Camden Council (202007497)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007497

Camden Council

21 February 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of restorative works at the resident’s property, following a water leak.
2. The landlord’s handling of asbestos identified at the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an Assured Tenant, in respect of the property, since June 2009
The property is a flat located on the second floor.
This Service has been provided with a copy of the asbestos report, completed on 11 November 2020. Within this, the operative noted that asbestos had been found in the textured coating on the bedroom and bathroom ceiling. While this was considered to be a low risk, a recommendation was made to remove the coating in both places.

Scope

While it does not appear that the resident is seeking to pursue this aspect of the complaint, for clarity, his concerns regarding the information returned by the landlord following his Freedom of Information (FOI) request will not be addressed (or commented on) within this report. This is as it would be more appropriate for complaints concerning requests for information from organisations to be dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
As paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme sets out, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which properly fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body. Therefore, should the resident wish to follow this element of his complaint up, he will need to make contact with the ICO.

Summary of events

The Ombudsman is unable to confirm when the resident first reported that he was experiencing water ingress. On 1 October 2019, however, the landlord noted internally that an inspection was required of the resident’s property as he had reported damage to the plaster of the ceiling and walls in the bathroom, the bedroom, and hallway. It was confirmed with the resident that this would take place on 14 October 2019.
On 14 October 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to establish whether the appointment was still going ahead. He also reported that the cupboard doors in the hallway had now swollen as a result of the leak and would likely need replacing.
It appears that an operative attended the resident’s property later that day. The landlord’s notes show that following the inspection, an appointment to undertake plasterwork was scheduled for 30 October 2019 as approximately two weeks were needed to dry the flat out.
On 28 October 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that the leak had damaged the front door lock. He was advised on the same day that his appointment needed to be rearranged to 14 November 2019 due to a staff absence.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord attended the resident’s property on 14 November 2019 to assess the state of the plaster. It is unclear what the landlord’s operative concluded and what remedial steps were agreed.
The landlord’s records suggest that the damaged front door lock was addressed on 3 December 2019.
On 21 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord with a complaint. He asserted:
1. On 24 September 2019 a leak had occurred at his property. It was confirmed that this had resulted from a flood at his neighbour’s property.
2. He had reported this to the landlord and had been informed that someone would come out on the same day within four hours. It was not until midnight that a contractor arrived to turn the water off and leaving him with no heating. The heating was not turned back on for several days.
3. His property suffered a further leak as the issue had not been fixed. His property became damp, and mould began appearing in his bedroom. Several phone calls were made to the landlord, and an inspection was eventually arranged, however the plasterer arrived two hours late to the appointment.
4. The damage to the bathroom had not been inspected as it was advised that this needed to dry out. It was advised that this would be done at a follow-on inspection and the mould would be cleaned.
5. The door to the heating cupboard had expanded and was unable to close. He had reported that the cupboard door and panels needed to be replaced, however had been told that this would not be covered.
6. A further inspection was arranged to look at the cupboard, bathroom and front door which had now also expanded and caused issue with the door lock. During this visit, on 14 November 2019, the mould was treated with chemicals. The resident asserted that by this time, the mould had destroyed 12 pairs of trainers / shoes.
7. The door lock, cupboard door and panels were replaced during a later visit (in December 2019).
8. No works were undertaken in the bathroom as it was suggested that there could be asbestos in the ceiling. The landlord advised that a report would be submitted, and the asbestos team would make contact to run tests.
9. He had chased this matter up on 11 December 2019 and 7 February 2020. Despite being given confirmation that the asbestos team would make contact, it did not.
10. He advised that he had been left without heating for 28 days in total.
11. He reported that paint and other materials were falling from his ceiling throughout this time and nothing had been done about this. He stated that this was happening in the bathroom, and more recently in his bedroom, after the mould had been cleaned from his ceiling.
Upon receiving contact from the resident that he had not heard back from the landlord, this Service wrote to the landlord on 24 October 2020 to encourage it to provide a complaint response.
The resident confirmed with this Service that an asbestos test was undertaken on 11 November 2020.
On 21 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with a stage one response. It noted that the resident was unhappy with how it handled his reports of damage to his home following the leak, the discovery of asbestos, and the outstanding repairs to his bathroom. It stated:
1. The resident’s complaint had originally been assigned to the wrong person, which caused delays.
2. Its records showed that the resident made contact on 1 October 2019 regarding the damage to his bathroom following the leak. It attended on 14 October 2019 and reported that the property would need two weeks to dry out.
3. An appointment was arranged for 30 October 2019 however had to be cancelled as the operative had taken emergency leave. This was rearranged for 14 November 2019. During this appointment, fungal wash was applied to the bathroom, bedroom, hallway, cupboard, and downstairs. It also noted that the bathroom ceiling needed to be checked for asbestos.
4. A follow-on works order was issued on 17 February 2020 to check the asbestos and was inspected on 11 November 2020. It noted that this resulted from a breakdown in its process and the COVID-19 restrictions which meant it was only undertaking emergency repairs.
5. It stated that it was still only undertaking emergency repairs and repairs to communal areas but would undertake the outstanding works when it returned to normal services. It requested that the resident make contact with its repair team when it returned to full operation.

