Basildon Borough Council (202522317)

Decision
Case ID	202522317
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Basildon Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	5 February 2026

Background

The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about the condition of the property at the start of her tenancy. She said there were a number of outstanding repairs that the landlord should have completed during the void period. She said there was damaged asbestos within the hallway and under the living room floor. She said the landlord had given her an outdated copy of the asbestos risk register even though it had completed a more recent survey. She said this meant she had been unable to move into her property straight away. The resident and her children have disabilities and one of her children has an auto immune condition. She said the presence of asbestos in her home and the outstanding repairs had affected her and her children’s health.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy, including the presence of asbestos.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy, including the presence of asbestos.
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 landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy, including the presence of asbestos

Although the landlord had resolved some of the resident’s more significant issues relating to the asbestos, it did not fully acknowledge its communication failures or confirm which repairs it would complete. It did not acknowledge that the property most likely did not meet the void standard, or that it should have given the resident the most up to date asbestos survey at sign up. There were also outstanding repairs with no plan of action in place.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not provide us with copies of all the complaints correspondence. However, overall, it 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 05 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident: £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy, including the presence of asbestos 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 05 March 2026
3	Inspection order We have made an inspection order because the resident has reported that there are outstanding repairs. What the landlord must do complete a full inspection of the level access shower room/ bathroom to check whether the shower is in full working order and is draining adequately inspect any other issues within the property previously highlighted by the resident and not yet resolved produce a survey report confirming whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the outstanding issues together with reasons where it is not responsible produce a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair/resolution where the landlord is responsible. This should include the likely timescales to commence and complete the work The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.	No later than 19 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 July 2025	The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about the condition of the property and the presence of asbestos. She said: a neighbour had told her that the hall floor tiles and adhesive used for the living room flooring contained asbestos the landlord had given her a copy of an outdated risk register from 2011 which did not show the location of the asbestos she was aware of a more up to date survey which showed the presence of the asbestos in the hallway, living room, and loft the landlord had screeded over the parquet flooring in the living room and left the hallway tiles even though they were damaged the landlord had put her and her children at risk the landlord had not kept her updated or called her back when requested the landlord had left the carpet gripper rods in the hallway there were outstanding repairs that the landlord should have completed during the void period, such as issues with the light fittings, incorrect installation of the vent on the chimney, issues with the wet room including the drainage, a leak through the kitchen ceiling, and issues with the bathroom ceiling
25 July 2025	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response. It said it partially upheld the complaint. It said: it apologised for the service the resident had received in relation to the void repairs it had provided asbestos information from 2011 and 2015. It had completed a new survey in June 2025 but the data was not available at the time of sign up it had since provided the updated asbestos report and it had offered the resident an air reassurance test, which she had declined until after it had removed the hallway floor tiles the asbestos floor tiles had appeared to be in a good condition with minor cracks, which it had filled with latex to prevent further issues. Following an inspection it had agreed to remove the hallway tiles, remove the carpet grippers, and latex the floor. It could not remove the vent to the chimney stack but it would carry out further works to the bathroom there were no visible leaks from the kitchen ceiling during the void works, but it had agreed to stain block the ceiling the light fittings were adequate and had been filled around the edges, which was decorative and not a repair it would complete the necessary outstanding repairs once it had removed the asbestos tiles it was sorry it had not contacted the resident when requested but it had no record of her request for contact The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, although the date of escalation is unknown.
11 August 2025	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response. It said: it had completed the work to the hallway and living room floors its compliance team had informed the resident that the asbestos debris found in 2011 had been removed prior to the survey in June 2025. This was why it was not on the risk register the new risk level was based on the latest survey results it considered the property to be habitable despite the required work as it could complete the work while the resident was living in the property. However, it had agreed that the resident would return the keys so it could carry out the work it had placed the rent account on hold until it completed the work and returned the keys to the resident it estimated that it would complete all the necessary work before 25 August 2025. It would then charge rent. If this changed, it would let the resident know it would review the list of repairs provided by the resident
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said she wanted the landlord to either replace the shower with a bath or fix the shower so it drains properly, complete the outstanding repairs, and pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

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 the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy, including the presence of asbestos
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident told us that the presence of asbestos in her home and the outstanding repairs had affected her and her children’s 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.

