Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited (202329601)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329601

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited

17 January 2025

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 how the landlord handled the resident’s requests for it to remove waste from her garden.
We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3-bed house. The resident moved into the property on 24 August 2020. The resident has advised that the landlord agreed to clear some waste from the back of the garden prior to her moving in but failed to do so. She advised she began chasing the landlord to clear the waste almost immediately after she moved in. The landlord notes that the resident first asked it to clear the waste on 12 July 2021. In September 2022 the landlord attended and cleared some of the waste. However, it was unable to clear the rest because a tree needed cutting back before it could access it.
On 19 October 2022 the landlord advised the resident it would attend and cut back the tree to allow it to do so. It attended and cut back the tree on 6 February 2023. On 16 February 2023 the resident made a complaint about how long it was taking to clear the waste. On 8 March 2023 the resident reported that the landlord had failed to attend a scheduled appointment to clear the waste on 2 March 2023.
On 9 March 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It acknowledged it had delayed unreasonably in clearing the waste. It summarised the related actions it had so far taken, and committed to inspect the property again to determine what remained outstanding. It also offered the resident £150 in compensation.
There was little progress over the next month, and so the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 20 April 2023. It reiterated the steps it had taken so far. However, it acknowledged that there had been little progress since the stage 1 response. It advised it would be enlisting a different contractor who would attend to resolve the matter as a priority. It also offered the resident £400 as a goodwill gesture, and £15 for the missed appointment in March 2023.
The landlord then visited the property on 21 April 2023 and discovered suspected asbestos-containing-material (ACM) mixed in with the waste. It wrote to the resident and advised her to avoid going down to the back of the garden. It also advised that it had contacted a specialist contractor to attend and remove the suspected ACM, and told her it would be in touch to schedule an appointment.
On 28 April 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed there was ACM within the waste. It explained it did not consider there to be asbestos fibres in the air, but advised her not to disturb the area containing the waste at the garden’s rear. It also offered to erect fencing to enclose this area which the resident refused.
Over the next few months the landlord and its contractors attended the property at various times to collect samples of soil and suspected ACM. On 10 July 2023 the resident complained again about how long it was taking to complete these works. She accepted there was ACM and that the landlord had to take certain related precautions, but complained that the landlord should have cleared the waste and addressed any ACM back in 2020.
On 1 August 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It acknowledged again that it had missed opportunities to clear the waste since 2021. It also acknowledged that, since the discovery of asbestos in April 2023, it could have been more proactive in chasing contractors to progress things. It advised that it attended on 17 July 2023 and cleared all suspected ACM. It explained that, now this was complete, it would resume the works to clear the remaining waste. It offered the resident £200 in recognition of the time it had taken to progress things, which the resident refused.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 August 2023 and advised that its contractor had told her on 17 July 2023 that they had not definitively cleared all asbestos. She asked for urgent clarification on this. On 15 August 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 due to the ongoing delay and confusion. On 17 August 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that it was investigating her concerns that the ACM had not been fully cleared.
On 8 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It reiterated the explanations it gave at stage 1. It also accepted that it could have established better lines of communication with the resident since April 2023, and been more proactive in chasing contractors on her behalf. It confirmed that the asbestos had not been fully cleared on 17 July 2023, but that a final clearance was booked for 7 September 2023. It explained that, assuming it was able to clear the ACM then, it would then proceed to remove the remaining waste. It increased its previous offer to £450 as redress for the failings it identified.
The resident accepted this and advised she was pleased with this outcome so long as the works were done according to the timescales proposed. On 13 September 2023 the environmental contractor advised the landlord that it needed to change its approach and fully excavate the top layer of the soil at the back of the garden for it to be satisfied that the area was safe. Over the next 3 months the landlord liaised with various contractors to try and organise these works. We can see there was disagreement between the 2 responsible contractors about which tools or methods were the most suitable for the job.
From 7 December to 9 December 2023 the landlord excavated the back area of the garden. On 9 December 2023 the environmental contractor signed a “contract of cleanliness” declaring the area was fit for occupation. On 12 January 2024 the landlord attended to relay soil over the excavated area. From this point until March 2024 it then attended at various points to clear the remaining waste. It finished doing so on 28 March 2024.
