Brighton and Hove City Council (202408882)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408882

Brighton and Hove City Council

15 November 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 the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about asbestos linked to plastering works.
    2. Reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
    3. Reports of repair issues relating to electrics.
    4. Reports of repair issues with a kitchen worktop.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a flat in a block owned by the landlord. She lives with her family, including her 2 young children.
  2. The resident raised numerous issues with the landlord between June 2023 and her complaint on 20 February 2024 which related to multiple repair issues as set out in the complaint definition above. At the time of her complaint, all issues remained outstanding, and this formed the basis of the complaint.
  3. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 5 March 2024. In its response it provided an update on planned works but did not acknowledge all aspects of her complaint. It apologised for the issues she had faced and stated that its response would not represent closure of the complaint while it monitored works through to a satisfactory conclusion.
  4. On 2 April 2024, the resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 as the landlord had not responded to her queries about asbestos and she felt that it had not completed some repairs to a good standard. She stated its lack of communication and information was impacting on her mental health.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process on 30 April 2024. It acknowledged the time taken to complete repairs and the impact this was having on the resident and her family. It provided a list of outstanding works and recommended the use of a single point of contact to avoid confusion going forward.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to outstanding works and brought her complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint the resident has reported the effect that the issues have had on her the health of her children. The Ombudsman is not able to make a determination about any links between the issues and her health concerns. Under paragraph 42.f the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where this Service considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. However, the Ombudsman will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to their health is more appropriate for the courts and she may wish to seek appropriate advice if she wishes to consider that option.

Asbestos concerns

  1. The landlord’s asbestos management strategy sets out its responsibilities and approach in relation to asbestos within its homes. It manages asbestos works in line with its strategy and relevant legislation, such as the Control of Asbestos Regulations (CAR) 2012 and the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. Its repairs and maintenance team are responsible for undertaking individual assessments to check for asbestos in its housing stock before completing works.
  2. The landlord’s asbestos management strategy further states that, if a tenant enquires about asbestos in their home, it will provide any available information held on the asbestos register and refer them to national advice on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) website. It also includes advice for tenants in its repairs handbook and on its website.
  3. In its repairs policy, the landlord states that complex repairs are works that will take longer than 20 days to complete. These repairs include extensive or specialist work. Some repairs may also require further work when they are more complex. It does not indicate a timeframe for these works.
  4. The landlord contracted an asbestos surveyor to inspect and sample the resident’s bathroom ceiling and walls on 3 June 2023 ahead of completing plastering works. It wrote to the resident on 24 August 2023 advising that following its inspection of the plastering and its finding of hairline cracks, if asbestos were present it would arrange to remove this and complete replastering. However, if no asbestos were present, it would consider the cracks to be decorative and they would be her responsibility to repair.
  5. The contractor took a sample and provided the results from this to the landlord on 31 August 2023. Asbestos was present but they noted it as being very low risk and advised the landlord to only remove the asbestos if it would be affected by refurbishment works. Following this, on 26 September 2023, it raised works to scrape back the asbestos coating in the bathroom. However, it marked these works as cancelled without a clear reason and it has not provided evidence demonstrating that it communicated updates to the resident during this time.
  6. A further inspection by the asbestos surveyor took place on 4 November 2023 to assess the asbestos risk of the kitchen and lounge ceilings for further plastering works. While the landlord was awaiting the results of this, it began works on the bathroom ceiling in early January 2024. It chased the completion of these works with its plastering contractor on 30 January 2024, stating it had messed the resident around with various failed visits. She then chased it on 6 February 2024, and it booked and completed works to the bathroom walls and ceiling by 12 February 2024.
  7. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 February 2024 about several issues. As part of this, she stated that there were severe cracks on most walls, the safety of which was concerning her. She also stated that a test had confirmed the presence of asbestos in her bathroom walls and ceiling, and she was still waiting for further tests on other ceilings as she believed that they also contained asbestos. She noted that there were lots of cancellations and delays in completing the works and that she should not be responsible for redecorating the bathroom following works.
  8. The asbestos surveyor confirmed the presence of asbestos in the lounge and kitchen ceilings to the landlord on the 4 March 2023. They again advised the landlord to only remove the asbestos if it was affected by refurbishment works. It provided a stage 1 complaint response on 5 March 2023 and did not include these results. However, it is possible that the complaint handler would not have been aware of this at the time of its response. Nevertheless, in its response, it explained to the resident that asbestos is safe while it remains undisturbed, but its team would complete any works recommended following the recent survey and would contact her to arrange any appointments for these. Its response was fair when considering the information it had at the time, however, it did not address her point about cancellations and delays which would have been reasonable of it to do as she had raised it as part of her complaint.
  9. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 26 March 2024 to assess the scope of works required to the crack in the lounge and kitchen ceilings. It noted that it needed to scrape back and encapsulate around the cracks and would only patch repair these areas. It advised her of this in an email on 28 March 2024. This course of action was appropriate as it would repair the ceilings without disturbing the asbestos which was in line with the advice given by the specialist in the asbestos report.
  10. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 2 April 2024 as she felt the landlord was not dealing with her concerns in a timely manner. She stated that she had asked it whether it had completed an asbestos survey prior to the recent ones on the kitchen, lounge, and bathroom ceilings. She also requested information on when it last surveyed the communal areas of the building as it had recently completed drilling works there. She stated that it had not given any clear information on what it planned to do about the asbestos, other than telling her it was safe if not disturbed.
  11. The landlord raised repairs to scrape back and encapsulate the cracks on the lounge and kitchen ceilings on 17 April 2024. The resident called it on 24 April 2024 asking whether it would be doing this to the entire ceilings as she was concerned that they were flaking and failing apart and did not want the contractor to just do the cracks. It checked with its contractor, and it had raised works to scrape and encapsulate the cracks only. The contractor asked the landlord to communicate this to her. It demonstrated good practice in checking this with its contractor ahead of providing its stage 2 complaint response to the resident.
  12. In its stage 2 complaint response of 30 April 2024, the landlord explained that the surveys completed in September 2023 and March 2024 were official surveys. It further explained that it only commissions surveys for specific rooms in relation to a repair need, so there had been no previous tests of the whole property. The surveys completed advised that it only needed to remove the asbestos if the area would be affected by refurbishments works. It confirmed that the main areas of concern for works were the cracks in the lounge and kitchen ceilings and that its repairs team would not complete works that it had assessed as cosmetic only.
  13. The landlord’s complaint response was factual and informative in relation to the safety of asbestos and the works it would complete. However, while it did empathise with her frustrations over the time it was taking to complete repairs, it did not apologise for delays or offer any dates for completion of works. Evidence provided by the landlord shows that it did not complete works to the kitchen and lounge ceilings until September 2024.
  14. Overall, while repairs to areas containing asbestos materials can be complex in nature, there were delays in the landlord completing works. It does not specify a timescale for completion of these in its repairs policy, however, this Service would expect a landlord to keep a resident updated with the progress of works. While it did provide information in its complaint responses about asbestos safety, it did not offer sufficient explanation for delays in completing works in either of its complaint responses, nor did it offer sufficient remedy for this. As such, a finding of service failure is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Damp and mould

