From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Curo Places Limited (202346558)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346558

Curo Places Limited

29 August 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the subsequent collapse of part of the bathroom ceiling.
    2. The landlord’s management of asbestos on the bathroom ceiling and its response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

  1. The property is a 1-bedroom, ground floor flat. The resident has an assured tenancy, which started on 30 May 2023. The landlord has advised that its records state the resident has reduced mobility and during the complaints process the landlord was advised that the resident has asthma.
  2. The resident phoned the landlord on 5 September 2023 to report mould on her bathroom ceiling. The landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour in the upstairs flat and concluded that the mould was caused by condensation. The landlord therefore raised an order and made an appointment to attend on 1 November 2023 to clean the mould. The resident phoned the landlord again on 6 September 2023 regarding the ceiling.
  3. The resident phoned the landlord on 30 October 2023 and said the bathroom ceiling was wet and was bowing. Later the same day, the resident phoned the landlord to report that part of the bathroom ceiling had collapsed. The landlord’s out of hours team attended but could not carry out repairs because they found that the ceiling contained asbestos. The landlord arranged for the resident to stay in a hotel later on the same day.
  4. The landlord arranged for an asbestos contractor to attend the property and the contractor attended on 31 October 2023. The contractor removed the ceiling and items belonging to the resident that it deemed had been contaminated by the asbestos.
  5. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on the same day (31 October 2023) in which she explained that she had reported the damp and mould on the ceiling 3 times (on 5 and 6 September and on 30 October 2023). The ceiling had then collapsed on 30 October 2023. The resident said that the asbestos contractor had disposed of all items in the bathroom and therefore she was requesting reimbursement for these items.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 17 November 2023 in which it confirmed that its asbestos contractor had removed the ceiling and another contractor had reboarded the ceiling. The landlord said it had booked a further appointment to attend on 20 November 2023 to investigate the possible reappearance of damp on the bathroom ceiling. It said it would then carry out any follow-up works once the leak was resolved. The landlord upheld the complaint.
  7. The resident replied on the same day (17 November 2023) to say she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 reply because it had not mentioned her possible exposure to asbestos contained in the ceiling. During November 2023, the landlord carried out various works to the bathroom, including plastering the ceiling and replacing the bathroom extractor fan. The resident made a personal injury claim to the landlord’s insurance team in December 2023.
  8. The landlord sent its initial stage 2 reply on 16 January 2024 but then sent a revised stage 2 response on 18 January 2024 in which it stated the following:
    1. The landlord said that the initial appointment of 1 November 2023 it had offered the resident on 5 September 2023 had been outside of its service standards.
    2. Its staff should have checked the asbestos survey results when the resident phoned on 5 September 2023 and said the ceiling would dent when touched.
    3. The landlord apologised that its staff had again not checked the asbestos survey report when the resident phoned on 30 October 2023 to say the ceiling was wet and was bowing.
    4. The landlord apologised that it had not checked the asbestos survey report before sending an operative to deal with the collapsed ceiling on 30 October 2023.
    5. The operative identified that the ceiling probably contained asbestos based on his experience and, as a result, the landlord had booked the resident into a hotel.
    6. An asbestos contractor attended the property on 31 October 2023 and removed the remainder of the bathroom ceiling and any debris. The contractor also removed and disposed of various personal possessions from the bathroom.
    7. The landlord had arranged for the ceiling to be reboarded on 1 November 2023, but the work was not carried out because the operative said the leak was still ongoing.
    8. The resident had phoned the landlord on 13 November 2023 to say she could see damp patches on the reboarded ceiling. The landlord said it would investigate this on 20 November 2023 when an operative was due to attend to skim coat the ceiling.
    9. The landlord said that the operative had skim coated the ceiling on 20 November 2023 and did not find any further evidence of leaks.
    10. The repainting of the ceiling was completed on 10 January 2024.
    11. The landlord said there had not been any risk to the resident when the asbestos contractor had removed the asbestos on 31 October 2023 as the asbestos content in the ceiling had been low and the ceiling had been wet.
    12. The landlord offered compensation of £519.06 (£300 for time and impact, £128.36 for disposed items for which the resident provided proof of purchase, £65.70 for disposed items where there was no proof of purchase and £25 for the delay in responding at stage 2).
  9. The resident contacted us on 17 March 2024 and said she was unhappy with the landlord’s offer because she had not been able to use the bathroom for some time. She therefore had to use the wash facilities offered by friends and family. She said her medical conditions had flared up because of the stress of the situation and her asthma had worsened because of the black mould. She said she was asking for £1,250 to cover her losses.
  10. The landlord’s insurers wrote to the landlord in August 2024 to say that it was still assessing the resident’s personal injury claim but would not be dealing with the property element of her complaint as it considered this had been settled by the landlord during the complaints process.
  11. The resident advised us on 18 August 2025 that the personal injury claim had been settled with the landlord’s insurers.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We have received information showing events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 18 January 2024. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by us as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
  2. As part of her personal injury claim, the resident advised the landlord on 10 December 2023 that part of the ceiling had fallen on her feet and caused bruising and had narrowly missed her dog. She said that the stress caused by the situation had caused her medical condition to worsen. She later advised the landlord on 3 January 2024 that the black mould on the ceiling had caused her asthma to worsen. Finally, she advised the landlord on various occasions that she was concerned about the potential risks to her health of being exposed to damaged asbestos. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts or through the landlord’s insurance. We are aware that the resident made a personal injury claim to the landlord’s insurers in December 2023.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 January 2024 and said the property had experienced back mould since she moved in. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from September 2023 when the resident reported mould on her bathroom ceiling. Reference to the events that occurred prior to this has been made in this report to provide context.

