Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202222163)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222163

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

20 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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and reports about:
  1. asbestos in the property
  2. repairs to the flooring in the bathroom and kitchen.
  3. the storage heating.
2. The Ombudsman will also investigate:
  1. The landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident occupied her home, a one-bedroom flat under an assured tenancy.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord did not provide the terms and conditions for the tenancy agreement for the resident, however statutory terms were implied into the tenancy agreement as follows:
1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”), the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
2. Under Section 9a of the Act, the landlord has an obligation that the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to hazards set out in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System introduced by the Housing Act 2004. The hazards include asbestos.
The landlord had a detailed procedure for dealing with asbestos. Except where referred to, it was beyond the scope of this complaint to investigation whether the landlord complied with the particular provision in the policy.
According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the UK, asbestos is not dangerous for the occupants if the building material is in good condition. In summary, if existing asbestos-containing materials are in good condition and are not likely to be damaged, they may be left in place, their condition monitored and managed to ensure they are not disturbed.
The presence of asbestos itself does not constitute disrepair. However, if it is damaged or has deteriorated and there is the risk of asbestos dust, then the landlord should act to prevent disrepair arising. In summary, there is no duty on the landlord to remove asbestos unless it had been damaged or it has deteriorated and presents a health risk to the occupier.
The duty of a landlord also extends to carrying out risk assessments before work at the property is carried out. There is no legal obligation on the landlord to inform residents of where the asbestos is situated in their homes.
The Decent Homes Standard guidance (June 2006) states that “problems with the landlord’s stock should already be known to them – for example the extent to which radon affects housing in affected areas, or the presence of asbestos. Landlords should ensure that future surveys help them assess the extent of hazards typical in their stock”.
The landlord’s complaint process had 2 stages. The landlord was to reply to the resident’s complaint within 10 days at Stage 1 and within 20 days at Stage 2.
Under its compensation policy it would award £50 in decorating vouchers if it damaged decorations, £100 for failures to follow up on the landlord’s promises, and up to £250 for serious service failures.