  1. The resident first raised issues with damp and mould during a visit by the landlord’s plastering supervisor on 9 February 2024. She showed it a wet patch on the wall behind peeling wallpaper and it raised works to investigate this further. The investigation took place on 19 February 2024, and it found that all external walls in the property needed stripping and mould treatments completed. It demonstrated good practice by completing the investigation within 7 working days. Its repairs policy includes anti-fungal mould washes as routine repairs, which it will complete within 20 working days. Its prompt inspection was good practice and in line with its policy.
  2. Following its inspection, the landlord booked to start works at the resident’s property on 20 February 2024, the next day. It attended but could not finish works as it had to move onto another job and booked to return the next day. While this understandably frustrated the resident, it remained within its repairs policy timescales and provided prompt response dates.
  3. The resident raised concerns about the landlord not finishing the works on 20 February 2024 as part of her complaint on the same day. She was concerned that it would not have time to finish the job with the time available on the 21 February 2024. She felt that it needed to inspect exterior cracks on the walls in relation to damp and mould. It acknowledged her complaint on 21 February 2024.
  4. The landlord completed damp and mould works on 23 February 2024. It completed further works to fill in cracks under the lounge window on 1 March 2024 to prevent further water ingress. It provided a stage 1 complaint response on 5 March 2024 and stated it would arrange to inspect any further cracks once it completed damp and mould works. This was a confusing statement as it had already completed the damp and mould treatments, however, its overall response was fair.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 April 2024. She included concerns about how it had repaired the cracks under the lounge window as part of her request. She stated that it had filled them with mastic instead of plastering and asked the landlord if it deemed this as a repair. It responded on 30 April 2024 and stated that it had assessed the cracks as naturally occurring and superficial, and as such, it considered the repair to be appropriate. Its response followed internal investigation with its relevant operatives, and it was fair of the landlord to rely upon the professional opinion of its repairs team.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s response to damp and mould issues was prompt. It completed all works within 15 working days of the first report and acted in line with its repairs policy timescales. As such, a finding of no maladministration is appropriate for this element of the complaint.

