the works.
In considering an offer of compensation we have taken into account the landlord’s compensation policy and our own remedies guidance. During its complaints process the landlord offered the resident £300 for the inconvenience to her of its delay assessing her ceilings. It later offered her £150 for the delay completing the encapsulation works.
It took the landlord approximately 1 year to carry out the encapsulation works in the loft area above the resident’s property. Additionally, in its stage 2 response the landlord said it would carry out the encapsulation works to the ceilings in the resident’s property. However, it has failed to follow through on its commitments to do so and these works have been outstanding for approximately 18 months. These delays and the landlord’s initial delay to complete an asbestos survey have caused the resident distress, anxiety, and inconvenience. Additionally, she has spent more time than would be considered reasonable seeking a resolution to the issues she first complained about.
We understand that the resident accepted the compensation of £1,300 offered by the landlord as part of an out of court pre-action protocol settlement for a disrepair claim. We consider this sum is appropriate redress for the impact on the resident as a result of the failings identified above. Accordingly, we have made a finding of reasonable redress. If it were not for the pre-action protocol settlement and the offer of compensation made by the landlord, we would have found maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of asbestos and the subsequent remedial works.
We understand the landlord is in the process of arranging to complete the required works at the resident’s property. Therefore we will not make an order in respect of this. However, we will recommend that the landlord keeps the resident updated with the progress of this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. According to its complaints policy effective from June 2023 it aims to acknowledge new complaints within 5 working days. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
It took the landlord 44 days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This exceeded the timescale set out in its policy. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its delayed response and offered the resident £50 compensation. Additionally, the landlord set out its learning and the improvements it was making to its complaints handling team. This was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord was keen to learn from its mistakes.
However, the landlord failed to provide a formal response to the resident’s initial complaint about the asbestos on 28 October 2022. The Complaint Handling Code (The Code) is clear that landlord’s must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason to do so.
The landlord failed to respond to the complaint and failed to provide a reason for this. The landlord’s failure to follow the Code caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Additionally, its failure to respond to the original complaint prevented the resident from reaching a timelier resolution.
Although the landlord acknowledged this failing and increased its offer of compensation from £50 to £300 for its complaint handling failures, it only did so after the stage 2 response on 2 February 2024 and only after the resident repeated her concerns about the lack of response to her original complaint. We therefore find maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling.
It was appropriate that it apologised for the lack of response and that it increased its offer of compensation for this. However, these actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because they took place after the resident had competed the landlord’s internal complaint process. The revised financial offer was reasonable and this service will not be making a further order of compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we find reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos and the subsequent remedial works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we find maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident the £300 offered by the landlord for the impact on the resident by its handling of the complaint, if it has not done so already.
These amounts should be paid direct to the resident and not offset against arrears, where they exist. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with these orders within the timescale set out.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord takes the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Contact the resident to provide her with an update on the progress with the remedial works and proposed permanent decant.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £450 offered in its complaint handling for the failures it identified in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos, if it has not done so already. A finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.