Chronology

An asbestos report dated 11 July 2018 of an inspection on 6 July 2018 noted as follows:
1. It noted the presence of ACMs in the textured coating of the ceilings in the property including the bathroom. It listed areas that were not suspect or no asbestos was detected. This included the walls and floors of the property. The walls and floor needed no action or management and had a low-risk score.
2. The ACMs were in good condition with no visible damage. The recommended action for the ACMs was to manage them. The boxing was in good condition with no visible damage and had a risk score of 5 “low”. The area behind the boxing in the bathroom was not assessed. The report did not specify where the boxing was. The relevant photo showed, as far as we could tell, boxing behind a toilet.
On 20 December 2018, the landlord wrote to the resident as follows:
1. The landlord was required to manage asbestos in her home and “this survey” helped it to do so.
2. The following is presumed to contain asbestos:
  1. The textured coatings to ceilings in the hallway, electric cupboard, bedrooms, bathroom, water tank cupboard, living room, kitchen and hallway cupboard. All the areas had been confirmed as in good condition.
  2. The boxing to pipework in the bathroom is asbestos insulating board and is confirmed as in good condition.
  3. It did not need to take any further action but advised that care was taken in those areas and that the resident should not carry out any works such as cutting or drilling into these areas.
  4. If any accidental damage occurred, it asked the resident to contact the landlord.
The landlord provided us with its asbestos safety information which stated that asbestos was only harmful when the fibres became airborne and breathed in. It told residents not to carry out works that may disturb it.
In 2020, the resident’s property suffered a leak from an upstairs property which caused water damage. This required works including to her bathroom ceiling. The landlord moved her to temporary accommodation during those works as she was concerned about the risk of asbestos. She returned to the property in February 2021.
On 31 March 2022, the landlord wrote a Stage 1 response about the resident’s bathroom repairs and storage heaters. It said it had made an appointment about the heaters for 25 April 2022. It apologised and offered her £75 compensation for the delay to the repair.
On 5 August 2022, the resident made the following complaint:
1. The complaint was about “neglect of a Housing Health and Safety Rating Hazard and lack of progress and communication regarding repairs”.
2. She had been in contact with the landlord since May 2021 regarding the “dangerous disrepair” of lino flooring in the bathroom and kitchen (which was over 16 years old).
3. She found it worrying that contractors were “very quick to get out of the property once they realised the flooring underneath Lino contained asbestos”.
4. She felt that the landlord had allowed “the flooring to get worse by despite there being a known hazard underneath”.
5. She had a “valid phobia of asbestos”. “Phobias can have a significant impact on an individual’s wellbeing and quality of life”. She asked for “some demonstration of urgency and sensitivity”.
6. She explained the impact on her health. The impact caused her to take daily medication for panic and anxiety. It had also triggered regular autistic burnouts which lead to depressive episodes
7. Contractors had agreed that three storage heaters required replacement. She had chased this. She worked full time and had autism. It was important for her to maintain structure and routine. Chasing was time consuming “just to get absolutely nowhere”. She felt that the landlord disregarded various concerns and “(treated) customers insignificantly”. She had not been given timeframes. She had highlighted her communication difficulties with the landlord but she felt like there had been no adjustments to help her.
8. She was provided a housing association flat due to being a priority Care Leave in order to provide a sense of stability yet she had “experienced more fear, abuse and worry”. She had lost trust in the landlord.
According to the landlord’s records, the landlord spoke to the resident on 12 August 2022 as follows:
1. The 2018 asbestos survey confirmed there was no asbestos in the floor. The contractors had asked that this be checked. However it confirmed works to the floors could be done without any concern for asbestos. It offered to send her the 2018 report.
2. It would need to check the kitchen floor and the resident was to chose the type of floor.
3. It was chasing the report by the heating contractors.
4. The resident reported she had a phobia of asbestos and was frightened to go into the kitchen because of the condition of the ceiling. The landlord had raised this internally with its asbestos team.
On 31 August 2022, the landlord wrote its Stage 1 response as follows:
1. The complaint was about the condition of lino floors in bathroom and kitchen, the storage heaters and confirmation asbestos in kitchen ceiling had not been disturbed.
2. The landlord set out the occasions the resident chased it and its internal chasing.
3. It apologised for the level of service in relation to the kitchen and bathroom floors, storage heaters and kitchen ceiling. They should have been repaired sooner and it should have communicated better, particularly about the asbestos.
4. The contractor surveyed the ceiling on 17 August 2022 to determine whether the asbestos had been disturbed or if the damage was cosmetic. The asbestos was not deemed as high risk so she was not “in any danger”. The repairs team was to decide if the asbestos needed to be removed before repairing the damage. Its repairs team would manage the outstanding repairs.
5. It offered £200 consisting of £100 “because (its) communication should have been better”, particularly about the floor replacement, £50 for the time taken to chase the complaint, as well as the inconvenience and distress caused, and £50 for the repairs delay, particularly to the kitchen ceiling and floor.
On 23 September 2022, the resident requested to escalate the complaint as follows:
1. She stated she had not received feedback on the outcome following the inspection on 17 August 2022. The ceiling was “crumbling” and likely to contain asbestos.
2. The floor contractors had been poor at communication. She was promised a Saturday visit but heard nothing further. They had told her that nobody from the landlord was communicating with them.
3. The heating contractors had not contacted her.
4. She had lost trust in the landlord. She set out the importance of structure, organisation and communication to her as she was on the autism spectrum. This had impacted her mental health.
5. The landlord had drilled into ceilings to replace communal strip lighting. There had been no prior communication that this was due to happen. She was told that an asbestos air check had been carried out. It had heard it was not dated so she did not trust it.