Electrical repairs

  1. The resident did not include concerns about electrical repairs in her initial complaint. However, as the landlord raised works to inspect for damaged trunking and exposed cables in the lounge on 20 February 2024, it included it as part of its stage 1 complaint response. It had visited on 5 March 2024, ahead of providing its response on the same day. It stated that it would contact her about the trunking and any potential rewiring of the home. This was a good response, and it offered a reasonable and appropriate action going forward.
  2. On 18 March 2024, the resident chased the landlord for an update as it had not contacted her about the electrical repairs since its complaint response. It investigated this internally and found that its carpentry and electrical teams were planning to attend at the same time to complete works. She had also asked for an update on works to the heat sensor which it requested internally. It booked an appointment for both teams to attend on 7 May 2024. It communicated this to her on 28 March 2024. Its response was reasonable as it was organising a coordinated response from 2 teams to avoid delays.
  3. In the resident’s stage 2 escalation request of 2 April 2024, she asked for an update on when she should expect contact from the landlord’s electrical team to see if the property needed rewiring and whether a fixed wire test had already been completed when the heat sensor light in the kitchen was fitted. It responded at stage 2 on 30 April 2024 and clarified her concerns. It explained that the heat sensor light would have needed its own test to confirm it was working, which was not the fixed wire test. It stated its electrical team would contact her to arrange a full electrical test.
  4. The landlord’s response to this element of the resident’s complaint was fair and informative. It provided a clear explanation of works it had completed and works that it was due to complete.
  5. The landlord completed works to remove any redundant electrical trunking and replace required trunking as planned on 7 May 2024. While this did exceed its repairs policy timescale of 20 working days for routine repairs, the delays were not excessive in the circumstances due to the involvement of 2 separate teams and the works not being urgent in nature.
  6. From the evidence provided, it is unclear whether the landlord has completed the electrical test in relation to potentially rewiring the property. In her complaint to this Service, the resident stated that works to the electrics remained outstanding. She has advised the Ombudsman that in August 2024, it advised all residents of the block that there are fire safety concerns with the building structure and its actions going forward were unclear in relation to tenancies.
  7. This Service acknowledges that the ongoing uncertainty may have changed the landlord’s repair and maintenance priorities, however, it does not appear to have completed the electrical test it offered to the resident as part of its stage 2 complaint response and as such a finding of service failure is appropriate.

Kitchen worktop and sink repairs

  1. The resident reported issues with water leaking between the kitchen worktop and the wall to the landlord on 12 September 2023. It raised works on the same day with a target completion date of 10 October 2023. It attended on 14 November 2023 and noted that it required a replacement worktop by 12 December 2023 but that it had temporarily sealed around it. It has provided no evidence to demonstrate that it attended any more after this visit prior to the resident’s complaint in February 2024. This was not in line with its repairs policy timescales for routine repairs and exceeded its own target date for works.
  2. As part of her complaint on 20 February 2024, the resident stated that the landlord had advised her worktop needed replacing on 14 November 2023. She said that it had booked this for completion on 8 April 2024 after she had chased it. It did not directly address this in its stage 1 response on 5 March 2024 but did state that it would inspect “any other repair issues” on 8 April 2024. This was the same date that it had booked works for. Its response was poor. It did not apologise directly for the delays so far at this stage, nor did it offer any form of redress for this.
  3. The landlord updated the resident about several outstanding repairs on 28 March 2024. This email included confirmation of the appointment on 8 April 2024 to replace her worktop. She did not directly raise this as part of her complaint escalation request on 2 April 2024, but stated more generally that she felt it was not taking her concerns seriously or dealing with them in a timely manner.
  4. The landlord’s plumber attended as arranged on 8 April 2024 to disconnect the sink ahead of works, it had no carpenter available to complete the required worktop replacement and rebooked works for 30 May 2024. While this Service understands that staff availability can change as part of a live repairs service, it had planned these works almost 2 months prior, and it had already exceeded its routine repair timescale of 20 working days. Having to reschedule works for a further 36 working days later would not have helped towards rebuilding the resident’s trust in it to complete repairs.
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response of 30 April 2024, the landlord reiterated the appointment date of 30 May 2024 for the works. It did not apologise directly for the delays but made a general apology for the impact that the condition of the property was having on the resident. It did not offer any compensation or alternative redress for the delays in relation to this element of her complaint. Its complaints policy outlines several ways in which it can put things right, including an apology, follow-up actions or compensation payments.
  6. The landlord completed works on 30 May 2024 as advised, 180 working days after it first raised works. Overall, its response to this issue was poor and it did not offer sufficient remedy to put things right considering the significant delays. As such, a finding of service failure is appropriate and an appropriate order for financial compensation will be made in the orders and recommendations section of this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about asbestos linked to plastering works.
    2. Reports of repair issues relating to electrics.
    3. Reports of repair issues with a kitchen worktop.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £225, broken down as follows:
      1. £75 for the failure identified in its handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos linked to plastering works.
      2. £75 for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues relating to electrics.
      3. £75 for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues to a kitchen worktop.
    2. Write an apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    3. Provide the resident and this Service with information on whether it intends to complete the previously agreed electrical test of the property or whether this now forms part of a wider plan in relation to ongoing building safety concerns.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss any ongoing concerns she has about the condition of the property or the building in general.