The landlord stated that it would offer compensation of £80 to account for the four-month delay in raising the asbestos order for testing.

On 22 January 2021 the resident requested that the landlord escalate his complaint. He advised that he would be seeking to establish whether the asbestos and mould had impacted his health, but wished to pursue his complaint further as:
1. After the flat flooded, it took several calls to arrange for someone to assess the damage.
2. The leak was not properly fixed, and this resulted in the flat flooding again.
3. The plasterer who had attended had done so two hours after the allotted time. Also, due to the delay in undertaking the inspection, and the occurrence of a second leak, the property was too wet for action to be taken on 30 October 2019.
4. The damage to the property worsened as the heating had been turned off. There was no heating for 28 days.
5. The operatives attempt to remove the mould (in the bedroom) had resulted in damage to the paintwork. The mould had also returned.
6. He had been advised that an asbestos test needed to be done before the plastering works would commence. He had chased the asbestos team but had only been told that it was being dealt with.
7. The heating rebate was sorted, however this did not cover the cost of the use of his own electric heaters. He was never offered anything from the landlord to deal with the lack of heat, damp, or moisture.
8. He received no response to his complaint on 17 September 2020 and subsequently had to chase this up with the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS). Upon calling the landlord on 19 October 2020, in which he again set out his complaint, he received contact from the asbestos team on 9 November 2020. The asbestos test was eventually carried out on 11 November 2020. While it was suggested that the results would be shared with him, this did not happen.
9. Upon seeking the intervention of HOS again, the landlord advised that the allocated Case Officer had since left the business, but contact would be made by 29 December 2020.
10. The findings of the asbestos inspection were not acknowledged in the stage one response received on 31 December 2020. Rather, it was only stated that it was safe to undertake the work when the normal service returned.
11. His Housing Officer had since advised that asbestos had been found and that this needed to be addressed as soon as possible. He questioned why he had not been told this before, why it had been deemed safe for him to live in such conditions, why the landlord had not re-inspected the property since 14 November 2019, and why an emergency repair had not been raised.
Records suggest that the asbestos was removed from the resident’s bathroom on 9 February 2021.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 19 February 2021. It apologised for the delay in getting back to him and that he was dissatisfied with the stage one response. It sought to arrange a time that it could speak with the resident on the phone about his complaint.
The resident responded on 22 February 2021. He advised the landlord that due to his previous experience, he preferred to discuss matters via email to allow for an audit trail.
On 23 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident requesting that he outline the resolution that he was seeking.
On 2 March 2021 the resident advised the landlord that he was waiting for a call back from his legal team. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord again chased the resident to confirm the outcome he was seeking on 9 March 2021.
On 11 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. It noted that the Asbestos Compliance Officer (ACO) had been in touch and had requested photos of the resident’s bedroom ceiling (which also contained asbestos). It acknowledged that there was still some black mould that needed to be treated before the asbestos team could attend and noted that the ACO would continue to liaise with the resident to ensure that the works were completed.
The landlord added that as it did not believe that the complaint would benefit from a review stage investigation, or that it would arrive at a different decision, it would not be escalating the resident’s complaint. The resident was subsequently advised to contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
On 30 March 2021 the landlord noted that upon discussing matters with the ACO, it had been confirmed that the asbestos in the bedroom ceiling was not an issue. The resident was advised, nonetheless, that once he had treated the damp and mould area, if he was still concerned, he could make contact.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 April 2021 explaining that since the asbestos had been scraped from his bathroom ceiling, he had been left with exposed concrete. He stated that this, along with three walls, needed to be fully plastered and that he would need a decorating allowance if the landlord was not going to restore the property to the original condition. He stated that the wooden compartment around the toilet also needed to be replaced. He emphasised that this had been left as the landlord had put off works due to the asbestos. He requested that this be addressed.
On 6 April 2021 the landlord advised the resident to send pictures of the works that were required.
The resident provided this on the following day. He also questioned why the plastering of the ceiling had not been scheduled after the asbestos team had been in, and why an inspection was never undertaken to consider the full extent of the damage at his property.
The landlord acknowledged, on the same day, that the matter had been difficult for the resident and that it had been slow to respond. It noted, however, that it had initially attempted to call the resident to obtain specific information about what was outstanding. It advised that it would look into the resident’s concerns.
On 23 April 2021 the resident advised the landlord that an operative had visited his property to skim the ceiling but had not mentioned the walls. He also explained that as the splashback panel from the shower had become loose, it was possible that there was damage behind this. He subsequently sought for the operative to remove the splashback panel, but this work had been refused. The operative had subsequently agreed that someone would be in touch and would return to assess all of the works needed to the bathroom. No works were completed on this day.
The Ombudsman notes that there was further back and forth conversation at this time. Still, the landlord did not provide the resident with answers to his questions. A telephone call was subsequently arranged between the resident and landlord to enable the landlord to understand what the resident was seeking to resolve his complaint. This took place on 28 April 2021.
Following this call, the landlord wrote to the resident to reflect the points discussed. It confirmed that it would now undertake a review of the resident’s case and would provide a response by 4 June 2021. The landlord noted the following outstanding issues:

Bedroom

The ceiling needed to be sealed by the Asbestos team.
Provisions were required for decoration to the ceiling or for the ceiling to be decorated by the landlord.

Bathroom

The ceiling needed to be plastered.

The splashback needed to be removed to inspect for any damage.
The wooden compartment behind the toilet needed to be replaced.
The door frames and skirting needed to be looked at as there was cracking.
Two walls in the bathroom had been damaged by the flooding and needed to be replaced.

On the same day, the landlord provided the resident with an insurance / public liability claim form should he wish to seek compensation for any personal belongings.
The resident confirmed on the same day that he was happy with the landlord’s summary but added that the bathroom needed to be redecorated too. He advised that he would use the £80 offered at stage one to redecorate the bedroom / bathroom ceilings.
Following back and forth conversation, the resident also confirmed for the landlord that he would be available for works to commence and be completed (as it was a three-day job) between 23-25 June 2021.
On 4 June 2021 the landlord provided the resident with a review response. It noted:
1. It had not replied to the resident’s initial complaint until it was contacted by HOS. It apologised for this.
2. Within its stage one response, it was acknowledged that there had been delays, particularly with the removal of Asbestos. No evidence of an outright service failure was found, however £80 compensation was awarded.
3. It noted that the resident contested this response on 22 January 2021, however it was unable to respond until several weeks later, partly due to the pandemic. The landlord noted that as the resident had not set out the outstanding issues, and had refused the option of a telephone call, his review request was declined.
4. The textured coating containing asbestos was removed from the bathroom on 9 February 2021 and the asbestos in the bedroom was sealed on 12 May 2021.
5. An inspection of the full damage to the property was arranged and undertaken on 7 May 2021. It was agreed:
  1. A decoration voucher would be provided for the bedroom.
  2. The bathroom ceiling would be plastered
  3. The splashback would be removed and inspected for any damage, and any remedial works would be done. The tiles would also be replaced.
  4. The wooden shelf behind the toilet would be replaced.
  5. The doorframes and skirting cracks would be addressed.
  6. Loose plaster on two damaged walls in the bathroom would be raked off and filled.
  7. The bathroom would be decorated.
The landlord noted that these works had been agreed to be completed between 23-25 June 2021. It also acknowledged that while its service had been impacted by the covid-19 pandemic, its communication could have been better and there was also a lack of remedy in 2019. It therefore would award the resident £200 (£100) for the time and trouble in respect of its lack of communication and time taken to complete remedial works, and an additional £100 for the distress caused. It would also be seeking to improve the communication from its repair service.
The Ombudsman can see that the works were completed to the resident’s satisfaction.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of restorative works at the resident’s property, following a water leak.

