Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

Ashford Borough Council (202335294)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335294

Ashford Borough Council

11 September 2024

 

Amended 13 December 2024

 

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. A roof leak and ceiling repairs including the removal of asbestos at the resident’s property.
    2. Concerns about difficulty contacting the landlord’s staff members and unacceptable comments from a staff member.
    3. Concerns about the landlord’s contractor’s conduct and standard of work.
    4. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The resident’s children have autism and one of them has a heart condition. The resident has made the landlord aware of these conditions.
  2. On 26 October 2023, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about the landlord’s response to a roof leak, ceiling works including the removal of asbestos, comments from a staff member and difficulties in contacting the landlord. The resident explained she had water damaged asbestos ceilings, which posed a serious risk to her and her family but mostly to her, due to her serious medical condition affected by damp, mould, chemicals, and dust. She also stated that she received unacceptable comments about her daughter’s disability via email from the landlord’s member of staff.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident about the roof leak, ceiling works, comments from a staff member and delays in the landlord’s contact on 13 November 2023. It acknowledged that the resident had experienced difficulties contacting selected staff members and apologised for this. In addition, the landlord confirmed that the removal of all asbestos containing material and remediation works were carried out by licenced contractors. It explained that it would continue with the plan for its contractor to carry out localised repairs to defects to the ceiling and to the bottom of the stairs. However, the landlord stated it had also instructed an alternative contractor, to remove and reinstate the ceiling to bedroom 2 in its entirety, as previously completed in the other bedroom. It also explained that its contractor had been instructed to hack off the defective plaster to the kitchen wall and reinstate the affected plasterwork in full. The landlord confirmed that it referred the roof leak to a roofing specialist, and they would be in contact to arrange access. Finally, the landlord apologised for the comments its staff member said about the resident’s daughter.
  4. On 29 November 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She explained she wanted her complaint escalated about the landlord’s handling of repairs to her house.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 5 January 2024. It acknowledged the resident’s roof was still leaking, and it had arranged for a different contractor to complete a temporary repair to the roof. The landlord confirmed that the repair was only a temporary measure until the scaffolding could be erected, and it stated it expected this to be the week beginning 8 January 2024. It also explained that it had instructed its other contractor to contact the resident to address the water tank in the loft, remove and reinstate the bedroom ceiling and remove and reinstate the defective plaster in the kitchen. The landlord offered an additional apology for the comments made about the resident’s daughter and explained the staff member’s line manager would discuss the matter with the staff member to offer advice and guidance going forward. The landlord apologised for the delay in repairing the roof and the inconvenience caused and offered the resident £200 compensation.
  6. Shortly after the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, the resident expressed she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered. On 18 January 2024, the landlord contacted the resident and explained that it had increased the offer to £1000 to recognise the inconvenience and delays the resident and her family had experienced.
  7. On 1 March 2024, the resident submitted an additional complaint to the landlord about the conduct and standard of work of the landlord’s contractor. The resident explained that the contractor who attended put up plaster-boarded plastic sheeting on her ceiling even after she raised it would be an issue. In addition, the resident stated the contractor did not cover the floor properly and did not plasterboard the ceiling properly. She also stated that he broke her radiator, and it leaked over her laminate flooring. The resident also stated that the contractor failed to clean after the works, and it took her around 6 hours to clean the living room. She also explained that the contractor made comments that anyone could take her belongings from her house.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident about the conduct and standard of work of its contractor on 13 March 2024. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and frustration caused by the issues the resident experienced with its contractor. It explained that it investigated the concerns raised by the resident, and it identified that the contractor boarded over the sheet instead of removing it, which was an unacceptable oversight. The landlord stated that immediate action was taken to rectify this, and an alternative operative was sent to the resident’s property to ensure that the work was completed to the required standard. It also stated that it had addressed the matter regarding the comments made by the operative and reinforced the expectations regarding professionalism and respectful communication with residents. Finally, the landlord also confirmed that it took responsibility for the damage caused to her radiator, property, floor, and wall surfaces. It explained that it was committed to resolving these issues promptly.
  9. On 24 April 2024, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint process. She requested her complaint about the conduct of the contractor and damages to be escalated to stage 2. She stated the landlord had done nothing to remedy the damage caused by its contractor.
  10. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 11 June 2024. It apologised for the delays in repairing the damage to her home. It explained that it would be in contact with the resident soon to arrange an appointment to replace the flooring in the lounge and kitchen, replace the extractor fan in the bathroom and to overhaul the windows. The landlord offered the resident £400 compensation to recognise the inconvenience she experienced.
  11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that her desired outcome was for the landlord to complete all outstanding repairs and pay additional compensation.