On 26 October 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. Its contractor had attended on 6 October 2022 and confirmed that the heaters were in full working order and therefore did not require replacement.
2. The floors were found to be “very low risk” and would therefore not require any action to be taken. Removal could be actioned at short notice should it become necessary in the future. There was no further work required to the kitchen ceiling, and no concerns with asbestos in relation to this.
3. The resident had not wanted the kitchen flooring work to take place as she had requested it replaced her kitchen. The kitchen was not due to be assessed for renewal until 2024. It offered to replace the flooring in the meantime.
4. It acknowledged that this has been an “incredibly stressful” situation. It apologised for its poor communication. It agreed and understood that communication was extremely important and reasonable adjustments should have been to ensure she was kept updated at each stage of the repair progress. It asked what reasonable adjustments were required to ensure she received a service whereby she felt supported.
5. The complaints team “absolutely should have responded”. It acknowledged that the lack of response would have caused additional uncertainty and unnecessary stress.
6. It offered £350 consisting of £150 because its communication should have been better, it should have kept her updated and responded to her emails, £100 for the time taken to her complaint, as well as the inconvenience and stress caused to her, and £100 for the delay in actioning the repairs.
On the same day, the resident responded that contractors did not attend on 22 September 2022 and no air test had taken place. She had been told the building was too new for asbestos and ‘not to worry’ but then a damaged ceiling had been removed because it contained asbestos.
Sometime in February 2023, the resident vacated the flat because of her concerns about asbestos in the bathroom where a wall had been damaged during the 2021 works. It is understood she did not return to the property and has since surrendered her tenancy.
On 7 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident with its Stage 1 response as follows:
1. The resident had raised a complaint by telephone on 14 February 2023 about the following (we were not provided with a note of the conversation):
  1. Risks associated with works being carried out in terms of asbestos.
  2. A complaint about asbestos in works carried out in the communal areas.
2. It had investigated the methods and procedures the contractor had used in the communal areas. There was not anything “deemed incorrect in the procedure and methods used by the contractor”. They used previous fixings so that the asbestos would not have been disturbed in a way. The contractors were “asbestos awareness trained”.
3. On 6 September 2022 its contractor attended to replace the communal lights. A specialist company conducted an environmental clean of the area and all debris was removed. Air tests were carried out on 9 September 2022, and 3 February 2023 and were deemed also satisfactory.
4. It apologised for its poor communication.
5. Annual inspections were carried out with the most recent in October 2022 which was confirmed as satisfactory. Its asbestos compliance manager also carried out checks.
6. It offered £50 for the time taken to chase the complaint, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused.
On 6 March 2023, an asbestos specialist carried out an inspection. The report of 27 March 2023 stated as follows:
1. ACMs were present in the ceilings in all the rooms, in tiles below the modern floor tiles in the lounge and kitchen, and the insulating board panel to behind toilet cistern boxing. The recommended action was to “manage and monitor”.
2. It presumed asbestos where locations could not be accessed namely heaters in the hallway and lounge and cupboard.
A certificate for identification of asbestos fibres dated 9 March 2023 showed ACM present below the modern tiles, to the ceiling, insulating board panel to wall heater and the insulating board to behind the toilet cistern boxing. .
On 24 April 2023, the landlord sent the resident the 2018 asbestos report.
On 25 April 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord asking it to escalate her complaint as follows:
1. Her worries would have been “completely avoidable” if communication had been implemented clearly and accurately.
2. The landlord did not report the damage in the bathroom to her and did not know who caused it.
3. It should have provided contractors with the “risk assessment information” regarding the bathroom included the asbestos survey. She had lived in the flat for over a year whilst that a wall was damaged and non-encapsulated.
4. She wanted an air test before returning to the property.
There followed correspondence in April and May 2023 where the landlord asked to clarify the resident’s complaint.
On 18 September 2023, the landlord responded with its Stage 2 complaint as follows:
1. It set out that it had tried to clarify her complaint with her. While she had asked to escalate he complaint, the landlord had not yet replied at Stage 1.
2. It had been difficult to review events dating back 5 years.
3. In its email of 20 December 2018, it had provided areas which contained asbestos namely the textured ceiling coatings throughout and the boarding behind the toilet.
4. During the removal and replacement of the bathroom ceiling, a membrane was attached to the walls. Removal of self-adhesive tape had pulled some of the paint from the boarding behind the toilet and exposed the board. It should have been rectified this prior to her return. It was a decorative defect and not a health hazard. Its Asbestos Manager had visited the property on 6 March 2023. The fibres were contained within the matrix of the board. The bonded material had not been disturbed or damaged and no fibres could be released into the atmosphere.
5. Asbestos reports can be “over technical”. It had sent a summary which identified the areas containing asbestos. This was a standard practice but residents could request a copy of the full report at any time.
6. While there was no need for it, it carried out a test in order to address her anxieties relating to asbestos.
7. Around half the homes in the UK built before the year 2000 contain asbestos. It was “widely recognised” that asbestos can be safely managed rather than removed.
8. However, it recognised that her knowledge that fabric within her home contained asbestos had had an adverse effect on her.
9. It had discussed a transfer to another property with her but it had not identified a suitable property.
10. It offered £600 consisting of £150 towards the cost of redecoration to the bathroom, £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint, £250 for the anxiety caused by the peeling away of the paint finish to the wall board. and £150 for the delay to the response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