It is not disputed that the damage sustained to the resident’s property was the landlord’s responsibility to repair. The Ombudsman notes that the water ingress had been the result of a flood at a neighbouring property and had not been caused by any action, or inaction, taken by the resident.
In cases such as this, and upon receiving reports of damage to a property, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to take steps to fully assess the extent of the damage, and to undertake any remedial works required within a reasonable amount of time. This would enable a landlord to identify the works required and to reduce the detriment to the occupant by ensuring that restorative works are completed promptly.
What is reasonable and prompt in these circumstances will depend on the scale of the works required, the situation, and the timescales set out under the landlord’s repair guidance for similar work.
In review of this case, however, the Ombudsman can see that there was a significant delay in completing the required restorative works, in the landlord ascertaining the extent of the damage for itself, and subsequently, in offering an adequate repair service.
It is noted that following the resident’s initial reports of damage to the property, the landlord arranged for an inspection on 14 October 2019. The Ombudsman appreciates that at this time, as the property was still found to be damp, the landlord was unable to consider the full extent of the damages and subsequently arranged for a follow-up inspection, two weeks later. This was not unreasonable, although it might have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided the resident with equipment to assist / speed up the drying process (such as a dehumidifier), particularly given the number of weeks that had already passed, and as it appears that the resident’s heating had been turned off on or around this time.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that a number of repairs were undertaken upon the landlord’s return in November 2019 and later in December 2019, including attempts to remove the black mould, repair of the front door lock, and of the cupboards.
The Ombudsman has also considered it reasonable that despite advising the resident that plasterwork would take place in November 2019, once the property had dried out, the decision was taken to postpone works until the textured coating found on the bathroom ceiling was tested for asbestos. From a health and safety perspective, this was appropriate.
Under the landlord’s repair guidance, however, it indicates that where non-essential repairs have been reported, referencing plasterwork / patchwork specifically, the landlord will complete this within 20 working days. Therefore, while the Ombudsman appreciates that the works needed to be postponed, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged the asbestos testing as quickly as possible, to enable it to resume the plasterworks within this timescale (or as close to the timescale as reasonably possible).
It is clear, however, that this was not done. Contrary to the repair guidance, good practice, and what this Service would consider a reasonable length of time, the Ombudsman has noted that the works remained outstanding for approximately a year and seven months. This was unacceptable.
The Ombudsman recognises that the COVID-19 pandemic would have impacted the landlord’s service and resulted in it prioritising emergency repairs for some time. It is also noted, however, that guidance published by the government in May 2020 and June 2020 allowed landlords to resume routine repairs (while maintaining protective measures in line with public health advice). While the severity of the situation shifted on several occasions, and with recognition that the landlord would have had a backlog of repairs to address, the landlord still would have had ample opportunity over the course of 2020 to schedule and undertake works. The Ombudsman has subsequently not considered this to be a sufficient reason for the landlord’s failure to complete the repairs in good time.
While the landlord asserted in its final response that works had been delayed by COVID-19 restrictions, government guidance in December 2020 (after the second national lockdown) still confirmed that landlords could continue with routine repairs in line with public health guidance. It is therefore unclear why the landlord advised the resident on 21 December 2020 that it would not be undertaking routine repairs. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, having left this repair outstanding for more than a year, this should have been prioritised. It was further unreasonable that the landlord advised the resident to chase this up (and not vice versa) once its normal service had resumed.