The landlord’s management of asbestos on the bathroom ceiling and its response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos

  1. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the repair of the structure and outside of the home, which includes ceilings.
  3. The landlord’s Reactive Repairs Policy states it will:
    1. Keep homes safe, healthy, affordable and warm.
    2. “Investigate symptoms (such as damp) thoroughly by inspection, ensuring that customers are informed of progress and outcomes”.
  4. The landlord’s customer commitment booklet states that it will respond to reports of reactive repairs within the following timescales:
    1. Emergency repairs will be attended to on the same day.
    2. Priority repairs, which are likely to affect the resident’s wellbeing or cause further problems in the home if left unattended for longer than a day or two, are attended to before the end of the next working day after the report.
    3. Routine repairs, which present no immediate and serious threat to the resident or safety of their home, will be attended to at a mutually convenient appointment.
    4. Complex repairs, which require a technical surveyor, will be appointed following the surveyor’s inspection or assessment.
  5. The booklet states that emergency repairs are those that “present an immediate and serious threat to your safety or that of your home”.
  6. The landlord’s Compensation Policy/Procedure states:
    1. The landlord will generally refer significant claims by residents to its insurers.
    2. The landlord will not pay compensation under its policy if the matter is subject to a personal injury insurance claim.
    3. Where it has done something it should not, or failed to do something it should, and a resident has incurred financial loss as a result. It will compensate to the value of that loss where that can be determined.
    4. “Financial loss will need to be evidenced by [the resident], through copies of relevant invoices, receipts, bills, or other evidence of this nature”.
  7. The resident phoned the landlord on 5 September 2023 to report mould on her bathroom ceiling. She sent photos of the ceiling to the landlord on the same day. The landlord responded on the same day and said it had contacted the resident’s upstairs neighbour and believed the mould was caused by condensation. The landlord sent her a leaflet about managing damp and mould caused by condensation and said it had booked an appointment for 1 November 2023 to carry out mould treatment.
  8. It was reasonable for the landlord to contact the upstairs neighbour to check whether they had a leak in their property. Also, as the landlord believed the cause of the mould to be condensation, it was reasonable to send the resident some information about managing damp and mould caused by condensation. However, it was unreasonable, in our view, that the landlord had not arranged for an urgent inspection to be carried out in line with its Reactive Repairs Policy, which says it will investigate symptoms such as damp thoroughly by inspection.
  9. The resident had advised the landlord on 5 September 2023 that she had been cleaning the mould. She added that she now had a hole in the ceiling and the ceiling would dent when touched. She had also advised the landlord that she was part of a very vulnerable health group. The landlord’s records also show that the resident had contacted the landlord on 6 September 2023 regarding the mould but was not given an earlier appointment. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply that the appointment offered had been outside of its service standards. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not arranged an earlier appointment to carry out mould treatment. The date provided by the landlord meant the resident would have to wait 2 months after her initial call on 5 September 2023.
  10. The resident phoned the landlord twice during the morning of 30 October 2023 and said the ceiling was wet and bowing (the first call was disconnected). The landlord asked the resident to send photos of the ceiling so it could assess the condition. The resident sent the photos as requested, however, the landlord’s records indicate that these were simply placed on her file and she was told that there was already an appointment agreed for 1 November 2023. During the afternoon of the same day, the resident phoned the landlord to report that part of the ceiling had fallen on her feet and caused bruising. She later said that the ceiling had just missed falling on her dog.