The resident reported how the events complained of affected her mental health. The Ombudsman cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions or lack of actions has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and /or mental health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman does carefully consider what a resident tells us about how they have been affected by the issues in their complaint, including the overall impact on them. We may, where appropriate, set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by a landlord.
We would not normally investigate historical complaints. That is because we expect residents to make complaints within 12 months of an event complained about. Records may be missing and memories fade. The resident has told us that she had requested the inspection since she moved in in 2009 and that once she received the email of December 2018, she had requested more detail. Given the events happened 5 years before her complaint, we are unable to investigate how much the landlord knew of the resident’s phobia, or how she responded to the email of December 2018. We are unable to determine whether she asked the landlord for the report at the time. We will not therefore investigate the resident’s complaint that the email of December 2018 did not properly explain the findings of the asbestos report of July 2018, or that the landlord did not send her the 2018 report at the time. However, we will take account of historical events where it assists the context of the complaint.

The asbestos

The resident’s main complaint was that the landlord’s communication about asbestos was inadequate. She considered that her concern about asbestos was real and rational. She also considered she had a phobia about asbestos and that the landlord should take this into consideration. She also asked for the landlord’s communication to be clear and organised as she lived with autism. On 26 January 2022, and other occasions, the resident wrote to the landlord to explain the impact of her autism on her and that she required clarity, organisation and structure.
We expect the landlord to give proper consideration to whether a resident has a disability under the Equality Act 2010, to make reasonable adjustments and to treat residents with respect. We refer to our report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights. ARRRoE-22012024-FINAL.pdf This is in addition to the landlord’s obligations to keep residents’ homes in repair and free from hazards.
The July 2018 report set out that there was ACM present in the textured coating of the property’s ceilings and boxing in the bathroom. The email of 20 December 2018 also stated that the affected materials were in the textured coating of the ceilings and in boxing in the bathroom. The report did not specify that the boxing was behind the toilet cistern, but there was a photo. According to the resident’s email to the landlord of 19 April 2023, the only boxing she identified was under the sink. While we are not making any findings about events in 2018, this would explain why the resident was not aware that there was an issue about ACM having been potentially disturbed during the repairs.
There was a dispute as to whether the landlord’s contractors disturbed the fabric of the walls or whether the damage was purely decorative. We are unable to determine who was right. According to the September 2023 Stage 2 response, the area that was damaged in 2021 was the boarding behind the toilet which was the area identified as containing ACM. The resident had not realised this was the case until early 2023.
The landlord has informed us that “more generally that all information relating to known asbestos in our properties was sync’d from our assets system into the repairs system. An operative arriving on site would need to acknowledge on the system any flag presented on a handheld device before being able to proceed.” We accept that is very likely. It would be industry practice for contractors to request checks in order to protect their operatives from exposure as they did on other occasions. The area was inspected by its specialist team and an asbestos inspection was carried out on 6 March 2023. Therefore, we conclude that it is likely the bathroom was safe or low risk, even after the damage to the wall.
The landlord was unable to confirm that the asbestos report went to the contractors prior to them carrying out works in 2021. We consider that the landlord should have ensured it kept proper records of its actions in particular given the requirements of its asbestos policy that “responsive repairs contractor to carry out assessment of risk of asbestos disturbance”.
The landlord accepted that the contractors did not report the damage to them and the landlord did not repair the damage before the resident returned. It also acknowledged that the discovery in early 2023 of a potential risk caused the resident considerable distress.
Even where there is a very low risk of asbestos in a property, we also expect the landlord to explain the level of any risks. This is not only to warn residents not to undertake works or disturb ACM but because asbestos may cause anxiety in residents and the resident has expressed that she had particular concerns.
We found that the landlord took suitable reasonable precautions in relation to asbestos which it did by carrying out inspections and air tests, including before works were carried out. It reasonably, given the resident’s particular concerns, used its discretion and took additional steps. It showed that, while there was a delay in formally recording her circumstances, it took account of them. Examples were as follow:
1. It carried out a number of air test and inspections, which in any event, contractors required them to do.
2. In 2021, the landlord replaced the bathroom ceiling as reassurance.
3. It arranged for her to move to temporary accommodation while the works were carried out. The evidence showed that the delays to the resident returning home were due to the landlord undertaking asbestos tests.
