Believe Housing Limited (202127840)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127840

Believe Housing Limited

9 October 2022


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 repairs to the resident’s bathroom ceiling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 24 April 2006. The property is a two bedroom semi-detached house.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 November 2020 and reported an outstanding repair to a hole in her bathroom ceiling. She said that plaster was falling off the walls and that the bathroom was “covered” in mould. She said that the repair was supposed to be completed in March 2020, but had been cancelled due to the covid-19 pandemic and that she had not been updated since. 
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 15 January 2021. She said that it was coming up to a year since the job was cancelled and no one seemed to be interested in the work that needed doing. The draught coming through the ceiling was bad enough, but she was also having to constantly clean up dropping plaster and her son would not use the bathroom in case the ceiling fell down. The resident explained that her son was autistic with sensory issues.
  4. In a further email to the landlord of 18 January 2021, the resident said that she had had the same problem in her bathroom for years and that the ceiling was replaced but the problem kept happening.
  5. In its response of 28 January 2021, the landlord noted that the issue was first reported as a leaking roof on 6 December 2019 and attended on 6 January 2020. The landlord said that the roofer advised that the roof was fine, suggesting that the leak may be coming from the condensate pipe in the loft. A plumber attended on 9 January 2020 and advised that the condensate pipe be rerouted under the bath. The landlord noted that its repair records noted this as being completed on 28 January 2020 and that the resident contacted it on 6 February 2020 to raise a repair for her bathroom ceiling. The landlord said the appointment was rearranged by the resident for 24 March 2020 and then unavoidably delayed due to the national lockdown implemented in March 2020.
  6. The landlord said that as the resident had reported ongoing water ingress into the bathroom it surmised that the repair to the condensate pipe had not been completed. It said that if the repair had been completed, follow on works should have been arranged to repair the ceiling, which had not happened until the resident made contact on 6 February 2021. It said it would arrange for all necessary works to be actioned as soon as possible, that its findings would be discussed with the Repairs Manager as learning to improve its service and offered the resident £60 for time and trouble and the inconvenience caused.
  7. There is no evidence of further activity until the resident contacted the landlord in August and September 2021, as she said that no further action had been taken to rectify the issue, and raised a concern that “no one has been to do the asbestos scrapes”. She asked the landlord to address the issues as another formal complaint.
  8. The landlord visited the resident’s home on 8 October 2021. It issued its stage one response on 22 October 2021, and acknowledged that work to resolve the issues had not been carried out and said that it was clear that there were a lot of issues in the bathroom including a large hole in the ceiling and lots of black spots covering most of the walls. As a result, it agreed to conduct a “full survey” of the bathroom on 9 November 2021. The landlord offered the resident its sincere apologies, upheld the complaint and said that the further delays were due to its increased workload following the covid-19 pandemic, but accepted that its “communication could have been more effective”. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and revised its offer of compensation to £100. 
  9. The landlord carried out the Repairs Diagnostic Survey on 9 November 2021 as agreed. The surveyor noted that there was a hole in the ceiling of the bathroom where water had been coming in, that there were issues with damp and mould and damaged plaster. The surveyor said that the ceiling would need repairing again, the damaged plaster removed and renewed, and all the walls and ceilings affected by mould should be treated. The surveyor also noted that as there was black mould in the bathroom and the bedrooms, caused by heavy condensation and it may be that the one extractor fan was not enough and so a PIV unit should be installed to help with the issue.
  10. The landlord noted that the resident escalated her complaint on 13 December 2021, because the work had not yet been completed and because she said she was unsure of when these would be progressed.
  11. The landlord issued its stage two response on 1 February 2022, saying that there had been delays in completing the work due to an unprecedented demand for the repair’s diagnostics team. The landlord also referred to challenges such as staff isolation and obtaining parts and contractors. It apologised that it surpassed the timescales set out in its responsive repairs policy. It detailed a schedule of appointed works to resolve the issues, including plumbing, electrical, joinery and plastering jobs. It upheld the resident’s complaint as it acknowledged “service failure in relation to the duration of time taken to complete the work”.
  12. In an internal email of the same day, the landlord said that the following works were to be commenced the following day:
    1. 2 February 2022, electrician to disconnect bathroom lights.
    2. 3 February 2022, contractor to remove full asbestos ceiling  
    3. 4 February 2022, plumber to replace damaged pipe in celling.
    4. 6 February 2022, plaster to renew bathroom ceiling and skim.
    5. 7 February 2022. electrician to reinstate light.
  13. On 1 February 2022, the resident responded to the landlord’s final response raising concerns about wood in the attic that she had been told had rotted away due to the constant water dripping and that no one had done an asbestos scrape.
  14. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. Although there is no dispute that the repairs have since been completed, the resident believed the landlord had not fully addressed the impact of the situation, due to it taking two years to complete repairs. She described the impact the situation had on her family and their health, and believed the landlord had not given proper regard to their safety due to the ceiling containing asbestos. To resolve the matter, she wanted the landlord to revise its offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has caused to her and her families health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings.
  2. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The law, tenancy agreement and landlord policies

