Basildon Borough Council (202405680)
Back to Top
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202405680 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Basildon Borough Council |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Secure Tenancy |
|
Date |
2 April 2026 |
Background
- The resident complained about delays in remedial works following the removal of asbestos floor tiles in his living room. He subsequently arranged the repairs privately and sought reimbursement of those costs from the landlord. The resident has COPD and also experiences mental health issues.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
a) Reports of repairs to the living room flooring.
b) Complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found:
a) Maladministration for the landlord’s response to the living room floor repair.
b) Maladministration for its complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Response to living room floor repairs
- The landlord unreasonably delayed completing living room flooring repairs and did not provide clear reassurance about the resident’s ongoing asbestos concerns. It also failed to communicate effectively or keep adequate records, which contributed to avoidable confusion and frustration. While the landlord later offered redress after its stage 2 response, this did not recognise the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the repairs, and his loss of confidence in the landlord.
Complaint handling
- The landlord did not keep clear and accurate complaint records and was unable to evidence the resident’s original complaint, which created confusion about how it logged and handled the resident’s complaints. It also issued two stage 2 responses outside its normal process, leading to avoidable inconvenience as well as uncertainty for the resident about the complaint process. It did not recognise this failing in any of its complaint responses.
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:
|
No later than 30 April 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows:
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 30 April 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
April 2024 |
The resident complained to the landlord about delays in repairs to his living room flooring. He was unhappy that its contractor had postponed works to re-instate the flooring from May to August 2024. |
|
15 April 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. The main points were:
|
|
16 April 2024 |
The resident escalated his complaint. He disputed being aggressive and stated the contractors had turned up unannounced. |
|
26 April 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. The main points were:
|
|
9 May 2024 |
The resident contacted the landlord about his stage 2 complaint. The resident said he apologised for being rude to operatives and call handlers. He said he was frustrated about work to his property completed to a poor standard, which was impacting on his health. The resident submitted an independent asbestos certificate. |
|
13 May 2024 |
The landlord sent a further stage 2 response to the resident which responded to his concerns about his reports about asbestos. It said:
|
|
3 October 2024 |
The landlord’s contractor sent a further outcome to the resident setting out the overall history of repairs at the resident’s property. It offered a sum of £780 to reflect the inconvenience caused by the resident’s inability to fully use two rooms in his property. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
When the resident brought his complaint to us, he said he wanted to get work redone to a good standard and to receive compensation for his time, stress and health issues. |
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 |
Repairs to living room flooring. |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- From October 2023, the resident raised several concerns after discovering asbestos floor tiles under carpets in the bedroom, hallway and living room. The landlord carried out a range of works, during which the resident reported delays and poor workmanship. This assessment focuses on the landlord’s handling of repairs to the living room flooring between October 2023 and its further stage 2 response in May 2024, as well as the later offer of redress in October 2024.
- Under the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for inspecting suspected asbestos and carrying out any work needed to make the home safe. Its policy states that it will complete responsive repairs within 28 days.
- The resident reported broken asbestos floor tiles on 4 October 2023. The landlord inspected the property on 10 October and raised an order for asbestos removal. The contractor attended on 20 October and prioritised the bedroom and hallway but did not remove the living room tiles until 27 February 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord not to undertake all these works at the same time given that this was a one bedroom property. It would have been good customer service for the landlord to have considered a temporary move at that time so that the works could be completed more quickly and at the same time.
- After removal, there was a further delay of around 6 months before it completed works to reinstate the living room floor. While it was reasonable for the landlord to phase the works and manage multiple contractors, the length of the delays was disproportionate and not in line with its repair obligations.
- On 12 April 2024 contractors attended to complete flooring works but were unable to proceed due to concerns about the resident’s behaviour. The landlord has a duty to safeguard staff and contractors, and its tenancy agreement allows it to act where harassment or intimidation is alleged. Referring the matter to its Anti‑Social Behaviour (ASB) and Tenant and Estate Management (TEM) teams was appropriate.