At minimum, if the landlord’s services had come under strain as a result of the pandemic, it would have been reasonable for it to have communicated this with the resident. The landlord could have assured the resident that the works required had not been forgotten about and kept the resident updated on its situation / availability of resources. Prior to the landlord’s stage one response in December 2020, however, this had not been done.
While the landlord acknowledged at stage one that there had also been a breakdown in its process which had contributed to the delay in completing works, there was no recognition of the length of time that had passed and/or the subsequent impact on the resident. It subsequently concluded that there was no outright service failure which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was incorrect and hindered the landlord in putting things right.
Upon confirming the existence of asbestos in the textured coating, and in light of the time that had passed, the landlord should have arranged for this to be removed at the earliest opportunity. It is unclear why this work was delayed until 9 February 2021 but it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for the plaster / patch work to be undertaken on or around this time. From the Ombudsman’s perspective, this reflected poor planning and a failure to be proactive.
Although the landlord’s stage two review offered it a second opportunity to properly recognise this, the landlord failed to proportionately do so. Whilst the landlord noted that the delay in undertaking the asbestos work prevented it from completing the restorative works, and also recognised that there had been a lack of remedy in late 2019 before the pandemic, it still only made an offer of £100 compensation – which it stated also accounted for its poor communication. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this completely failed to reflect the extent of its service failure.
Moreover, it was unreasonable that the landlord made no arrangements to undertake a further inspection of the resident’s property, after allowing the property to dry out, until May 2021. This was more than a year and a half after the landlord had become aware that the property had been impacted by water ingress, and since it had proposed to review the damage. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was contrary to good practice. The landlord’s failure to do so meant that it was unable to confirm for itself that it had identified all parts of the property which sustained water damage and to put together an action plan to fully restore the property.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord did attempt to arrange a call with the resident, at the point of the resident’s stage two complaint escalation request, to understand what works remained outstanding and the resolution the resident sought. The Ombudsman agrees that it would have been reasonable for the resident to have shared as much information as possible with the landlord at this time.
With this said, however, it was not the resident’s responsibility to undertake an inspection of the property, or to maintain a list of water damaged parts of the property. In the landlord’s quest to establish what remained damaged and outstanding, it should have arranged for its operative to undertake a full inspection. Despite the resident’s frequent emails questioning why this had not been done, however, no inspection was undertaken until May 2021.
In any case, the landlord still had a responsibility to restore the resident’s property to a reasonable standard and in good time. It is therefore unclear why the landlord waited until the resident agreed to speak with it, before it arranged an inspection and agreed to tackle the outstanding works.
Had the landlord undertaken an inspection of the property at an earlier time, it might have been able to identify and discuss the resident’s concerns with the wooden compartment behind the toilet which needed overhauling, and with the splashback panel. The Ombudsman has accepted, nonetheless, that upon learning of the resident’s concerns in April 2021, the landlord inspected this and included the repairs in its works in June 2021.
In consideration of all of the above, the Ombudsman has concluded that the landlord failed to offer the resident an adequate repair service and to put things right where there were clear omissions. It has therefore been determined that there was maladministration.
For completeness, it is noted that the resident had to continually chase the landlord to confirm that it intended to redecorate (paint) the property once the works were completed. It was reasonable that the landlord agreed, within its final response, that a decoration voucher would be issued.

