North Kesteven District Council (202316936)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316936

North Kesteven District Council

27 March 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 handling of:
    1. Reports of asbestos at the property.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy agreement which began on 10 September 2021.
  2. The resident previously found asbestos in the garden of his property and the landlord removed it on 20 December 2022.
  3. Around April 2023 (the exact date could not be provided by the landlord), the resident reported finding more asbestos in the garden. The landlord acknowledges that it provided incorrect information about how to manage the asbestos. Following that advice, the resident dug it up so that the landlord could collect it.
  4. On 22 May 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint as the landlord had failed to collect the asbestos. He expressed concerns around the hazardous nature of the materials and asked that it collect these immediately.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 June 2023 and upheld the complaint. It apologised for providing incorrect information and said it had arranged for the removal of the asbestos.
  6. The resident replied the same day and requested an escalation to stage 2. Within his response, the resident said that an apology was not sufficient and asked for a full inspection of the garden with any further asbestos to be removed. The resident also said that the landlord should provide adequate staff training regarding asbestos and make a payment of £1,000 to a charity.
  7. The landlord met with the resident on 7 July 2023 and agreed to review the garden to ensure no further asbestos could be found. The landlord also agreed to check that its staff and contractors had appropriate asbestos training and provide the resident with a payment of £500 and a bag of grass seed.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 9 October 2023. Within its response, it said that the asbestos was removed on 29 September 2023 and the grass seed was delivered on the same day. The landlord provided details of its staff training in regards to awareness of asbestos and acknowledged service failings in its management of the asbestos reports.
  9. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to this Service for review in October 2023.  

Assessment and findings

Reports of asbestos at the property

  1. Within its asbestos management policy, the landlord says that residents should not try to deal with asbestos themselves. It says that, following a report of asbestos, it will “assess the risk and take appropriate action”. The landlord took appropriate action to remove asbestos from the property in 2022. It did so by carrying out an inspection of the materials and then arranging for their removal.
  2. However, it is evident that when the resident reported more asbestos to the landlord in April 2023, it did not take the same steps.
  3. The resident alleged that the landlord instructed him to dig up the asbestos so that it could then arrange for the removal of the materials. Despite a request by this Service, the landlord was unable to provide any record of the resident’s initial report or what he was told.
  4. However, it did acknowledge within the subsequent complaint response that it gave “mixed messages” on “managing the asbestos”. This was a service failing on the part of the landlord, as it should have taken steps to inspect and remove the asbestos itself, as it had done a few months prior. The resident carried out work that he was not responsible for. This has since caused him significant concern regarding the health and safety risks around asbestos.
  5. Despite agreeing to then remove the asbestos, the landlord failed to arrange this following the initial report in April 2023. The landlord eventually collected the asbestos on 29 September 2023. This was 5 months after it was reported. Given the hazardous nature of the materials and the number of requests from the resident, the time taken was unreasonable. This was a service failing on the part of the landlord which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  6. Through the complaints process, the landlord agreed to make a payment of £500 to the resident for the “cost of the work done to date”. However, this does not take into account the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the incorrect information provided and the unreasonable delay in removing the asbestos materials. This Service will make an additional award to the resident to account for those failings.
  7. In summary, the landlord failed to take reasonable steps, or follow the same process that it had used several months prior, when the resident reported finding more asbestos in his garden in April 2023. The landlord apparently provided incorrect information which led to the resident unnecessarily carrying out the work himself.
  8. Despite its assurances, the landlord failed to collect the materials for over 5 months. This was an unreasonable delay. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of asbestos at the property.
  9. Although it was positive that the landlord paid the resident in recognition of the work done and gave assurances on staff asbestos training, it should also have awarded compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. We have ordered that it pays an amount to reflect the inconvenience caused across a period of 5 months while the matter remained unresolved.

The resident’s complaint

  1. Following the stage 1 response, the landlord met with the resident and agreed further remedies. However, it is clear that these were not all actioned in a reasonable timeframe, demonstrating a lack of oversight of these agreed remedies. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord and indicates that it did not learn from the initial failure.
  2. The landlord failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 following the resident’s email on 22 June 2023. The landlord said that it met with the resident on 7 July 2023 to agree actions but did not make it clear to him that it had not escalated his complaint. Regardless of the actions taken, the landlord should have followed its complaint policy and escalated the complaint so that a formal response was offered. This was a service failing as the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint or provide a full response as per its complaint policy.
  3. Due to the complaint not being escalated when it was requested by the resident, the response took 78 days. This is significantly in excess of the 20 working days timeframe in the landlord’s complaint policy.
  4. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord did respond to the main issues from the initial complaint. However, rather than acknowledging its failings, the responses underplayed the failings and the resident’s concerns. The landlord said it had followed the asbestos policy during its void process but this was not relevant to the complaint. It acknowledged a 2 month delay in collecting the asbestos materials, instead of the almost 5 months it had taken.
  5. The landlord also said “there is no risk to you or your family due to the advice given”. It is unclear how it could be certain of this given the nature of the materials and the lack of any risk assessment to show it considered this in advance of the resident moving the asbestos. The landlord showed a lack of understanding and acknowledgement of the distress it caused the resident.  
  6. Ultimately, despite providing a reasonable response at stage 1, the landlord then failed to manage the complaint at stage 2 in line with its own policy timeframes. It failed to fully understand the concerns that its failings caused to the resident. Given the delays and the insufficient stage 2 response, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.  

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of asbestos at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £450 to the resident, made up of:
    1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the reports of asbestos at the property;
    2. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of the complaint.
  3. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.