London Borough of Islington (202429813)

Decision
Case ID	202429813
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	15 October 2025

Background

1. At the time of this complaint, the resident lived in a 1 bedroom, second floor flat. He moved to a new property in January 2025. The resident has epilepsy and other health issues, including mobility issues. He has a third party organisation acting as his representative. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to both the resident and the representative as “the resident”.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to requests to remove asbestos containing material from the resident’s property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to requests to remove asbestos containing material from the resident’s property.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The response to requests to remove asbestos containing material from the resident’s property

5. The landlord did not adequately manage the resident’s expectations around the removal of the asbestos. It gave him confusing and contradictory responses to his queries and it did not adequately manage his fears and anxieties. It did not show that it had considered the effect of the situation on the resident in relation to his mental and physical health concerns. It provided incorrect information at stage 2 and it made no firm arrangement for the asbestos team to contact the resident. There was no meaningful response to the resident’s complaint and he was in no better position after the conclusion of the complaints process.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the resident at both stages of the complaints process in line with its complaints policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order   The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 12 November 2025
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident £650 (the landlord may deduct from this amount the £300 compensation it previously offered if this has already been paid) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to requests to remove asbestos containing material from the resident’s property.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 12 November 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 May 2024	The resident raised his complaint with the landlord. He said he had exposed and cracked asbestos in various parts of his home. He said a report dated 9 April 2024 recommended removing the asbestos but the landlord had not removed it. He said the stress and anxiety of the asbestos in his home was contributing to frequent seizures.
10 June 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response. It confirmed it raised a job on 22 February 2024 to inspect the storage cupboard for possible asbestos. It said it issued a work order to its asbestos contractor on 4 April 2024 and the contractors removed the asbestos on 16 April 2024. It asked the resident to report any further asbestos concerns he may have. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £75. This was made up of £25 for time and effort, £25 for an unrelated delayed appointment, and £25 for distress and inconvenience.
10 June 2024	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said the stage 1 response was incorrect as the landlord had not removed the asbestos.
8 July 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response. It reiterated that it had removed the asbestos on 16 April 2024. It said it had raised a query with the asbestos team and it had asked them to contact the resident directly. It said if the team did not contact him, and he still had concerns, he should make a further service request. The landlord increased the offer of compensation to £300. This was made up of £50 for time and effort, £25 for an unrelated delayed appointment, £200 for distress and inconvenience, and £25 for failure to notify an appointment to replace the plinth following the removal of asbestos.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as he said he still had hazardous asbestos in his home. He said he had severe epilepsy and the stress of knowing the asbestos material was present was causing him to have frequent seizures. He said he wanted the landlord to remove the asbestos and pay additional compensation.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to requests to remove asbestos containing material from the resident’s property.
Finding	Maladministration