The landlord’s handling of asbestos identified at the resident’s property.

It was appropriate that upon suspecting asbestos in the bathroom and bedroom ceiling at the resident’s property, the landlord’s operative advised the resident that this would need to be tested. This was in line with the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that asbestos is identified where possible, that the risk is assessed, and that any potential exposure is managed.
The Ombudsman notes, however, that despite confirming that this needed to take place, the landlord failed to arrange the assessment until approximately a year later. This was unreasonable, particularly given that restorative works were being delayed until such time that this had taken place.
While it is accepted, in the same respect as the findings above, that the pandemic would have caused some difficulty for the landlord, this did not absolve the landlord of its responsibility to offer an asbestos / repair service. The Ombudsman also cannot see that the landlord attempted to make contact with the resident to explain why it had not taken any action, during this time.
This was partly as the landlord had taken no action to raise an order for this work, until four months after it suggested it would. The Ombudsman also notes that the order was only raised at this time as the resident had chased the matter up with the landlord. This was unacceptable.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it acknowledged that there had been an initial four-month delay in raising a job order for the asbestos inspection. The landlord therefore made an offer of £80 compensation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was reasonable in satisfying this aspect of the complaint. It would have been further appropriate, however, for the landlord to have also offered redress for the subsequent nine-month period in which the asbestos inspection remained outstanding, and no communication took place.
Further, the Ombudsman can see that despite the delay in testing the resident’s property for asbestos, the landlord provided the resident with no update on what it had discovered. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord was not obligated to share its findings, however given the circumstance, and the resident’s concern that this could be impacting his health, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so. The resident explained that he was only provided with an update from his Housing Officer upon chasing him up on 22 January 2021.
This Service recognises that a landlord is not obliged to remove asbestos from a domestic property if it is in a sound condition and can be left undisturbed. However, if it is damaged or believed to be deteriorating and there is the risk of asbestos dust, then the landlord is under a duty to repair or if necessary, remove the damaged asbestos.
Upon reviewing the asbestos report provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman can see that the overall risk of asbestos being released was considered to be low. The report recommended, however, that the landlord remove the textured coating from the bathroom and bedroom.
Similar to the landlord’s non-essential repairs, it would have been reasonable for it to have undertaken the asbestos removal within 20 working days of the operative providing its recommendations. Instead, however, the Ombudsman notes that the removal of the textured coating in the bathroom did not take place until 9 February 2021. It also appears that the work was only undertaken at this time as the resident had again prompted the landlord via a further complaint in January 2021.
In respect of the asbestos found in the resident’s bedroom ceiling, it is unclear why the landlord decided against the recommendation and took no initial steps to address this. The Ombudsman can see that while the landlord asserted that there was no issue with the asbestos in the bedroom, it later undertook remedial works to encapsulate the asbestos on 12 May 2021. It therefore might have been appropriate for this work to have been undertaken at the same time as works for the bathroom.
In agreeing to undertake a review of the resident’s complaint, the landlord had a second opportunity to review its handling of the asbestos works at the resident’s property, and to attempt to put things right. The landlord’s review response has been considered, however, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was a failure to adequately accept responsibility for the delay in completion and in managing the resident’s concerns. This Service has concluded that there was maladministration in respect of this element of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