 

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns that the roof leak and asbestos issue had been ongoing for years. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about the length of time the issue has been ongoing for, we have seen evidence to confirm this is a longstanding issue. However, there is no evidence of her raising a formal complaint to the landlord until October 2023. In view of the time periods involved in this case and considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this report will not consider any specific events approximately more than 12 months prior to when the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord in October 2023. This is because paragraph 52.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website), explains that this service will not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising.
  2. The resident has mentioned as part of the complaint that the asbestos at her property posed a serious risk to her and her family’s health and particularly to her health as she had a medical condition affected by chemicals. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her and her family’s health. We understand this has been a difficult time for the family. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any specific impact on her and her family’s health. It would be more appropriately suited for a court or liability insurer to investigate it as a personal injury claim. Courts can award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman and review medical evidence. However, it is generally accepted that asbestos fibers can pose a significant health risk and landlords are required to take appropriate action to assess and reduce these risks. This service can consider the general risk and any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her and her family’s health.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of a resident’s property and the building in which it is situated in good repair. The policy also states a leaking roof is considered a routine priority repair, and it will respond within 7 days. Furthermore, the policy explains that if there is a concern about asbestos, the landlord will carry out an inspection prior to any repair works taking place.
  2. In addition, the landlord’s repairs policy includes the following response timescales for the following repair categories:
    1. Emergency repairs – the landlord will respond within 24 hours.
    2. Routine priority repairs – the landlord will respond within 7 days.
    3. Routine general repairs – the landlord will respond within 28 working days.
  3. The landlord’s customer care policy states that its staff will be efficient, reliable, courteous and listen to residents. In addition, the policy explains that the landlord aims to treat everyone in a polite, friendly, and fair way, and it is committed to equality when delivering all of its services.

A roof leak and ceiling repairs including the removal of asbestos at the resident’s property.