What we have investigated

The resident told us that she signed the tenancy agreement for the property on 8 July 2025. Her tenancy was due to start on 14 July 2025. As part of the sign up process, the landlord provided her with a letter and a copy of the asbestos risk register in relation to her property. She said the landlord also provided copies of an asbestos management survey from June 2011 and a refurbishment/demolition survey following a kitchen refurbishment in March 2015. The surveys did not show the presence of asbestos in the hallway or living room of the property. This was because there was carpet in place at the time and it was not lifted for sampling.
Although the landlord had completed a further asbestos survey report on 10 June 2025, which did show the asbestos in the living room and hallway, it did not provide the resident with a copy. It said this was because the survey was not available at the time. The presence of asbestos in a property does not always mean there is disrepair. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have at least informed the resident of the content of the new survey at sign up. This would have ensured that she was aware of the location of the asbestos and did not disturb it unknowingly when moving into the property.
The resident first raised concerns about asbestos in the property on 14 July 2025. She said a neighbour had told her there was asbestos in the property. She told the landlord she thought the property was uninhabitable as it needed significant works. She said she could not move in and would stay at her existing property. The landlord said it would arrange a callback from someone who could help her. There is no evidence to show that the landlord called the resident back.
The landlord contacted its contractors on 16 July 2025. It said the resident had reported several issues with the property including damaged asbestos flooring in the hallway, carpet grippers left in the hallway, issues with the light fittings, issues with a chimney vent, issues with the wet room and shower drainage, and a leak from the kitchen ceiling. It asked its contractor to pick up the issues and schedule the work in promptly. This was an appropriate response. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord’s surveyor to inspect the property promptly given the extent of the reported outstanding repairs.
We have not seen a copy of the void survey, so we have been unable to confirm what the landlord’s contractors checked and what issues they found in the property. However, the landlord’s void lettable standard states it should remove any broken or damaged asbestos materials in line with regulation. It says it should service (if necessary) shower rooms with graded floors, checking all mastic, the gully, and pump. It should inspect wet room floors to ensure they are watertight and it should remove carpet grippers. Considering the issues reported by the resident, it would be reasonable to conclude that the property was not likely in line with the landlord’s lettable standard when it let the property to the resident.
The landlord’s surveyor confirmed in an internal email that he had requested the removal of the asbestos floor tiles and gripper rods in the hallway, which was appropriate in the circumstances. He said the resident was also concerned about the adhesive product under the living room floor, which contained asbestos. He said, in his opinion, the asbestos was encapsulated beneath the vinyl tiles, latex screed, parquet flooring, and primer. He said it was a void standard finish and the resident would need permission if she wanted to change the flooring. This was in line with the tenant’s handbook. It was also in line with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance which says when asbestos containing materials are in a good condition and not likely to be damaged, they should be left in place and the risk managed.
During a call with the landlord on 18 July 2025 the resident asked for a copy of the latest asbestos survey. She said she would move into the property if the survey showed that the property was safe. She confirmed she was still living at her old address and would be charged rent on both properties. An asbestos contractor visited the property on 22 July 2025 and met with the resident. They confirmed that the hallway floor tiles contained minimal amounts of asbestos, so any exposure would be minimal. They confirmed the textured wall coating did not contain asbestos and checked for asbestos debris in the loft. They noted that the floor tiles in the living room were already lifting and that the floor was uneven. This was a reasonable course of action for the landlord to take in the circumstances, as it gave the resident the opportunity to speak to the contractor directly about her concerns.
However, there was some confusion around the habitability of the property. The landlord said it considered the property habitable following the contractor’s visit. The resident said the asbestos contractor had said it was not habitable. However, there is no evidence to show that the contractor considered the property uninhabitable. Following further discussions, the landlord agreed on 24 July 2025 that it would also remove the living room floor and screed the surface to match the hallway floor level. This was reasonable of the landlord and demonstrated a resolution focussed approach, as it was under no obligation to do so, the asbestos having been encapsulated in line with HSE guidance.
The landlord’s contractor removed the hallway floor tiles and lounge floor on 25 July 2025. It also conducted an air reassurance test, and the results were satisfactory. The landlord had agreed the works and completed them without delay.
The landlord’s surveyor visited the property on 28 July 2025. The resident said he asked her to send a list of outstanding repairs to the landlord, which she did on the same day. The list included issues with the front door, external concrete, light fittings, chimney vent, banister, toilet, shower drainage, leak into the kitchen, floorboards, kitchen, plastering, and possible asbestos in the loft. She chased the landlord on 1 August 2025 as she said it had promised a plan of action and confirmation of what works it would complete by 29 July 2025, but she had not received anything. She also said she was expecting a call on 30 July 2025 but no one had called. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s email or called her back. However, she handed her keys back to the landlord on 4 August 2025 so it could complete the work.
In its stage 2 response the landlord appropriately confirmed that it had removed the asbestos containing floors in both the hallway and living room. It also appropriately confirmed that it had placed a hold on the resident’s rent account until it had completed the repairs. However, it did not confirm which repairs it would complete while it had the keys and which repairs it would review. It did not acknowledge that the property most likely did not meet the void standard when let. It did not recognise that it should have given the resident the most up to date asbestos survey at sign up. It also did not acknowledge its communication failures.
Although the landlord had resolved some of the more significant issues raised by the resident, there were still outstanding repairs with no plan of action in place. This left the resident without a full resolution to her complaint. On that basis, we find that there has been maladministration. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. This is also in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The resident told us that she moved into the property in early September 2025. She said the landlord has completed some of the repairs, but not all of them. She is particularly concerned about the drainage issues within the bathroom and the associated leaks as this affects one of her children in particular due to his auto immune condition. We have therefore made orders in relation to the outstanding repairs.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 16 July 2025. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord acknowledged the complaint. However, the landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 25 July 2025. This was within the overall timeframe set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
It is unclear from the evidence provided when the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 and whether the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 response. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping practices. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 11 August 2025. Given that this was only 10 working days from the date of the stage 1 response, it would be reasonable to conclude that this was within the required timeframes set within the landlord’s policy.
Although we have been unable to assess certain elements of the landlord’s complaints process due to the lack of evidence provided, there is no evidence of any detriment caused to the resident. On that basis, we find that there has been no maladministration.

Learning

The landlord must ensure it provides up to date information on the location of asbestos in its properties on letting to ensure residents are not unintentionally exposed to asbestos. The landlord should also have systems in place to ensure its properties meet its lettable standard before they are let.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The evidence was lacking in sufficient detail and there were gaps in the evidence provided. The landlord did not provide copies of key documents such as the void survey, the stage 1 and stage 2 acknowledgement letters, or the resident’s complaint escalation letter. This affected our investigation to some extent.

Communication

The communication between the landlord and resident was poor at times. There were occasions when the resident contacted the landlord chasing repairs or asking for updates, yet there is no evidence that the landlord responded.