- In its stage 1 response on 15 April 2024, the landlord invited the resident to a joint visit with the TEM team and issued a warning letter. These were reasonable steps. However, it did not demonstrate that it attempted to understand the resident’s underlying concerns about delays and asbestos, which would have helped to rebuild communication at an early stage.
- The resident disputed the concerns about his behaviour, expressed frustration with delays and workmanship, and apologised to the landlord’s ASB officer. This was an opportunity for the landlord to reset communication and facilitate the continuation of repairs. In its stage 2 response on 26 April 2024, the landlord did not set out how it would move matters forward or address the resident’s concerns about asbestos or delays. This was a missed opportunity.
- The landlord referred to a joint inspection on 21 March 2024 where it agreed to complete remedial works. However, there is no evidence of what it discussed at that visit regarding asbestos concerns. The absence of clear records about its decisions and communication represents a record keeping failure.
- The resident contacted the landlord several times in March and April 2024 with concerns about remaining asbestos in the bitumen adhesive. When he reported that contractors had postponed an appointment from May to August 2024, the landlord brought the flooring works forward to 12 April 2024. This was appropriate. However, it did not provide assurance to the resident about whether asbestos remained after removal.
- The records show the landlord completed asbestos testing in the bedroom on 14 November 2023. The contractor’s October 2024 outcome letter states that after asbestos removal in the living room its environmental contractor issued a safety certificate, but the landlord did not provide this certificate during our investigation. It is also unclear whether it carried out further testing in the living room following the February 2024 removal works. Given the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide clear assurance or undertake further testing.
- While the landlord’s repair logs align with some of its communication records, they do not show how it responded to the resident’s asbestos concerns or provided explanations for delays. Better communication could have reduced frustration and prevented deterioration in the contractor and resident relationship.
- On 9 May 2024 the resident again apologised and provided an independent asbestos certificate dated 17 April 2024 confirming the presence of asbestos in the bitumen adhesive in the living room.
- In response, the landlord issued a further stage 2 reply on 13 May 2024. While it attempted to address the asbestos issue within its complaint findings, it referred only to testing undertaken in the bedroom in November 2023 and did not address the resident’s concern about the living room flooring. This indicated a poor understanding of the issue and meant that it did not respond to the resident’s valid concerns.
- The landlord’s environmental contractor completed further asbestos removal works from the living room on 15 August 2024. Contractors attempted to reinstate the flooring the following day but could not proceed because another contractor needed to complete follow‑on works. From this point, the relationship between the landlord and resident broke down, and the resident refused further offers to complete repairs.
- In September 2024, the resident instructed his own contractors despite the landlord advising it would not fund the works. The landlord had said it remained willing to complete the repairs and temporarily move the resident, but the resident declined.
- Between October 2023 and May 2024, the landlord unreasonably prolonged the living room flooring repairs. Although it took steps to safeguard its contractors and attempted to bring appointments forward, it did not demonstrate effective communication to understand the resident’s concerns about asbestos or explain delays. This likely contributed to frustration and erosion of trust. The landlord did not show how it had learnt lessons from the issues. This amounts to maladministration.
- The resident asked the landlord for a high level of compensation for the impact on his health. We cannot consider claims that would be more appropriately resolved by the courts, particularly where medical evidence is required. The courts are better placed to determine claims for personal injury or damages. We can, however, consider the distress and inconvenience caused by any service failures by the landlord.
- After the complaint process concluded, the contractor considered the resident’s request for compensation. In consultation with the landlord, they awarded £780 for disruption, distress and inconvenience. It said this amount reflected the loss of use of rooms from October 2023, but the landlord did not explain the full period covered. The resident said he declined the offer, but it was deducted from his rent account.
- When a failure has been identified, we consider whether the landlord’s redress was reasonable and in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. Because this offer was made after the complaint process ended, we cannot make a finding of reasonable redress. However, we can assess whether the amount was appropriate.
- The £780 offered approximately aligns with what we would award for the loss of the living room across a 10‑month period. However, the amount offered did not recognise the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the repairs and his loss of confidence in its ability to resolve the matter. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay an additional £300 to recognise this. This sum also reflects the fact that, due to his vulnerabilities, the landlord’s failings would have had a more severe effect on him compared to other residents in the same position without his vulnerabilities.
