London Borough of Waltham Forest (202506438)

Decision
Case ID	202506438
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Waltham Forest
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	28 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a two-bedroom terraced house owned by the landlord. A tenant management organisation (TMO) is funded by the landlord to carry out responsive repairs. The resident complained about draughts entering her property and asbestos in her home. She asked us to investigate as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s final response.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of draughts in her property.
2. Management of asbestos at the property.
3. Handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of draughts in her property.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s management of asbestos at the property.
The was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

In summary, the Ombudsman found that:

The landlord and TMO failed to use its complaints process to address the resident’s concerns about draughts at her property, leaving the issue unresolved.
The landlord and TMO failed to abide by all the suggestions made in an asbestos report to manage asbestos at the resident’s property. Its responses on the matter were not always accurate.
The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint or escalation, and delayed responding to the complaint escalation.

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	Inspection order The landlord must show evidence of a recent inspection of the windows and garden door by a suitably qualified person of the resident’s home. The inspection must either confirm there are no remaining draught problems or identify what works are currently needed to resolve any such problems. If further works are required, the landlord must also provide its estimate of the timescale in which it will complete these works.	No later than 09 December 2025
2	Review order The landlord must confirm how it intends to manage asbestos in the property in the future. This should be in line with the suggestions made in the asbestos report completed in 2023. If it believes a further asbestos survey is required, it must arrange this and confirm the details of this to the resident and Ombudsman.	No later than 09 December 2025
3	Compensation order In light of the failures identified in this report, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £600. This is made up of: £300 for its failures regarding its management of asbestos at the property. £300 for its failures regarding draughts at the property	No later than 25 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 December 2024 to 5 February 2025	The resident contacted the TMO on 5 occasions without reply, stating her property was draughty due to damaged windows.
6 February 2025	The resident and her MP told the TMO the landlord had incorrectly handled asbestos at her property while working on soffits . She said asbestos debris had been left in her garden and she had to clear it herself. The TMO told the resident the same day, it had inspected and found no debris. The resident said it failed to check the back garden.
28 February 2025	The resident’s GP wrote to the TMO concerned with the impact the resident said the draughts had on her son’s respiratory health. They also shared their concern about the presence of asbestos at the property, which the resident told them about.
24 March 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said the landlord had improperly handled the asbestos repair and had not assessed the risk of asbestos fibres. She believed there was asbestos in her boiler cupboard and a persistent draught. She also believed the TMO was not recording repairs, which caused recurring issues.
7 April 2025	The TMO provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said it would not respond to the issue of draughts and windows as it had previously responded to this and carried out multiple repairs. It said the debris in the resident’s garden was not asbestos and apologised for not cleaning it up. It agreed to provide all previous asbestos reports to the resident. It said there was no asbestos on the boiler cupboard door.
7 April 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord, stating asbestos was on the boiler cupboard walls and ceiling, not the door. She said the landlord had not tested annually for asbestos as it had promised to, had not provided asbestos reports and disregarded her and her son’s health. She said its response to her concerns about disturbed asbestos was dismissive. She felt the draught issue was ongoing and needed to be investigated.
14 May 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said the asbestos in the property was low risk, there was none in the boiler cupboard and debris in her garden was not asbestos. It said it had not disregarded the health of the family and was not obligated to create a risk management plan. It upheld the TMO’s response regarding draughts and windows. It said the TMO investigated the windows recently, finding they were deliberately damaged. It found no issue with its record-keeping.
15 October 2025	The resident told the Ombudsman she disputed the landlord’s asbestos explanation and wanted any disturbed asbestos removed. She wanted compensation for the delay in doing this. She also wanted any gaps causing draughts to be sealed, including replacing her bedroom and bathroom windows.

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 handling of the resident’s reports of draughts in her property
Finding	Maladministration

In her initial complaint, the resident said there were ongoing draughts at the property, believing the windows and the garden door were the source. In the stage 1 response, the TMO declined to provide a response to the resident’s concerns about draughts in the property. It said it had previously addressed this and carried out multiple repairs to the windows and door.
The repairs history is limited and shows no activity from November 2024 onwards. It shows repairs to the garden door handle in April 2024 and to the windows in July and September 2024 only. There is no evidence of the TMO further investigating ongoing draughts at the property, and it did not respond to the resident’s 5 emails about draughts between December 2024 and February 2025. Despite it saying it had previously addressed these issues, there is no evidence of this.
As such, it was a failure by the TMO at stage 1 and by the landlord at stage 2 not to address the resident’s concerns about draughts at the property, particularly as she said the issue was ongoing and reported it consistently. Moreover, this was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy to address concerns raised either formally or informally. On 16 April 2025, the TMO stated internally it would send someone to repair damaged sealant on 1 window, however, there is no evidence this took place.
In summary, the TMO and landlord did not act in accordance with its policy. They did not respond reasonably to the resident’s further reports of draughts, or her complaints on the matter. This was despite her insistence the matter was current and ongoing.