7. The resident told us that the presence of the asbestos in his home has affected his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The presence of asbestos within a property does not always mean that there is disrepair or a hazard. Landlords do not have to remove asbestos from a domestic property if it is in a good condition and can be left undisturbed. However, if the asbestos is damaged or it deteriorates over time, and there is a risk of asbestos dust, the landlord should act to prevent disrepair and a hazard arising.
9. The resident’s utility company moved his gas meter on 22 February 2024. The engineer carrying out the work told the resident that there may be asbestos in his property. The resident reported these concerns to the landlord on the same day.
10. In response, the landlord raised a request on 26 February 2024 for an asbestos survey to be carried out by the asbestos team. Although it did this, there is no evidence to show the landlord told the resident, or that it gave him any idea how long he would likely have to wait for the survey. Had it managed the resident’s expectations, it may have reduced some of the resident’s worries and concerns.
11. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 March 2024. He said he could not stay at the property due to the stress of living with the asbestos. He told the landlord the situation had affected his epilepsy as he was having more fits. He said he had been to see his GP and they had increased his medication. He also said he had further appointments for his mental health and other health conditions. He told the landlord he was really struggling.
12. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 March 2024. It told him that the asbestos team were visiting him on 26 March 2024 to take samples. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether he was already aware of the appointment. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord offered the resident any additional support or advice around asbestos. Neither is there evidence that it considered making any referrals to other agencies or teams that may have been able to help him manage his concerns. Had it done so, it may have been able to allay some of the resident’s fears or managed his anxieties.
13. The planned survey date was over 4 weeks from the date of the resident’s initial report of asbestos. There does not appear to be a timeframe set for the completion of an asbestos survey, following reports of asbestos, in either the corporate asbestos policy or housing repairs guide. The landlord does have an overall timeframe of 40 working days to complete complex repairs, which includes repair/removal of asbestos. However, given the potential danger associated with asbestos, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to ensure it completed the survey as quickly as possible and to make the resident aware of key dates in advance, such as the survey date. Particularly as he had told the landlord how the presence of the asbestos was affecting him.
14. The asbestos team carried out the asbestos survey on 26 March 2024. The survey was limited to the water tank cupboard. It highlighted a broken piece of asbestos insulating board (AIB) on a ledge next to the water cylinder and recommended its removal. The asbestos team shared the survey with the resident and it booked the work in for 16 April 2024. The appointment date was within the landlord’s overall 40 working day timeframe for complex repairs.
15. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 April 2024. He said the asbestos contractor had been out to his property that day. He said the operative thought there could be more asbestos in the property. The resident told the landlord he was very worried about the asbestos as he had health conditions.
16. The asbestos team visited the resident’s property on 9 April 2024. It found asbestos in the water tank cupboard and hallway cupboard. The asbestos survey said the asbestos in the hallway cupboard could be encapsulated and managed unless it was to be disturbed as part of works. It said the water tank cupboard ceiling could be managed unless it was disturbed. However, it said the AIB, floor tiles, and adhesive in the water tank cupboard should be removed as it was in a poor condition. This is in line with the corporate asbestos policy which says, “Work on asbestos materials includes enclosing, encapsulating, repair or removal.”
17. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 April 2024 following the survey. He said he was very stressed and concerned about the situation due to his health conditions as he was having more fits. An internal email on the same day shows that the landlord asked a colleague to call the resident back. This was also the case on 12 April 2024 following a further call from the resident. There is no evidence to show that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the asbestos results, give advice, or to allay his fears on either occasion.
18. The asbestos team sent the resident the results of the second survey on 14 April 2024. In response, he asked the landlord to remove all the asbestos from his property. The surveyor responded by email to manage the resident’s concerns. However, the content of the email is unclear as the landlord has not provided us with a copy.
19. The resident’s GP sent a letter to the landlord on 15 April 2024. The letter said that they were concerned about the detrimental impact on the resident’s physical and mental health due to the presence of the asbestos. There is no evidence to show that the landlord fully considered the GP’s letter when deciding how much of the asbestos it would remove.
20. The surveyor confirmed in an internal email dated 15 April 2024 that planned works had been raised for the asbestos in the water tank cupboard only, although he said he could not see any reason why all the asbestos could not be removed at the same time. However, the landlord confirmed in a separate internal email that its policy was to leave undamaged asbestos due to cost and unnecessary disruption. It said this was consistent with the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) advice.
21. The asbestos was removed from a ledge next to the water tank on 16 April 2024. This was in line with the first asbestos survey. On 23 April 2024 the landlord queried whether another panel in the water tank cupboard should have been removed in line with the second survey. An email dated 16 May 2024 from the surveyor to the resident refers to an amended version of the asbestos report sent to the repairs team on 8 May 2024. This appears to confirm the landlord was only required to remove the broken AIB in the water tank cupboard. However, the landlord has not provided us with a copy of the amended report and it does not appear that it sent the resident a copy either. This was likely confusing and concerning for the resident, as the landlord had already raised his expectations when it told him that other areas of asbestos needed to be removed.
22. The resident raised a formal complaint on 16 May 2024. He raised additional concerns on 23 May 2024 that the landlord had not sent him a copy of the amended survey report.
23. The stage 1 response dated 10 June 2024 did not address his concerns relating to the amended survey. The stage 2 response dated 8 July 2024 said the asbestos had been removed but the landlord could not provide evidence as the work did not require a post inspection. It also said there was no evidence the asbestos survey had been amended, which contradicts the email sent by the surveyor on 16 May 2024. The landlord said it had asked the asbestos team to contact the resident directly, but it made no firm arrangement for this to take place. It offered the resident increased compensation of £300. Although some of the compensation related to delayed appointments and appointment notifications not directly related to the removal of the asbestos.
24. The landlord sent the resident a further email on 26 July 2024. It said it had sought advice from the asbestos team and it confirmed that only one cupboard was included in the inspection, but it had surveyed both cupboards at the resident’s request. It said the surveyor told the resident he would need to confirm whether it could remove the asbestos from the second cupboard, as the asbestos was not considered hazardous to health. The landlord said the report following the survey on 9 April 2024 was based on the resident’s wishes. It said it amended the report based on hazards to health only. It also said the insulation board that had not been removed was not considered to be harmful, so it was not required to remove it. It did not provide a copy of the amended report,
25. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
26. Given the observations above, the landlord has not shown that it recognised or addressed its failings in relation to the asbestos removal. As such, it has not done enough to fully resolve or learn from the complaint. On that basis, and as the issues were still unresolved when the resident moved out, we find that there has been maladministration. We consider the offer of £300 insufficient given the resident’s circumstances and the impact of the landlord’s failings.
27. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £650 compensation (inclusive of the landlord’s original offer) to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. This was also in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance which says it can pay up to £1,000 for severe or prolonged stress.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

28. The resident raised a formal complaint on 16 May 2024. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 10 June 2024. This was within the timeframes set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
29. The resident escalated his complaint on 10 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 11 June 2024 and provided a stage 2 response on 8 July 2024. This was in line with the timeframes set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
30. Given the observations above, we find that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

31. Landlords should effectively manage resident’s expectations by providing clear and accurate responses to queries and concerns. It should confirm responses in writing where it is appropriate to do so to aid understanding and provide clarification.
32. Landlords should also consider a resident’s individual circumstances when responding to service requests and making decisions.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. Most of the landlord’s evidence consisted of internal emails and there were key documents missing from the evidence provided. This made our investigation more difficult and it raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping practices.

Communication

34. The communication between the landlord and resident was poor at times. There were occasions when the resident contacted the landlord distressed and worried, yet there is no evidence that the landlord responded. Some of the information given to the resident was also contradictory and confusing.