London Borough of Islington (202332777)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332777

London Borough of Islington

22 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.

 Background

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of her landlord, who was a local authority. She lived at the property with her partner and 3 children until July 2024.
  2. The resident reported damage to her hallway ceiling by phone 5 times from 8 December 2023 and that she suspected it contained asbestos-containing materials (ACM).
  3. The resident made a complaint on 4 January 2024 that she had reported holes and cracks in the hallway ceiling from the start of December 2023 and felt she was being ignored. She stated she suspected ACM affecting 1 of her children who had respiratory problems.
  4. The landlord’s note shows it requested an ACM inspection on 9 January 2024 and an operative attended on 15 January 2024. It identified that the holes may have resulted from previous floods at the property and made a request for an ACM survey to take place.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 16 January 2024 acknowledged it failed to respond to her initial report on 18 December 2023 and apologised. It also acknowledged the resident had made a series of calls in December 2023 but got no reply. It advised internal emails had been sent, but that it had not kept her informed. The landlord offered total compensation of £200, which was £50 each for inconvenience, distress, poor communication and failure to respond to correspondence. It also informed her that works would be carried out after the results of the asbestos assessment were known. The landlord advised her to speak to a doctor about her son’s health. 
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 January 2024 dissatisfied with the landlord’s insufficient urgency, poor communication and compensation. She also reported her property had poor ventilation and mould.
  7. The landlord’s ACM survey of 24 January 2024 (results 29 January 2024) identified ACM in the hallway ceiling.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 February 2024 and apologised for the error with its new complaints case tracker, which had shown her complaint as closed. The landlord advised of ACM in the hallway ceiling but reassured there was no immediate danger and it would arrange a repair. It identified no need for a decant. It provided a further apology for its delay in booking in work and offered an additional £100 compensation, being £50 each for poor communication and a delay in carrying out repairs. It advised that it had arranged for the asbestos removal to be carried out.
  9. The resident brought her complaint to the Service on 29 February 2024 explaining she had to chase the landlord to arrange the ACM work to her property. She said her son’s respiratory condition and recent hospital stay was to do with the mould and ACM in the property.
  10. The landlord removed the ACM from the hallway on 1 March 2024 and then plastered and decorated.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised the landlord in her escalation on 23 January 2024 that her property suffered from mould and poor ventilation. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
  2. The resident stated her son had breathing difficulties and suspected the presence of ACM had negatively affected the health of the household. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, the Service cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed by the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one), as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Legal and policy framework

  1. The presence of ACM itself does not constitute disrepair under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LLTA), but if it is damaged or has deteriorated, the landlord should carry out a repair and ensure there is no risk of ACM fibres being released.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy states it will attend to a routine repair within 20 working days, an emergency within 2 hours and urgent within 24 hours where it affects the resident’s day-to-day life. It also states non damaged materials with ACM possess no health risks. There is a potential health risk if disturbed. It advises to report immediately and do not brush or vacuum as it risks spreading fibres into the air.

The landlord’s response to reports of a damaged ceiling and concerns of ACM within the resident’s property  