4. On 17 February 2022, it wrote to a support agency for the resident and stated it would arranged for an air test. It would provide the resident with a certificate showing it was safe to return home. The following day it informed the resident that the asbestos air test stated the property was safe.
5. At the resident’s request, an asbestos inspection of the kitchen ceiling was carried out on 17 August 2022. We have not seen this report. According to internal emails, the report dated 30 August 2022 stated that the condition was low damage and was scored as “very low”. While there was a delay to providing the report because the contractors were checking and finalising it, the landlord reasonably informed the resident in its Stage 1 response of 31 August 2022 there were no safety concerns.
6. On 9 September 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to state that the asbestos contractor would be removing the debris and carrying out an air test in the communal area which it did that day.
7. On 3 February 2023, a specialist company produced a “reassurance“ air sampling report in the communal area following her report. It was certified as a pass “with the measured respirable airborne fibre concentration is less than the clearance indicator of 0.01 f/cc as recommended by the Health & Safety Executive and is considered to be sufficiently low for normal occupation of the area tested”.
8. The landlord informed the resident in its Stage 1 response of 7 March 2023 that it had carried out the September 2022 and February 2023 air tests in the communal areas. While it was not clear whether the landlord actually provided the results from those air tests to the resident, they were satisfactory. There was no evidence that they were misdated or undated.
9. On 6 March 2023, in order to reassure the resident, an asbestos specialist carried out an inspection, which report dated 27 March 2023 showed was satisfactory.
10. In March 2023, the asbestos compliance manager visited the resident and engaged in correspondence with her to explain the absence of risk and that the contractors themselves would have taken precautions against any risk.
However, there were a number of delays and missed communications by the landlord:
1. According to the complaint response of 31 August 2022, on 6 July 2021, the contractors asked that the floor under the tiles be inspected before they replaced it. The evidence did not show whether that test was carried out. The 2018 report stated that there was no suspected ACM in the floors but the 2023 reports said there was under the tiles. However, the landlord was entitled to rely on the 2018 report.
2. The resident wrote on 26 October 2022 that she had received conflicting information about old tiles underneath the lino. There was a delay to the flooring replacement because of concerns about asbestos. She was then told about the 2018 report which had no findings of asbestos in the flooring. We noted that the March 2023 referred to ASM under the tiles but the 2018 did not do so. The landlord missed an opportunity to clarify this.
3. According to the August 2022 response, and the evidence, the resident emailed on 22 November 2021, referring to the ceilings containing asbestos and the kitchen ceiling had mould due to a previous leak from upstairs. She had been waiting to be checked since February 2021. The paint had started to flake off. The evidence showed that the resident chased the landlord on a number of occasions.
4. She added on 20 November 2022 that one of the storage heaters dated from the 1970s. On 7 December 2022, the landlord noted there was no reference to the storage heaters in the 2018 report. The landlord commented internally that an asbestos report would/should normally put a presumption against a heater if they deemed it was presumed to contain asbestos but there was no clear outcome though we note they were removed eventually.
5. The evidence showed that the resident chased the landlord for updates on a number of occasions.
The landlord acknowledged its poor communication and delays in its August Stage 1 and October 2022 Stage 2 responses.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, 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 we assess 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.
We summarise the compensation offered by the landlord as follows:
1. In its August 2022 Stage 1 response, it offered £200 for its poor communication and delays, including £50 for the time taken chase the complaint, the inconvenience and distress and £50 for the delays “particularly” to the repairs to the kitchen ceiling and floor.
2. In its October 2022 Stage 2 response, it offered £350 consisting of £150 for its poor communication, £100 for the time taken to chase her complaint, the inconvenience and stress and £100 for the delay in actioning the repairs.
3. In its response of 7 March 2023, it offered £50 for poor communication regarding the asbestos.
4. In its September 2023 Stage 2 response, it offered £600 consisting of £150 towards the cost of redecoration to the bathroom, £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint, £250 for the anxiety caused by the peeling away of the paint finish to the wall board. and £150 for the delay to the response.
We have concluded that the landlord offered £300 for its communication regarding asbestos. We have also taken account of the overlap between complaints and compensation its overall poor communication.
The harm to the resident was about the lack of communication which had a particular impact on her. While we sympathise with the resident’s distress, we cannot measure the impact on her health. We can consider her distress and inconvenience. We take note of the steps that the landlord took to reassure the resident, in addition to the compensation. We find that, while the landlord’s communication was at times slow, poor and unclear, and it should have rectified the damage in the bathroom prior to her return, the level of compensation as well as the steps it took to seek to alleviate the resident’s concerns was reasonable redress.