  1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord’s obligation to do so is confirmed in the resident’s tenancy agreement which states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, which includes the roof, internal walls and ceilings.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord offers a flexible appointment system for repairs (excluding emergencies which are carried out within 24 hours)
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states it does not “set limits regarding minimum and maximum amounts, instead [it will] judge each case on its own merits. [It] will… take into consideration regulatory guidance and case studies of similar awards”.
  4. Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 relates to housing conditions. This states that landlords have a duty to review housing conditions and identify any hazards that might exist. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) assesses 29 different types of housing hazards and the effect that each may have on the health and safety of occupants. Asbestos is one of the 29 hazards set out in the HHSRS. Under the HHSRS, the landlord needs to identify the location of any asbestos in the property, assess how vulnerable it is to damage and identify any current damage or potential fibre release.

Assessment

  1. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  2. The resident reported the repair to her ceiling in February 2020. As the landlord surmised in its stage one response of 6 January 2021, almost a year later, the works had not been completed. However, despite the landlord saying in its response that it would arrange for all necessary works to be actioned as soon as possible, there is no evidence of the landlord taking any further action until it visited the resident’s property in October 2021, a further nine months later.
  3. Having visited the resident’s property in October 2021, the landlord noted that the “condition of bathroom (was) terrible.” As such it was appropriate for the landlord to undertake a more extensive survey of the bathroom, and this was carried out on 9 November 2021. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to assess the full scale of the problem, it should have done this sooner, especially when the resident brought to its attention in August 2021 that the repairs had not been progressed since the landlord’s stage one response in January.
  4. The works to repair the ceiling were completed on 2 February 2022, two years after the resident first reported the repair. Furthermore, the resident was only provided with a clear timescale of all required works in the landlord’s final response, almost three months after they were established by the survey undertaken in November 2021. Considering the added delays and further impact this would likely have had on the resident, good practice would have been for the landlord to have revaluated its initial offer of compensation. Its omission of a fair and reasonable consideration of compensation was also a service failure.
  5. The repair records also show that the landlord was aware in late 2019 that an “asbestos scrape” was required as part of the remedial works. A repair job raised in January 2021 noted that the works were unable to be completed at that time as an asbestos survey needed to be done in bathroom ceiling, which indicates that it had not been done up to that point.
  6. The resident also raised concerns as part of her complaint in September 2021, that asbestos related work needed to be actioned before all repair work could be completed. However, no regard was given to the presence of asbestos in the survey undertaken in November 2021, nor in the landlord’s complaint responses other than it outlining a job to remove the asbestos ceiling in its final response. As the landlord did not demonstrate that it responded to the resident’s concerns regarding asbestos in a transparent manner, it therefore failed to demonstrate that it took the resident’s concerns seriously. This was unreasonable. Nor did it demonstrate that it took robust action to deal with asbestos in accordance with its obligations.
  7. If asbestos containing materials (ACMs) are in good condition and not likely to be damaged, they may be left in place as long as they are monitored. However, given that there was a hole in the ceiling, and that the resident consistently reported that plaster was crumbling, this indicated a potential issue with asbestos disturbance. In such instances, a landlord would be expected to inspect the issue as soon as possible in order to satisfy itself that its obligations are being met.