The resident does not consider her complaint resolved because the landlord failed to keep to the timescales it committed to in its stage 2 response. She also does not consider the compensation offered thus far goes far enough to put right the distress she says she was caused since 2020. She also notes that she was unable to use her garden for 4 years. To resolve this, she would like the landlord to pay her a higher sum of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has complained about how the landlord handled her requests for it to clear waste from the bottom of her garden from August 2020 to March 2024. However, under paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This is typically within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident made a formal complaint on 23 February 2023, this investigation will not consider the events that occurred before 23 February 2022 because these did not occur within 12 months of the complaint.
However, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions from 23 February 2022 up to its final response on 8 September 2023. We will also consider its actions after this response insofar as they relate to commitments made as part of its complaints process.

How the landlord handled the resident’s requests for it to remove waste from her garden

The landlord has accepted that the resident first asked it to clear the waste from the back of her garden on 12 July 2021, and that it raised works to do so on 15 October 2021. While we are not considering its actions before 23 February 2022, we note that by this date it was aware of the resident’s concerns and had agreed to clear the waste. We also note that by 23 February 2022 the works were outstanding.
The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that, from 23 February 2022 onwards, the first action it took in relation to these issues was to send an email to its contractor on 29 June 2022 and ask for a progress update. It advised that, following this, it updated the resident multiple times throughout July and August 2022 to explain that it was waiting for a response from the contractor. It advised that it then attended the property and cleared some of the waste on 6 September 2022. It advised the resident then reported on 30 September 2022 that some of the waste remained.
The resident accepts that the landlord attended on 6 September 2022 and cleared some of the waste. However, she does not agree that the landlord kept her updated up until this point, or that it acted reasonably to progress the works from February 2022 onwards. The landlord has also not been able to produce any evidence of correspondence with the resident or its contractor from 23 February 2022 until an email exchange with the resident on 7 October 2022.
Therefore, we are not satisfied that the landlord acted suitably to progress the works or update the resident from 23 February 2022 until 6 September 2022. While we accept it attended on 6 September 2022 and cleared some of the waste, it is unclear why it took 7 months to do so given it had already raised the works by 23 February 2022. We consider this delay and the lack of meaningful communication likely caused the resident distress.
On 7 October 2022 we can see the landlord emailed the resident and scheduled a visit on for 10 October 2022 to address her concerns about the remaining waste. On 10 October 2022 it attended and found that it needed to cut back a tree at the rear of the garden to access and clear the remaining waste. On 19 October 2022 it contacted the resident and she agreed it could do so. We consider this was a reasonable timeframe for it to agree a solution after diagnosis the issue.
Following this there is no evidence of any further communication or action until the landlord emailed the resident on 24 February 2023 to advise that it had cut back the tree earlier that month and assured her that it would return to clear the remaining waste. We note that the resident accepts the landlord attended in February 2023 and cut back the tree. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that it chased its contractor to complete these works on 19 December 2022, and 25 January 2023. It also advised that it updated the resident on 19 December 2022. However, it has been unable to evidence any of these actions. Given the resident also disputes this account, we are not satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably to progress the works or keep the resident informed from 20 October 2022 to early February 2023.
It is also unclear why it took the landlord 4 months to visit and cut back the tree after it first agreed to do so on 19 October 2022. In the absence of any records explaining this delay, we do not consider it was reasonable. We also consider this delay and the landlord’s failure to update the resident during this time likely compounded her distress.
On 27 February 2023 we can see the landlord emailed the resident and scheduled an appointment to clear the remaining waste for 2 March 2023. However, it then failed to attend this appointment. Given the previous delays, this was poor and likely further distressed the resident. It attended on 3 March 2023 and cleared some of the remaining waste. The resident complained about this on 8 March 2023. On 9 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s 23 February 2023 complaint. While the resident accepts this is when she first complained, the landlord has been unable to produce any record of it. We note that the landlord’s record keeping is repeatedly poor through the entire period concerned, and we address this specifically later on in this report.
In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed unreasonably in resolving the issue. It also acknowledged that it took too long to cut back the tree and attend to the remaining waste. It advised it had cleared some more items on 9 March 2023, and asked the resident if it could reinspect the garden to figure out what remained. It also offered her £150 as a goodwill gesture. On 12 March 2023 the resident refused this. She also explained she was frustrated by its request to reinspect given it had already done so several times.
The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that it met with its contractor on 17 March 2023, and that they had explained they were not suitably equipped to clear the remaining waste due to the presence of building rubble. On 22 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and advised that it would enlist an alternative contractor to clear the remaining waste as the existing one seemed unable to do so. Given the delays up to this point, this was a reasonable and positive step towards addressing the issue.