The repairs to the bathroom and kitchen floors

There were delays to the landlord carrying out repairs to the floors and ceiling. The resident reported the condition of the bathroom floor in May 2021. The evidence showed that she chased it on a number of occasions. According to the landlord’s Stage 2 August 2022 response, the resident had chased the landlord for updates in September on 20 and 25 October 2021 22 November 2021, 26 January 2022 and 8 August 2022. In its Stage 1 response 31 August 2022, it acknowledged that the kitchen ceiling was “accidently missed”.
In August 2022, the resident suggested that the floor should be replaced after the ceiling was replaced. According to the October 2022 Stage 2 response, the resident requested the replacing be delays until the kitchen was replaced. As this would not happen till 2024, the landlord reasonably confirmed its offer to replace the flooring.
The dates of the works were carried out were not clear. The landlord referred us to its contractors and repairs logs which did not clarify dates. This is unsatisfactory. The landlord should be able to have clear records that it can understand and interpret internally.
We have understood that the bathroom works were carried out in 2021. The kitchen ceiling was omitted. It was not clear when or whether those works were done. The evidence indicated that the resident suggested they be postponed. In those circumstances, we do not attribute blame to the landlord where a resident request works to be postponed. We have also understood that the landlord attributed £200 to the overall delays to repairs in August 2022 and £350 in October 2022. We consider that the offer of £550 was reasonable redress for the delays to the repairs.

The storage heaters.

On 20 December 2021, according to the landlord’s complaint response, the resident reported an issue with the storage heaters. According to the landlord ‘s Stage 2 response of 31 August 2022, its contractor tried to book to attend on the 21,22 January 2022, 1, and 10 February 2022. The first appointment was within its 20 working days policy although arguable if this was a reasonable period. The appointments showed as “unsuccessful” on its system. This was not explained. On 22 February 2022, it was noted that she had reported that the landlord’s contractors had attended the property and advised that all three storage heaters needed to be replaced. It is accepted the contractors attended albeit with some delay.
According to the landlord’s August 2022 Stage 2 complaint response, the appointment for the storage heaters in April 2022 had not gone ahead. According to the landlord, the contractors had arranged further appointments but the contractors were not able to gain access. The evidence is not clear as to why that was the case.
The evidence showed that in the following weeks, the landlord checked its records and said it would check with its contractors. The landlord did not locate the report. We cannot determine whether there was a misunderstanding about the need for replacement heaters or there was poor communication between the contractor and landlord. However, the landlord addressed this on 19 August 2022 by arranging a fresh appointment. It also stated there had been delays in its Stage 1 complaint response of 31 March 2022 and offered the resident £75.
However, there was no evidence that the resident made further reports about how the heaters functioned but about her concern they contained asbestos. According to the landlord’s repair log, the heating contractor attended on 6 October 2023 and stated that the heaters were working. According to the landlord, there had been no reports after June 2023. While the resident, in response to the Stage 2 October 2022 response, expressed concerns there was a risk of asbestos within the radiators and that they were old, there was no evidence that they malfunctioned. In the circumstances, considering the landlord’s compensation policy and our own guidance, we consider that the offer of £75 was reasonable redress for the delays.