Complaint	The landlord’s management of asbestos at the property
Finding	Maladministration

On 15 October 2025, the resident raised further concerns with us about asbestos in her home and the landlord’s actions. There is no evidence the resident has raised a further complaint on this matter. She has the opportunity to raise this with the landlord and can then raise this with the Ombudsman if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
The landlord has not provided details of any policy or procedure relating to its management of asbestos.
The most recent asbestos report completed for the property and on which the landlord has based its responses was completed on 18 April 2023. This report identified asbestos in 3 locations at the resident’s property. In the external soffits, on the kitchen floor and on the meter store ceiling.
The report said the asbestos was low risk whilst undisturbed, but at a minimum should be encapsulated, labelled (to prevent accidental damage) and managed annually. If any future work may disturb or damage the asbestos, it must assess this and treat or remove the asbestos. It said this was in accordance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. These suggestions are also in line with the Health and Safety Executive’s recommendations regarding a duty holder’s responsibility towards asbestos
In her complaint and escalation, the resident was concerned about the landlord’s general management of asbestos at the property. She said the landlord had never informed her about the presence of asbestos at the property and had not assessed it annually.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said there was no evidence that it should have informed the resident about asbestos in the property. This was inaccurate as the 2023 asbestos report said the points of asbestos must be labelled at the property, and labelling would have also informed the resident.
The TMO and landlord’s approach was unreasonable as without notifying the resident about the asbestos or labelling it, it could not be assured she had not, or would not disturb it. It confirmed in its complaint response that it would provide the asbestos report for 2023 to the resident. This was appropriate to reassure the resident, but there is no apparent reason why it could not have done this sooner to minimise any risk of disturbing the asbestos.
The asbestos report also said the landlord must “manage” the asbestos annually to check it remained undisturbed. However, there is no evidence of the landlord taking formal annual steps to manage or check the asbestos at the property. This was the minimum it was reasonably expected to do.
There is no evidence that the TMO assessed the potential impact of the soffit work as the asbestos report recommended. Its response instead only focused on actions it took afterwards. Furthermore, the TMO said it only encapsulated the soffits as a “gesture of goodwill.” However, this is counter to the asbestos report, which states it should have taken all these steps as a minimum. The report recommended this step on 18 April 2023 but the landlord did not complete this until 5 February 2025 an unreasonably long time in ensuring any risk was minimised. The landlord did agree in its complaint response to take further steps to further seal the soffits. It is unclear if it has completed this.
The resident complained that it took over a week for the TMO to visit to inspect the debris in the garden and check it for asbestos. The landlord’s stage 2 response said the TMO assessed the debris on 5 February 2025. However, this contradicted the TMO’s stage 1 response that it did this on 12 February, which left the issue unresolved.
In summary, there is little evidence of the landlord complying with the asbestos report for the property completed in 2023. As such, its response regarding what it should do was also inaccurate. It took some steps to manage the asbestos once the resident complained, but its overall approach was unreasonable, leaving the resident’s concerns partially unresolved.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy confirms it will informally discuss any issues with a resident prior to it registering a complaint. Both the resident and her MP raised her concerns regarding the handling of asbestos on 6 February 2025. However, there is no evidence that it responded formally or informally to all concerns raised by the resident or the MP, before the resident complained again on 24 March. This was not in accordance with its policy.
The complaints policy confirms the landlord will acknowledge complaints and escalated complaints within 5 working days. There is no evidence that it did so with either complaint, and this was a failing and not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) or the landlord’s policy.
The TMO provided the stage 1 response in accordance with the Code. However, the landlord responded at stage 2 in 25 working days (7 April to 14 May 2025). There is no evidence that it agreed on a new timescale for response with the resident. The landlord therefore acted outside its policy and the Code.
In summary, we have identified failings with the landlord’s complaint handling against the Code and the landlord’s complaint policy. However there is no evidence of impact caused to the resident relating to these failings.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Although we were able to make a determination, this was made more challenging by the TMO’s repair history, which was very limited.
Landlords must maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The landlord should consider the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) for accurate record keeping.