  1. The resident submitted her complaint about a roof leak and damaged ceilings with asbestos to the landlord in October 2023. However, the Ombudsman has noted from the landlord’s records for contextual reasons that the landlord inspected the resident’s roof and chimney for a reported leak in November 2021.
  2. In December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and explained that there were numerous holes in the property and damage to her child’s bedroom. She also stated she was made aware that there was asbestos in the property and requested for this to be assessed.
  3. There was a delay in the landlord carrying out the repairs to the damaged ceiling with asbestos. The landlord initially raised a work order in January 2023 for patch repair works to resolve holes in the ceiling and also to remove and reinstate the ceiling in the resident’s daughter’s room. However, the landlord’s records indicate the landlord’s contractor did not attend the resident’s property until 22 March 2023 to carry out the works to the ceiling. But when the contractor attended on 22 March 2022, they could not gain access to the property. The delay by the landlord was unreasonable. However, it is acknowledged that it being unable to gain access would have been outside the landlord’s control.
  4. Due to the no access, the landlord rebooked a new appointment for 19 April 2023 to complete the works. However, the resident was unavailable on this date and rebooked for 4 May 2023. Following this, there was a further delay in the appointment going ahead because the landlord’s contractor had to take emergency leave and a new appointment was rebooked for 8 June 2023. The resident was unavailable on 8 June 2023 and rebooked the appointment for 22 June 2023. However, the landlord could not commit to this date as the asbestos contractor was not available then. The resident asked if the landlord could complete the works after 27 July 2023 onwards. It is recognised that there were several delays due to no access and availability and the Ombudsman recognises the landlord would not have had any control over this.
  5. Following this, the landlord failed to carry out the works to the damaged ceiling and due to this the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord in October 2023 stating that the works were still outstanding, and the asbestos in the damaged ceiling was a risk to her and her family’s health.
  6. In addition, the landlord’s records from 7 November 2023 reference that the resident’s roof was leaking around the chimney. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 13 November 2023 about the damaged ceilings with asbestos and the roof leak. It explained that it would continue with the plan for its contractor to carry out the repairs to the defects to the ceiling and to the bottom of the stairs. However, the landlord stated it had also instructed an alternative contractor to remove and reinstate the ceiling to bedroom 2 in its entirety, as previously completed in the other bedroom, and resolve the issues with plasterwork in the kitchen. The landlord also confirmed that it had referred the roof leak to a roofing specialist, and they would be in contact with the resident to arrange access. The landlord’s response was reasonable as it agreed to complete the necessary works.
  7. However, the landlord failed to complete all the works it agreed to in its stage 1 complaint response and, as a result, the resident escalated her complaint to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident in January 2024. It confirmed that its contractor had completed a temporary repair to the roof and confirmed that it would carry out a permanent repair to the roof in January 2024 once it had erected scaffolding. The landlord also confirmed that it had instructed a different contractor to contact the resident to provide a date to carry out the work to resolve the damaged ceiling and asbestos. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that there were delays in completing the necessary works. It apologised for the delays and offered the resident £200 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
  8. Shortly after the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, the resident expressed she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered. The landlord reviewed the compensation and on 18 January 2024, it contacted the resident and explained that it had increased the offer to £1000 to recognise the inconvenience and delays the resident and her family had experienced. The compensation amount offered by the landlord was sufficient to recognise the delays as explained further below in this assessment.
  9. On 22 January 2024, the landlord’s contractor erected scaffolding and shortly carried out the works to the roof. Although there was a delay in the landlord repairing the roof, the landlord eventually took the necessary action to resolve the issue.
  10. On 15 February 2024, following a request from the resident for the landlord to visit her home to inspect the conditions she was living in, it decanted the resident and her family to a local hotel, so it could complete the ceiling works and removal of the asbestos. The landlord acted appropriately by decanting the resident and her family, particularly as asbestos can cause a health risk.
  11. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord and requested a copy of its asbestos report completed by the asbestos contractor which it hired. However, the landlord could not provide a copy of this. The Ombudsman suggests going forward that the landlord implements a process to ensure that it keeps copies of asbestos reports for the necessary time period so it can provide reassurance to residents that asbestos has been properly removed where appropriate.
  12. All the ceiling, plastering and decoration works, such as making good, were completed in February and March 2024. Overall, there was a considerable delay in the landlord completing these works and the Ombudsman recognises it must have been difficult for the resident and her family living in the property whilst the works were outstanding. However, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays, and it offered the resident £1000 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
  13. The amount of compensation awarded by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £1000 or more where there have been serious failings by the landlord, which had a significant long-term impact on the resident. The compensation amount offered proportionately reflects the significant impact of the delay on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case for the landlord’s handling of a roof leak and ceiling repairs, including the removal of asbestos at the resident’s property.

The resident’s concerns about difficulty contacting the landlord’s staff members and unacceptable comments from a staff member.

  1. The resident also raised in her complaint sent to the landlord in October 2023, that she had experienced difficulty contacting the landlord’s staff and also that one of the landlord’s staff members made inappropriate comments about her daughter.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 complaint response. It explained that its staff members’ availability might be sometimes limited, but they generally tried to return calls or messages by telephone or email. However, it apologised to the resident that she had not experienced this and had difficulty contacting its staff members. The landlord’s response was reasonable in this instance, and it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the service failure.
  3. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that the comments made by its staff member were completely inappropriate, and it apologised for the comments which were made. The landlord also stated that it would ensure that all its staff were reminded about the level of service they are expected to provide to residents and that they are respectful at all times. In addition, the landlord also provided a further apology in its stage 2 complaint response for the comments made by its staff member and confirmed that it had instructed the staff member’s line manager to discuss the incident with them and offer her advice and guidance. It also stated that learning from the incident would be shared across the entire neighbourhood team.
  4. The Ombudsman recognises it must have been a very distressing experience for the resident receiving inappropriate comments about her daughter’s condition. It is evident the landlord acted inappropriately in this instance and not in line with its customer care policy. It is important to note that matters of employment are separate from the complaints process and are confidential. Therefore, the Ombudsman would not assess or comment on any disciplinary action that the landlord may or may not take against its staff.  The landlord apologised for the incident and took necessary steps to prevent a similar incident happening in the future. In addition, the landlord also offered the resident an increased offer of £1000 compensation on 18 January 2024, which was to recognise the delays and failings for the repairs to the roof leak and damaged ceilings with asbestos and concerns with difficulty contacting the landlord’s staff members and unacceptable comments from a staff member. Therefore, the landlord took reasonable steps to acknowledge the failure in its service, and the compensation amount offered, and apology is in line with the  remedies guidance referenced above. It proportionately reflects the impact on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case for its handling of concerns with difficulty contacting the landlord’s staff members and unacceptable comments from a staff member.