Complaint handling

The complaint handling process was not clear overall. On 26 January 2022, the resident made a complaint about delays to the works to the bathroom. In the complaint, she explained how her autism affected her and set out her need for clear arrangements and clarity. She expressed a concern that the storage heaters were likely to contain asbestos. Although the correspondence and internal emails referred to a complaint, the landlord has informed us that this was not handled as a complaint.
The landlord informed us that the resident made another complaint in January 2022 with a Stage 2 response in August 2023. It was not clear whether the landlord was referring to the complaint of 26 January 2022 or whether the Augst 2023 date was incorrect. Either way, we could not identify these. The landlord did not provide an explanation why it did not address the complaint of 26 January 2022 as a complaint or why there was a lengthy delay between the Stage 1 and Stage 2 response. This indicated poor record keeping and poor complaint handling. The complaint of 26 January 2022 contained specific information about the resident’s needs regarding communication and her concerns about asbestos in the storage heaters. Her concerns were not addressed until 2023. This meant that the landlord missed an opportunity to address the resident’s concerns and to demonstrate it took her complaint seriously.
The complaint responses themselves were apologetic and set out how the complaints team chased its colleagues internally. While it was commendable that the landlord chased internally, this in itself did not resolve the issue. While it reassured her that reasonable adjustments would be made, and the resident had made her needs clear in January 2022 and earlier, they were not noted in her records until February 2023. At that time, the landlord recorded the resident was diagnosed with autism. It also added to all repair appointments: “1) do not change/cancel appointments 2) give plenty of notice to allow customer extra time to manage time and arrangements”. Her asbestos phobia was only noted in September 2023.
The landlord reasonably offered apologies but there were occasions when it was not clear what it was apologising for example its response of 7 March 2023. It offered compensation for the time taken to bring the complaint, a phrase it used in a number of its responses, but it was not clear what it meant by that, whether it was referring to its complaint handling or the complaint itself. This signified that it was not addressing the underlying issues or not learning from the complaints. It addressed her concerns but the reply lacked specifics. For example, it did not specify where annual checks were carried out or what they consisted of.
The resident’s email of 25 April 2023 was framed as a request to escalate her complaint of 7 March 2023. The landlord engaged in correspondence seeking to clarify her complaint but did not respond formally until we intervened. On 9 August 2023, we contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 23 August 2023. The landlord said it would respond in August 2023 but it did not do so until 18 September 2023. The landlord reasonably acknowledged this and offered two separate sums for the delay, £50 and £150. This indicated a lack of clarity in the mind of the landlord.
There was also confusion as to whether the resident’s email of 25 April was a request to escalate her complaint of 7 March 2023 or a fresh complaint. According to its Stage 2 letter of 18 September 2023, it was a fresh complaint. The resident’s escalation request included the issue of the communal area. The Stage 2 response of 18 September 2023 did not address this aspect at all. The response of September 2023 stated that its 2018 email was correct as it referred to the insulation behind the toilet, however, the 2018 only specified the bathroom. This denoted a lack of attention and proper review.
There were benefits to the complaint handling. The complaints team sought to chase its internal teams in order to progress matters. As a result of the complaints, the landlord carried out additional tests and works. The landlord recognised the impact of lack of information on the resident. The landlord recognised its delays in its response to its September 2023 Stage 2 response.
However, we find blanket apologies and assurances, accompanied by sometimes unexplained offers of compensation is not sufficient. They denoted a lack of proper analysis. The cumulative effect of these failings meant that the landlord missed opportunities to learn and to regain the trust of the resident. In the circumstances, we find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping

This investigation has made a number of observations about the landlord’s record keeping. The investigation was also hampered by gaps in the records. The landlord was unable to provide replies to our questions which indicate a lack of clarity in the records and good communication between the teams. We were referred to records for some of the answers but the records were not always clear. We would expect landlords and their contractors to use abbreviations and shorthand but the landlord should be able to understand these internally. In the circumstances, we find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 53 b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and reports about:
1. asbestos in the property
2. repairs to the flooring in the bathroom and kitchen.
3. the storage heating.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £150 in relation to its complaint handling. This is in addition to the £200 offered in September 2023.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should ensure that it records the vulnerabilities of a resident and proactively enquires, considers and, where appropriate, records promptly any reasonable adjustments it has agreed to make.
2. The landlord should consider the recent recommendations we have made in recent reports regarding its complaint handling and record keeping
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.