- We also order the landlord to apologise for the failings identified.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The landlord has a published complaints policy dated May 2025 that aligns with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This sets out the response times for complaint at stage 1 and stage 2 within 10 and 20 working days from the date of its acknowledgment, respectively.
- At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s previous policy applied, dated March 2022 which was not compliant with the Code. This set out that it would respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints in 15 working days from the date of its acknowledgment at each stage. Its policy sets out that a resident has 28 days following its stage 1 response to escalate a complaint for a stage 2 review.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 and 2 complaints within its expected policy timescales which is appropriate. It issued its stage 1 response in 8 working days on 15 April 2024. While this fell within its policy timescales, it said the complaint response followed the resident’s email about flooring works of his home dated 3 April 2024. However, we have not seen a record of the original email, and we note the resident mainly communicated by phone. The resident asked to escalate his complaint by phone on 16 April, which the landlord responded to at stage 2 on 26 April in 8 working days.
- When the resident raised further concerns on 9 May 2024 rather than issuing a new complaint response at stage 1, the landlord issued a second stage 2 on 13 May 2024. Its second stage 2 response was outside of its normal complaint handling processes. It has not provided a reasonable explanation for its extra complaint response. This is likely to have caused confusion for the resident about the outcome and the landlord’s complaints processes.
- The landlord has not been able to evidence the original complaint made by the resident or set out that it had a full understanding of the resident’s complaints. The absence of clear and accurate complaint records is a record keeping failure. Given the resident’s preferred method of contact was by phone, the gap in the landlord’s contact records has impacted on our ability to distinguish between service requests and complaints. This caused avoidable confusion when identifying when the resident was raising a complaint or requesting a repair.
- The landlord also provided limited complaint records. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide a clear and accurate chronology of its contact with the resident with a log of when it received complaints which clearly set out the method of contact. This lack of documentation hindered its ability to understand and respond to the resident’s concerns. It prevented us from assessing if it had fully addressed the resident’s concerns and how it met its complaint handling obligations. These shortcomings indicate both communication and record‑keeping failures. We are satisfied however that in its final complaint response the landlord addressed the matters the resident had raised within his escalation request of 16 April 2024.
- Given the absence of the original complaints, and its deviation from expected process of in its issue of a second stage 2 response in May 2024 we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.
- We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and to pay £150 in compensation as a remedy to recognise the confusion, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This is in keeping with our Remedies Guidance for this level of complaint handling failure.
Learning
General learning
- The landlord should reflect on how it manages contractor-resident interactions where behaviour issues arise. The Centre for Learning provides landlords with advice on contractor management and de-escalation practices by to ensuring a mutual understanding of expected conduct and how effective communication pre visit can help to minimise risk of conflict.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s repairs record was consistent with its communication records but there was an absence of a clear chronological customer contact log that prevented us from fully distinguishing between what was a complaint and what was a service request. This contributed to confusion for the resident. There was also a gap in record keeping in relation to its asbestos testing.
- The landlord should consider information provided in our Centre for Learning which sets out the importance of clear and complete records which is vital to evidence its actions and help to manage resident’s expectations.
Communication
- The landlord was coordinating multiple remedial works within the property. While delays were understandable it is clear communication with the resident deteriorated after issues with contractor appointment changes and poor-quality work. Our Spotlight report, Repairing Trust (2025) highlights the importance of communication and relationship management. Our Centre for Learning provides the landlord with best practice on the importance of resident engagement during complex repairs and in providing clear information that reduces escalation and dissatisfaction.
Complaint handling
- The absence of clear complaint records and the landlord’s issue of two stage 2 responses created avoidable confusion about the status of the resident’s complaints. It is good practice for the landlord to maintain a clear record of complaints and escalation to evidence how it has adhered to its complaint policy. Our Centre for Learning provides resources to support landlords to strengthen their approach to complaint handling. The landlord should reflect how it can provide a more structured approach for confirmation of when a matter is logged in writing to assist complainants understanding of where a particular complaint is in the process.