  1. We duly note the resident’s concerns and anxiety in the landlord identifying ACM within the property. However, the Ombudsman’s role is not to investigate the level of ACM or the risks involved, but rather, it is to provide an independent review of the landlord’s actions in its response to the resident’s concerns.
  2. The landlord’s file shows the resident called it twice on 8 December 2023 and 3 times on 15 December 2023. We have listened to the call recordings where the resident stated she was reporting holes and cracks in her hallway ceiling and that she suspected the ceiling may contain ACM. On 15 December 2023 the landlord’s advisor said that because it was an asbestos survey, it did not record it as a repair in its system. This was inappropriate as the landlord did not adhere to its legal responsibilities in cases where ACM is damaged to carry out a repair and ensure no risk of ACM being released.
  3. The ACM survey took place on 24 January 2024 and the resident was advised of its findings in its complaint response on 23 February 2024 which meant it took 30 working days for the landlord to identify it was asbestos and offer reassurance that there was no risk to the resident. This was an unreasonable delay, especially as the resident raised serious concerns and worries about suspected ACM from the outset, advising that her child had respiratory problems which may be related to the presence of asbestos.
  4. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered reassurance in the interim period, while waiting on the ACM being assessed. However we have seen an email trail between the resident and landlord in December 2023 explaining that a survey had been requested and that it was only dangerous if disturbed. She replied to say she had disturbed it and sucked debris out with a hoover and this was why she wanted a quicker response. We have seen no evidence of a timely response to this email, which was unreasonable and heightened the resident’s concerns. At this point the landlord should have taken appropriate and urgent action and arranged the repair within 24 hours.
  5. The total time to repair from 8 December 2023 to 1 March 2024 was 57 working days. In normal circumstances, had this not been a disrepair and just a standard undisturbed asbestos case, then this may have been reasonable. However its failure to correctly record the repair on its system and its subsequent lack of tracking led to its service failure. The amount of time taken and lack of urgency was not appropriate and was not a customer orientated approach which caused the resident undue stress, anxiety and inconvenience.
  6. The landlord’s file shows it raised an ACM survey request on 19 December 2023 but did not update the resident, causing her to have to chase the repair the following day. The resident again chased the landlord on 20 December 2023 and, though we have no record of a timely response, an internal email instructed a colleague to request the survey urgently on 28 December 2023. This led to the resident again chasing the repair on 2 January 2024 and although we have seen an internal email showing the landlord advised internally to chase the survey and update the resident, we have not seen a timely response. This was unreasonable and not a customer-focused approach to not keep the resident appropriately updated. This series of events and its poor communication left the resident unsure of whether the landlord was actioning her service requests and prompted her to raise a complaint on 4 January 2024.
  7. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 16 January 2023 although the landlord acknowledged poor communication, apologised and offered £200 compensation it failed to identify failure to appropriately record the resident’s calls as service requests and follow its repair policy. This was unreasonable.
  8. Additionally, it was inappropriate for the landlord to say that the resident’s initial report was made on 18 December 2023, when that was in fact the resident’s sixth documented report (the initial request was raised on 8 December 2023). This shows it had not fully accepted its failure to attend to the 5 previous service requests which was unreasonable and showed limited learning from its investigation.
  9. The landlord commented on the resident’s son’s health issue in its response and advised her to speak to her doctor. However her child’s vulnerability was not appropriately and fully acknowledged, nor was the level of worry and distress caused to the resident and her vulnerable household by not undertaking an urgent repair. This was unreasonable and caused the resident undue distress, especially after the landlord told her on 20 December 2023 there was a risk if ACM was disturbed.
  10. The landlord advised that an initial inspection on 15 January 2024 identified a series of floods as the likely cause of the holes, and it commissioned a full ACM survey that day. This was appropriately arranged and conducted on 24 January 2024 and demonstrated the landlord followed up on its stage 1 response. The landlord also offered £200 for the delays in its attempt to put things right.  
  11. However, in the resident escalation request, the resident disagreed with the compensation amount and complained of a lack of urgency, even though she had made the landlord aware of her household health concerns. She said she had chased the repair team who did not get back to her.
  12. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 19 February 2024 the landlord explained again the timeline of events (as per its stage 1 response) while it failed to keep the resident informed in December 2023. It identified that it had raised the survey request on 20 December 2023 and that it had completed the survey on 24 January 2024 as promised in its stage 1 response. It confirmed that no “immediate danger” existed for the resident. As such, it showed it considered the potential risk involved and that no decant was required. These were all reasonable steps.
  13. Additionally, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays in the arrangement of the follow up works and offered further compensation of £100. However there was again no acknowledgement that it had not adhered to its legal obligations and its own repair process by not treating the initial report as a repair request. The landlord could not demonstrate that it had taken learning from the complaint regarding this failure. Part of the Ombudsman’s role is to help improve the service a landlord provides by taking learning from complaints. Although the landlord has appropriate policies in place, it’s staff failed to interpret them correctly in this situation. We have therefore made a learning order below. 
  14. The total £300 compensation offered during its complaints process was not enough for the overall failures listed above and identified by the Service. The landlord did not acknowledge it had failed to appropriately deal with the damaged ceiling reports as a repair or with the required urgency and as such it did not fully recognise the impact on the vulnerable household. Additionally, it was unable to show learning or take steps to prevent it from happening again. This has resulted in a determination of service failure.
  15. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £450 (including the £300 compensation it offered already under its process) for the distress and inconvenience caused by it not fully acknowledging its repair responsibilities, resulting in delays and subsequent lack of urgency. The total compensation is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failure where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, with no permanent impact. The Ombudsman also orders the landlord to provide training to the relevant staff on the landlord’s legal obligations and response to asbestos reports which will help improve its service.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of asbestos.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £450 compensation (including the £300 already offered during its complaints process if it has not paid already) comprising:
    1. £300 already offered during its internal process.
    2. Additional £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by it not fully acknowledging its repair responsibility and subsequent lack of urgency.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to provide training to the relevant staff on the landlord’s legal repair obligations and response to asbestos reports.
  3. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to confirm compliance with the above orders within their respective timeframes.