Concerns about the landlord’s contractor’s conduct and standard of work.

  1. In March 2024, the resident raised a separate complaint to the landlord about the conduct of its contractor and also the standard of work it completed. In relation to the contractor’s conduct, she explained the contractor made comments that anyone could take her belongings from her house. Then, regarding the standard of work completed by the contractor, she explained the contractor did not cover the floor properly and did not plasterboard the ceiling properly. She also stated that he broke her radiator, and it leaked over her laminate flooring and the contractor failed to clean up after the works, and it took her around 6 hours to clean the living room.
  2. The landlord acknowledged and apologised in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses for the issues the resident experienced with its contractor. It confirmed it had spoken to the contractor regarding the comments it made to the resident and reinforced its expectations regarding contractors being professional and having respectful communication. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising to the resident for the comments she received from the contractor and speaking to the contractor to prevent something similar happening again in the future.
  3. In addition, the landlord explained in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses that it agreed with the resident that the contractor did not plasterboard the ceiling correctly and confirmed it responded immediately to the error and arranged for an alternative operative to complete the work to the required standard. The landlord took the relevant steps to resolve the poor standard of work by its contractor and acted reasonably in this instance to put things right.
  4. The landlord also stated that it would take responsibility for the damage caused to the resident’s radiator, floor and wall surfaces and stated it would resolve the damage promptly, including replacing the flooring in the lounge and kitchen. It also confirmed that it would replace the extractor fan in the bathroom and overhaul the windows. The landlord also offered the resident £400 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced from the issues with the contractor.
  5. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 28 August 2024 to confirm whether it had carried out all the repairs referenced above. However, it failed to respond. Therefore, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 5 September 2024 to confirm if all the repairs had been completed. The resident confirmed the landlord replaced the flooring in the lounge and kitchen in July 2024. However, she confirmed the landlord had not fixed the broken radiator, overhauled the windows, or replaced the bathroom extractor fan.
  6. As there are still repairs outstanding which the landlord confirmed it would book appointments for within 14 days of its stage 2 complaint, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of concerns about the landlord’s contractor’s conduct and standard of work. The landlord should carry out the works to complete the agreed outstanding repairs. In addition, it would be appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident an additional £200 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to complete the agreed repairs. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord, which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact.

The associated complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. The resident submitted her initial complaint to the landlord on 26 October 2023 about the landlord’s response to a roof leak, ceiling works, including the removal of asbestos, comments from a staff member and delays contacting the landlord. The landlord responded with its stage 1 complaint response on 13 November 2023. The response was slightly late by 2 working days.
  3. Following this, on 29 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 5 January 2024. This response was also slightly late by 2 working days. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint in both complaint responses. An apology was sufficient in this instance, as the delay was minimal.
  4. On 1 March 2024, the resident submitted an additional complaint to the landlord about the conduct and standard of work of the landlord’s contractor. The landlord responded with its stage 1 complaint response on 13 March 2024, which was within 8 working days. The landlord’s response was within the 10 working days timescale reference in the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
  5. The resident sent an escalation request to the landlord on 24 April 2024 and, following this, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 11 June 2024. The response was 12 working days late and not compliant with the timescales referenced in the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code. The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay when it provided its stage 2 response. Therefore, there has been a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint, and it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide a written apology for its delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response about the conduct and standard of work of the landlord’s contractor.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of a roof leak and ceiling repairs including the removal of asbestos at the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of concerns with difficulty contacting the landlord’s staff members and unacceptable comments from a staff member.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of concerns about its contractors conduct and standard of work.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for its delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response in relation to the conduct and standard of work of the landlord’s contractor.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for its handling of concerns about the landlord’s contractors conduct and standard of work. This amount is in addition to the £400 compensation the landlord offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
    3. Repair/replace the broken radiator.
    4. Overhaul the windows.
    5. Replace the bathroom extractor fan.
  2. The landlord must comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that landlord puts a process in place, to ensure that it keeps all asbestos inspection reports for the necessary period of time.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer made to her on 18 January 2024 of £1000 in compensation within 4 weeks if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.