  8. The evidence does not show that the landlord surveyed the property with a particular focus to monitor asbestos, or to determine if asbestos had been disturbed, if it had deteriorated further, or if urgent removal was required. Nor does it show if the resident was kept informed about these matters. This is not in line with the HHSRS or good housing management, and was a significant failing that is likely to have caused the resident considerable distress.
  9. The resident has said that she was unable to use the bathroom for a period of three months. She told the landlord in January 2022 that she had not had a ceiling for seven weeks, and that she had stopped using the bathroom from 3 December 2021. It is unclear from the evidence how the extent of some work undertaken in December 2021 impacted the resident’s ability to use the bathroom during that time. However, considering that the resident reported this before the landlord agreed a full schedule of works which included the removal of asbestos, the landlord should have considered if a temporary move was more appropriate for the resident, but there was no evidence of it doing this.
  10. The landlord’s delay to address and complete the repairs to the resident’s bathroom was considerable, and its communication at times was poor. It appropriately acknowledged this and apologised, and offered the resident £100 compensation. However, its explanations that the delays were largely attributed to the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on its service delivery, did not go far enough.
  11. There were considerable unexplained periods where the landlord did not demonstrate that it took any robust action in attempt to progress the repairs. Therefore, the landlord has not demonstrated that the delays on its part were wholly unavoidable, and it was unreasonable that the resident had to raise multiple complaints to prompt the landlord into taking the necessary action.
  12. The combined service failures in this case amount to severe maladministration. The landlord did not only leave the resident’s bathroom in an unacceptable state of repair for approximately two years, but it excessively delayed in taking action to investigate the resident reports of water ingress and damp and mould, and it has not demonstrated that it gave adequate regard to the safety of the resident regarding its handling of asbestos.
  13. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge in its final response the full impact the ongoing situation would likely have had on the resident and to have considered the individual circumstances of the resident and her family. Its failure to do so was particularly notable, given that it had had a call with the resident where she was clearly distressed by the ongoing situation and the impact it was having on her son who has autism and sensory needs.
  14. Therefore, this Service does not consider the landlord’s offer of £100 to be a sufficient remedy. A higher amount is more proportionate to the overall distress and inconvenience the resident will likely have experienced over a considerable timeframe, the failure to act quickly on the asbestos concerns relating to the damaged ceiling, her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and its failure to consider the individual circumstances of the resident and her family, and the full impact the ongoing situation would likely have had . An amount has been ordered that is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for circumstances where severe maladministration has occurred, which will likely have had a severe physical and/or emotional long-term impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom ceiling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1,500 compensation, made up as follows:
      1. £400 for the distress and inconvenienced caused by the considerable delay in the landlord addressing the repair.
      2. £400 for the failure to act quickly on the asbestos concerns relating to the damaged ceiling
      3. £300 for the time and trouble to the resident of having to repeatedly chase the landlord for the repair to be completed.
      4. £300 for the landlord’s failure to consider the individual circumstances of the resident and her family, and the full impact the ongoing situation would likely have had.
      5. The £100 the landlord has already offered in its complaint response, which it must now pay to the resident if it has not already done so.
    3. To write to the resident and this Service to confirm what learning it has taken from this case and what steps it intends to put in place to ensure that the identified service failures do not happen again.
    4. That the landlord undertakes a formal review of its practices regarding how it deals with, responds to and monitors reports of asbestos, to ensure that they are recorded, investigated and responded to appropriately. The landlord is then to write to the resident and this Service to confirm the outcome of its review.