However, given the lack of relative progress since 23 February 2022, we consider the landlord should have considered an alternative contractor sooner than it did to try and progress things. We also recognise how frustrating this decision must have been for the resident.
At some point over the next few weeks the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. On 17 April 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to schedule a visit with its new contractor to scope the remaining works for 21 April 2023, and it also explained why this was necessary. We appreciate the resident was frustrated that the landlord requested another inspection. However, the new contractor could not reasonably have decided on how to address the issue without assessing it first. Therefore, we consider the landlord acted appropriately by scheduling a new inspection. We also consider a month was a reasonable time for the landlord to take to enlist a new contractor and schedule this appointment.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delays in clearing the waste and apologised for this. It also acknowledged that it had missed several opportunities to complete the work. It advised its new contractor would be attending as a priority, and offered the resident £400 as a goodwill gesture and £15 for the missed appointment on 2 March 2023. The landlord acted positively here by acknowledging the delays and outlining what it would do to progress things.
On 21 April 2023 the new contractor attended the property and discovered what it suspected to be ACM mixed in with the waste at the back of the garden. It emailed the resident immediately after the visit and explained this. It advised that it had contacted a specialist contractor to arrange its removal and would be in touch once it had dates for this. It also advised the resident to avoid going to the bottom of the garden where the waste was located until it had confirmed the removal of any suspected ACM. We can also see the landlord raised works to clear the suspected ACM with an environmental contractor on the same day and categorised this as “medium risk”.
The landlord’s asbestos policy states that it must complete a risk assessment to identify if asbestos is present and to make sure that appropriate precautions are taken to deal with any asbestos identified. Its policy also states that it will clearly communicate with residents about ACMs and addressed any concerns they have.
We note the landlord acted promptly here by raising these works with an environmental contractor immediately. We also consider it promptly explained its discovery of suspected ACMs to the resident as per its policy, and explained how it considered she should take precautions until it had cleared them.
However, we have seen no evidence that it completed a risk assessment upon the discovery of suspected ACMs as per its policy. Therefore, we are unable to see how it determined the level of risk to the resident and her family. On the same basis we are also unable to assess the appropriateness of the precautions it instructed her to take at this stage. It should have been able to evidence to us that it completed this assessment. Given the potential risks of asbestos, its failure to do so is concerning.
On 28 April 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and advised that it had cleared all suspected ACM from the garden. It also advised that it did not consider there were asbestos fibres in the air. However, it explained that it would need to enlist an environmental specialist to test the soil and determine whether there was any asbestos beneath the surface of soil at the bottom of the garden. It explained that, until it had done so, the resident should continue to avoid this area. It also offered to install temporary fencing to enclose the area containing the suspected ACM.
In the absence of a risk assessment which sets out the level of risk and makes recommendations on how to mitigate this, we are unable to meaningfully say whether the precautions the landlord advised the resident to take on 28 April 2023 were appropriate or not.
We can see the landlord contacted its environmental contractor on 2 May 2023 to chase the arrangement of a survey and a soil sample of the area at the bottom of the garden. It chased this again on 11 May 2023. On 12 May 2023 it updated the resident about this and explained what actions would follow once the soil sample was complete. We consider the landlord acted proactively here by chasing its contractor for progress updates. We also consider it kept the resident clearly informed as per its asbestos policy. The landlord also offered to install temporary fencing to enclose the contaminated area, which the resident refused. In the absence of any risk assessment, we are unable to reach a view on whether this was an appropriate precaution or not. However, we recognise that enclosing the area was likely a more effective precaution than not doing so.
The resident replied on 17 May 2023 and complained that 3 weeks had passed since the asbestos was identified. She refused the landlord’s offer to erect temporary fencing. She also noted that the asbestos would have been identified much sooner had the landlord not delayed unreasonably in addressing the waste up until April 2023. Internal email exchanges from 18 May 2023 indicate that the ACM was hidden by the tree which was cut back in February 2023. Therefore, we share the resident’s view that the ACM would have been identified sooner had the landlord not delayed in completing these works.
On 17 May and 18 May 2023 the landlord chased its contractor, and we can see it appropriately updated the resident about this and explained what it was doing to progress things. On 19 May 2023 it contacted the resident and arranged a visit for its contractor to collect soil samples on 22 May 2023. Although there is no record of this visit, the resident and landlord agree that it took place.
