Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202338295)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property with her partner and 2 children. She complains the landlord failed to adequately inspect or clean the property after its contractor accidentally put their foot through the ceiling while completing works in the loft.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord responded to:
   1. Its contractor causing a partial collapse of the ceiling while completing works in the loft.
   2. The resident’s reports of chipped flooring.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Service failure in how the landlord:
      1. Responded to its contractor causing a partial collapse of the ceiling while completing works in the loft.
      2. Handled the resident’s complaint.
   2. No maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of chipped flooring.

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

Summary of reasons

Partial ceiling collapse.

5. The landlord failed to properly satisfy itself and reassure the resident that it had cleaned the property and cleared it of potential hazards after its contractor punctured a hole in 1 of the bedroom ceilings while decontaminating the loft following a rat infestation. It also failed to complete an asbestos survey following this despite it offering to do so in its stage 1 response.

Chipped flooring.

6. Damage to floor coverings are defined as the resident’s responsibility in her tenancy agreement. There is also no evidence that the chipped floor covering was caused by the accident on 7 December 2023. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately by declining to complete a repair or offer compensation.

Complaint handling.

7. The landlord addressed the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its timescales. It took steps to mitigate the delay at stage 2 and offered appropriate compensation for this. However, its final response failed to address the resident’s concerns about excess moisture and incorrectly laid insulation in the loft.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. The resident has complained that her children have been caused physical injury by damage to the flooring caused by the accident, and by what she considers is fibreglass contamination in the property.
9. While we have considered the distress these events may have caused the resident, this investigation will not consider any potential impact of them on the resident’s or her family’s health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this part to the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court.
10. The resident complains that the landlord failed to adequately clean the property after the accident. She complains that the loft was still contaminated when it happened due to a previous rat infestation. She is also concerned that asbestos containing materials were present in the loft at the time. Therefore, she considers the landlord should have completed an intense deep clean of the property following the accident to minimise any risks to her family.
11. The landlord has explained that it does not consider the property was at any risk of contamination from the historical rat infestation since the ceiling was punctured, and its contents spilled into the bedroom, after its contractors had already fully cleaned the area and treated it with biocide. It also explained that it had already removed all contaminated insulation before the accident.
12. However, the resident has supplied photos of the inside of the loft immediately after the contractor made the hole in the ceiling. We can see the photo was taken immediately after since the hole is yet to be tarped over, and the landlord did so in the afternoon of 7 December 2023. These photos do not indicate that the loft had been fully cleaned. For instance, it appears to be full of loose fragments, dust, small pellets, and torn up pieces of insulation. Other photos then show this type of material covering the bedroom and hallway floor and many of the resident and her children’s belongings.
13. We can see the resident supplied the landlord with these photos on 8 December 2023 and explained that she was concerned that the property was now contaminated with rat droppings and loose insulation fibres as a result.
14. Based on the resident’s reports, we would expect the landlord to have considered the potential risks posed by any potential rodent droppings or loose fragments of the “stone wool” insulation in some kind of risk assessment, for it to have documented the actions it took to clean the bedroom, and to have explained this to the resident. There is no indication it completed any kind of risk assessment.
15. There is no record of the cleaning visit on 8 December 2023 which makes it difficult to establish whether the landlord did enough to satisfy itself that it had suitably cleaned the property.
16. We can see the resident raised concerns about the possible presence of asbestos in her stage 1 complaint. In its stage 1 response the landlord explained that it had seen a 2015 survey which did not identify any asbestos in the loft. It offered to complete a more up-to-date survey if the resident remained concerned. This was a positive step towards mitigating the distress the resident was likely caused by the accident.
17. However, despite the resident then asking the landlord to commission a new survey after its stage 1 response on 11 December 2023, the landlord failed to organise this or address the request.
18. We note the landlord has already offered the resident £150 for distress and inconvenience. We also note that it offered £180 as a contribution towards any cleaning costs. However, the landlord has not acknowledged its failure to complete an asbestos inspection nor has it done enough to reassure the resident that there were no hazards present in the home, for these reasons, we do not consider the compensation offered to be sufficient. Our guidance on compensation sets out that payments between £100 and £600 are typically appropriate to put right failings which have adversely, but not permanently, impacted residents.
19. In calculating the correct sum of compensation we have considered the distress the resident was likely caused by the landlord’s omissions. We have considered how this distress was likely compounded by the resident’s responsibilities as a mother to her 2 young children. We will order the landlord pays a further £200 to bring the total compensation up to the higher end of our scale.
20. The resident has advised us that she considers the landlord should reimburse her the cost of the 2 new children’s mattresses she bought to replace those damaged by the accident. We can see she asked the landlord to do so during the complaints process. In its stage 2 response the landlord declined to do so on the basis that the resident had failed to provide related evidence when it requested this. We cannot see that the resident made attempts to supply this evidence following this.
21. Therefore, we will recommend the landlord considers any evidence the resident has to demonstrate that she replaced the mattresses and other possessions following the accident.

22. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that she was responsible for maintaining and repairing any damage to floor coverings. She complains that the debris which fell due to the accident on 7 December 2023 chipped the flooring, and so the landlord should have repaired it. The landlord considered this and noted that the same chip had been identified before 7 December 2023, and therefore it was not responsible. While we have not seen the evidence the landlord referred to, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the damage was caused by the accident. Therefore, we do not consider the landlord was obligated to repair the floor covering or provide compensation.

23. The landlord addressed the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its timescales. While it delayed by 20 working days in addressing her stage 2 complaint, it contacted her after 26 working days and explained why it had to delay the response. It also offered her £50 compensation for this delay. This aligns with the kind of minor compensation our guidance recommends for the kind of mild inconvenience the resident was likely caused by this. The landlord also did well to contact the resident and explain the reasons for the delay.
24. However, we can see the resident raised concerns about excessive moisture and incorrectly laid insulation in her stage 2 escalation request which the landlord then failed to address in its final response. While we note these concerns were not explicitly referenced in the original complaint, the landlord should have at least explained this and committed to raising a service request. To put this right, we will order the landlord to engage with the resident to understand her concerns about the loft, and to complete an inspection to address these.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s record keeping was poor throughout the period in question. For instance, it failed to document the 8 December 2023 cleaning visit. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of good record keeping, and how it might have better managed the situation at hand had it kept clearer audit trails of any actions taken.

Communication

26. Overall, the landlord was prompt and responsive in its communications with the resident. However, there were some omissions in the form of unacknowledged concerns in its final response.