On review of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman has also determined that there was a failure in the landlord’s approach.
Within the landlord’s complaints policy, it explains that where a complaint is made, the landlord will offer a stage one response within 10 working days. The Ombudsman has been unable to confirm that the landlord received the complaint on 21 September 2020 and so has not considered the lack of response by 5 October 2020 to be a failure.
The Ombudsman has also accepted that while the landlord should have provided its complaint response on 9 November 2020, but did not until 21 December 2020, it did apologise for this and offer an explanation for the cause of the delay.
Upon receiving the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage two, however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord acted inappropriately. The landlord’s complaints policy explains that where a stage two escalation has been requested, it will seek to establish why the resident remains dissatisfied with the initial response and consider whether there are grounds to investigate the matter at stage two. The policy does not indicate that a resident must set out the outcome they are seeking or any outstanding works that may exist.
It was therefore unreasonable that on refusing to discuss matters over the phone with the landlord, and to set out the resolution sought, the landlord declined the resident’s escalation request. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord would have been unaware of the desired redress, but notes that the resident clearly set out (in a comprehensive email on 22 January 2021) the reasons why he remained dissatisfied. The landlord therefore had more than enough information which it could have addressed, and the grounds on which the review was requested. The landlord also could have initiated its own inspection, as suggested above, to establish what works remained outstanding.
HOS’ Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that a landlord should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint, where a request has been made. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord did eventually take the decision to offer the resident a stage two review. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, the review should have taken place within 25 working days of the resident’s request, as per the complaints policy. The landlord’s initial decision to decline the resident’s review request therefore delayed the process by more than three months.
Finally, although the Code explains that landlords should address all points raised within a resident’s complaint submission, this was not done in this case.
This subsequently resulted in the resident’s reports of damage to his trainers / shoes being overlooked for some time. While the resident raised this with the landlord in his initial complaint in September 2020, he was not provided with the landlord’s claim form to seek reimbursement until April 2021.
What’s more, while the Ombudsman can see that a rebate was offered to account for the loss of heating at the resident’s property, the resident still expressed dissatisfaction that no reimbursement had been made for the cost of running his own heaters during this period. It therefore would have been reasonable for the landlord to have advised the resident on how he could seek reimbursement for the alleged additional costs, within its complaint responses. Although the landlord did acknowledge that he had been without heating for 28 days within its review response, it failed to address this matter.
For completeness, it is also worth noting that residents should be able to discuss their complaints via their preferred method of communication. It is clear that in this case, the resident did not feel comfortable with discussing matters over the phone, as he had lost faith in the landlord’s record keeping (due to a previous information request). This should not have hindered the way in which the resident’s complaint was treated, however, or the landlord’s approach to his repairs.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of restorative works at the resident’s property, following a water leak.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of asbestos identified at the resident’s property.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. The landlord failed to – address the restorative works at the resident’s property within a reasonable length of time; to consider the full extent of the repairs required, in line with good practice, to enable it to understand the scale of the works and to complete this at the earliest opportunity; to keep the resident updated throughout the period of the delay and to communicate any impact that COVID-19 was having on its services (until its complaint response); and to recognise its omissions and its failure to act in line with its repair policy, and to make a satisfactory offer of redress to put things right.
2. The landlord’s management of the asbestos at the resident’s property was inappropriate. The landlord was slow in raising the order to assess the coating believed to contain asbestos (despite the fact that this put a pause on all other works), slow in undertaking the assessment of the textured coating, and slow in removing the textured coating upon confirming the existence of asbestos. The landlord’s communication during this time was also unsatisfactory and its offer of compensation failed to reflect the resident’s experience.
3. The landlord was delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage one. While this on its own may not have been considered a service failure, as this was delayed only by a matter of weeks, the landlord’s decision to initially decline the resident’s stage two escalation request created a greater delay in the resident achieving resolution. In total, the resident’s complaint was subsequently delayed by over four and a half months. This was inappropriate. What’s more, the landlord failed to address all of the complaint points raised by the resident in his complaint. This was contrary to good complaint handling practice.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the restorative repairs to the resident’s property, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £500.
In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the asbestos at the resident’s property, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £250.
In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £150.
The landlord should write to the resident to advise him on how he can claim for any increased costs occurred during the period in which his heating had been switched off.
The landlord should comply with the above orders within four weeks of receiving this determination.
The above orders of compensation should replace the amount previously offered by the landlord. If payment has already been made, the landlord should offer the difference.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its approach to repairs and should ensure that in future cases, it takes proactive steps to restore a resident’s property to good condition and to achieve resolution at the earliest opportunity.
Where complaint handling is concerned, the landlord may benefit from revisiting the Code, to refresh itself on what this Service would expect where a complaint / complaint escalation request is made.
The landlord should also honour the decoration voucher offered to the resident, to restore his bedroom decorations, and if it has not already done so, should honour its offer to decorate his bathroom.