On 31 May 2023 the landlord advised the resident it was waiting for the results of the sample, and we can see it chased these results on 1 June 2023. The environmental contractor provided part of the results on 2 June 2023. It explained that the test had come back as “Non-Hazardous…[Asbestos Cement]”. It also explained it was still waiting on the full report which it would forward to the landlord. We can see the landlord updated the resident and explained this to her on 2 June 2023 as per its asbestos policy.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 5 June 2023 and apologised for the delay, it explained that this was caused by some issues in the lab. The email indicates it also attached the full report detailing the results of the tests it carried out. However, we were unable to find this report in the records supplied by the landlord. This would have been helpful for our investigation, and its absence is another example of poor record keeping.
The landlord replied on 6 June 2023 and asked for clarification on what action it needed to take to clear the ACMs. It also emphasized that it needed a resolution as soon as possible to prevent a “potentially significant customer complaint.” The contractor did not respond, and so the landlord chased it again on 13 June and 14 June 2023. We consider the landlord continued to act proactively here to try and expediate a resolution. We can also see it then appropriately updated the resident on 13 June 2023 and explained it was waiting for its specialist contractor to confirm its next course of action.
On 14 June 2023 the environmental contractor set out 2 possible courses of action which the landlord could take to safely clear the ACM:
1. Remove the soil down to 300mm to ensure that any ACM which was mixed within the soil was removed then placed into an appropriate skip to then be immediately disposed of upon completion. This method would also include removing of old, charred items at the same time. Or;
2. Have a team to work the soil, which was a makeup of peaty loam soil, to remove the asbestos cement along with any other suspect material which could be mistaken as an ACM. Though this was likely to be the cheaper as the waste generated would be significantly less, this method did require time for the manual process.
The landlord considered this and, on 27 June 2023, decided to proceed with option (b). It then liaised with its environmental and building services contractors to schedule these works with an environmental specialist present at all times to conduct air monitoring and inspections of the area post-completion.
On 5 July 2023 the landlord then updated the resident and explained this development as per its policy. It also advised that its contractors had agreed to complete these works on 17 July 2023. Though we note there had been some delay since its last update, the landlord apologised for this delay in its email, and we consider this was sufficient to put this right.
On 10 July 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the time it was taking to clear the ACM. She reiterated her complaint that it, had it not delayed in clearing the waste in the first place, it would have identified the ACM sooner and cleared the remaining waste sooner. She explained she found it unacceptable that she was paying full rent for her property but had no access to her own garden.
She noted the landlord’s offer to erect fencing to enclose the contaminated area, but explained she would not be going into the garden at all until the situation was resolved as she did not feel it was safe. Given the lack of any formal risk assessment by the landlord, we consider the resident’s reluctance to occupy any part of the garden was reasonable and proportionate to the potential risk.
On 17 July 2023 the contractors attended the property and completed a clearance of “asbestos debris”. The repair logs note that the job was completed. On 27 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and advised it was chasing its contractor for an update on the 17 July 2023 works. It explained that it would update her on whether any further works were required follow this.
Given the works were allegedly completed 10 days prior to this, we would expect the landlord to have communicated with the resident about this sooner as per its policy. We also have not seen any evidence to corroborate the landlord’s account that it had chased its contractors for updates during this period. Given the delays up until this point, it should have done so.
On 31 July 2023 the landlord then wrote to the resident and advised that “the asbestos removal is now complete”, and that it would look to resume clearing the remaining waste at the bottom of the garden. On 1 August 2023 it issued a stage 1 response. It acknowledged that it still had not cleared the garden of waste. It reiterated that it had missed several opportunities to progress things before the discovery of ACM. It explained why it had to complete tests on the suspected ACM before it could begin clearing this. It also advised that it was satisfied with its immediate response in raising works to test and clear the ACM.
However, it acknowledged delays in collecting and assessing the soil samples, and that it could have been more proactive in chasing its contractors for updates. It offered the resident £200 in compensation for this. It also explained that the asbestos had now been removed, and that it had requested a quote from its contractor to resume clearing the remaining waste.
On 8 August 2023 the resident replied and advised that the contractor who visited on 17 July 2023 had advised her that day that he had been unable to clear all of the ACM. She said she was concerned about this and asked the landlord for clarification on whether the asbestos was “100%” cleared.
We can see that the landlord contacted its contractor on 17 August 2023 about this. It explained it had “serious questions” about the quality of work they carried out on 17 July 2023. It noted that the analyst’s diary records document that they were on site for 1 hour and 20 minutes, and only removed 1 bag of waste. It asked the contractor to “look into this” as a matter of urgency and explained it would have to delay the follow-on gardening works due to the “ambiguous situation we now find ourselves in.”
While we note the landlord acted appropriately by investigating the resident’s concerns here, we consider it should have done so sooner given the potential risk posed by falsely declaring the area fully clear of asbestos. It is also concerning that the landlord did not notice the apparent discrepancies within the 17 July 2023 analyst notes until after the resident raised concerns on 8 August 2023. Given the potential risk involved, the landlord should have proactively satisfied itself that the 17 July 2023 works were appropriate and successful before it advised the resident of the outcome.
We can see the landlord emailed the resident on 17 August 2023 to advise that it was investigating the 17 July 2023 works. It explained it had contacted the contractor to seek clarification on these. It advised that it needed to address these concerns before it could resume the clearing of the remaining waste.
While we note the resident had already advised the landlord that she would not be accessing the garden at all until this was clarified, the landlord should have outlined what precautions she needed to take in the meantime. As we have already noted, it should have completed a risk assessment back in April 2023, and it should have then been able to rely on this assessment to recommend future precautions. Its failure to do so here, and the ambiguity surrounding whether the asbestos had been cleared or not, likely caused the resident significant distress.
We can see the landlord chased its contractor for clarification on this question on 22 August 2023. In this email it noted that “the lack of having a definitive answer for the customer’s question on the garden’s current safety status is a major issue.” We agree with this assessment. We can see it chased the contractor again on 1 September 2023. In this email it appears to acknowledge that there was still ACM in the garden, since it emphasized the need for any future works to remove this material definitively.
On 8 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained that the 17 July 2023 visit had not fully cleared the asbestos, but that it had booked works to do so for 7 September 2023. It advised that it would be fully excavating the soil up to 300mm to achieve this. It explained that, once it had done so, it would be able to progress with clearing the remaining waste in the garden.
It acknowledged that it could have established clearer lines of communication with the resident and more proactively chased its contractors from April 2023 until this point. As redress, it offered the resident £450 compensation. The resident accepted this, and explained she considered her complaint resolved so long as the landlord honoured the timescales it had committed to.
We can therefore see that the landlord incorrectly advised the resident on 2 occasions that the asbestos had been fully cleared from the garden. This failure was significant and potentially put the resident at risk. Due to the landlord’s failure to complete a risk assessment, we are unable to determine the level of risk, if any, that she was exposed to. Fortunately, it appears the resident mitigated any potential risk by avoiding the garden entirely throughout this period.
Following this complaint response, we can see both contractors attended on 11 and 12 September 2023 to continue the works to clear the ACM. On 13 September 2023, following its observations of the contaminated area across the 2 previous days, the environmental contractor advised the landlord that it was not satisfied that the “litter pick” approach currently being taken was sufficient to make the area safe. Instead, it advised the landlord that it needed to excavate the soil up to 300mm from the affected area.
We can see the landlord responded to the contractor on 13 September 2023 and expressed its frustration about this change in approach given it had previously recommended the less resource intensive “litter pick” method. We can see the landlord then chased both contractors consistently to try and agree on a method to complete these works from 25 September 2023 until 1 November 2023.
Although we recognise the resident was frustrated by the delay, especially since the landlord had previously indicated it would clear the ACM by 7 September 2023, we do not consider the landlord could have anticipated the required change in approach, or acted differently to expediate things. The environmental contractor quite suddenly changed its approach, and the landlord acted appropriately by raising new works to fit with this specialist recommendation.
We also can see the landlord proactively and consistently liaised with the contractors between 13 September 2023 and 14 November 2023 to procure the tools and vehicles required to complete these works. We can see there was disagreement about the type of digger that was required for excavation, and we can also see the landlord engaged consistently with both parties to try and agree a way forward. We can see the landlord also appropriately updated the resident on 3 October 2023 to advise it was doing so.
On 14 November 2023 all parties reached an agreement on the method they would use to clear the remaining ACM as per the specialist recommendations. Repair logs indicate that the contractors visited the property and successfully cleared the remaining ACM on 9 December 2023. However, there is no indication the landlord updated the resident and explained it had done so following this. This was a missed opportunity to reassure the resident that there was no longer any potentially dangerous ACM in her garden. The landlord’s failure to update her following these works was not in line with its policy, and is disappointing given its previous communication failures.
Following this there was no correspondence with the resident or further actions until the landlord attended on 12 January 2024 and relayed the topsoil at the back of the garden. It is unclear why it took a month to do so following the successful ACM clearance on 9 December 2023, and emails from 10 January 2024 acknowledge that the works had been “put on the backburner”. Given the previous delays, the landlord should been actively trying to progress these works, or at least kept the resident updated about them. Its failure to do either likely caused the resident distress.
On 13 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and asked for an update on the works which it had carried out the day before. The landlord replied immediately and advised that the contractors “visiting [her] at the moment are solely there to carry out the work identified as part of the asbestos removal.” We accept that the relaying of the topsoil was related to the asbestos removal insofar as it was restoring the soil back to the state it was in before the waste was dumped pre August 2020.
However, the ACM was fully cleared and signed off by the environmental specialists on 9 December 2023. Therefore, the landlord should made this clear in its 13 January 2024 update. It failed to do so, and this ambiguity could have been interpreted by the resident as meaning that the ACM still had yet to be cleared.
On 29 January 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident and explained that it had fully cleared the ACM and so it could now resume its clearing of the remaining waste in the garden. We understand that the landlord met with the resident on 9 February 2024 to agree a scope of works, and that it had completed these by 28 March 2024. The resident has advised she was satisfied with the standard and of these works.
In summary then, this investigation has identified a number of failings by the landlord between 23 February 2022 and January 2024. We also consider these failings likely caused the resident varying degrees of distress. For this reason, we will order the landlord pays her compensation to put this right. We will calculate these payments and explain our reasoning for each calculations in what follows.

Compensation

We consider the landlord unreasonably delayed in progressing works from 23 February 2022 until it enlisted the new contractor on 22 March 2023. We consider this likely caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. We also consider it significantly delayed the eventual resolution of this issue.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on compensation payments between £100 to £600 are typically suitable to redress a failure which has adversely, but not majorly, impacted the resident. It states that increased payments between £600 and £1000 are typically suitable to redress a failure which has had a more significant impact on the resident.
Based on this, we will order the landlord pays the resident £700 to put this right. This reflects how long the delays went on for, and the landlord’s failure to mitigate the impact of these by keeping the resident suitably informed. This sum is inclusive of the £555 the landlord offered the resident up to its stage 2 response on 20 April 2023.
We consider the landlord failed to complete a risk assessment once it identified asbestos on 21 April 2023. It then repeatedly gave the resident contradictory and ambiguous advice regarding the removal of the ACM between July and September 2023. We consider this likely caused the resident significant distress during this period given she was left unsure of the risk posed to her by the ACM. With this in mind, we will order the landlord pays her £700 to put this right. This is inclusive of the £450 it offered as part of its 8 September 2023 stage 2 response.
We also consider the landlord failed to keep the resident suitably informed about the progression of works from 14 November 2023 until 29 January 2024 as per its asbestos policy. We consider this ambiguity likely caused the resident some further distress. Therefore, we will order the landlord pays her £400 to put this right. Though the failure spans a relatively short period, this payment reflects the fact that her distress was likely more pronounced than it would have been had the landlord not previously failed to clearly communicate with her about the ACM.
Finally, we consider the landlord should have done more to progress the works to relay soil following the ACM clearance from 9 December 2023 to 12 January 2024. We consider this likely minorly delayed the eventual resolution of this issue on 28 March 2024, and that this likely caused the resident some distress. On this basis, we will order the landlord to pay the resident £150 to put this right.

Record keeping

While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request.
Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify that its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping and information management was inadequate, which made the Ombudsman’s investigation more difficult. Therefore, we have made a recommendation related to this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s requests for it to remove waste from her garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

The landlord is to have a senior member of staff apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
The landlord is to pay the resident £1950, inclusive of the £1005 it has already offered, and:
1. £700 for its delays in progressing works from 23 February 2022 until 22 March 2023.
2. £700 for its failure to complete an asbestos risk assessment and its ambiguous communication about this between July 2023 to September 2023.
3. £400 for its failure to keep the resident suitably informed from 14 November 2023 until 13 January 2024.
4. £150 for its delays in progressing works from 9 December 2023 to 12 January 2024.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer to pay the resident £1005 in compensation if it has not already paid this.
The landlord to self-assess against our Spotlight Report on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). This will give it the opportunity to consider how it can improve its record keeping to avoid repeating the omissions we identified in this report.