  11. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord raised an emergency order when the resident had phoned the landlord in the morning on 30 October 2023. This was unreasonable as in our view the reports that the ceiling was bowing should have indicated a weakening of the ceiling and a potential safety issue. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that the landlord simply placed the photos she had sent on her file, rather than using them to consider whether urgent action was required. In our view, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not reviewed the photos sent by the resident to determine the urgency of the situation.
  12. An emergency order would have required the contractor to attend on the same day. However, we are unable to say whether the contractor would have attended in time before the ceiling collapsed. Nevertheless, our view is that by failing to raise an emergency order during the morning of 30 October 2023 the landlord had not paid sufficient regard to the safety of the resident.
  13. Following the collapse of part of the ceiling, the landlord arranged for an operative to attend on the same day (30 October 2023) to make the ceiling safe. This was appropriate as the matter was deemed to be an emergency and therefore it was appropriate for the landlord’s out of hours team to attend on the same day in line with its policy.
  14. The landlord arranged temporary accommodation for the resident late during the night of 30 October 2023. This is considered in more detail under the landlord’s management of the asbestos on the bathroom ceiling. However, as the ceiling had collapsed, it was reasonable that the landlord had offered temporary accommodation to avoid any risks of further collapse of the ceiling.
  15. After a contractor removed the remainder of the bathroom ceiling on 31 October 2023, the landlord raised an order on 1 November 2023 to reboard the ceiling. The operative attended on the same day to carry out the work but was unable to board the ceiling because the operative said there was still a leak from the upstairs flat. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not investigated the source of the leak and resolved it before arranging for the ceiling to be boarded. The landlord’s contractor attended the upstairs flat on 1 November 2023 and repaired the leak. The landlord had therefore resolved the leak within a reasonable timescale after realising that the leak was still ongoing.
  16. The resident phoned the landlord on 6 November 2023 and said she was upset that the landlord had not contacted her from a health and safety perspective regarding the incident. At this stage, the landlord was investigating the resident’s formal complaint regarding the incident. However, given that the ceiling had not yet been boarded, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not been proactive in contacting the resident to advise her of progress. The resident was known to be vulnerable and at this time she was unable to use the shower and had to make alternative arrangements to wash.
  17. The landlord completed the reboarding of the ceiling on 7 November 2023. The landlord had therefore carried out the work 4 working days after it had repaired the leak, which was reasonable. The operative noted that the area looked dry and that the light fitting in the bathroom would need to be removed temporarily to allow for plastering of the boards.
  18. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 November 2023 and said that damp patches were appearing on the newly boarded ceiling. An operative attended on 20 November 2023 to plaster the newly boarded bathroom ceiling and to check the reported damp patches. He checked that there were no active leaks present and also checked the rainwater goods attached to the building to ensure there were no defects causing water ingress. The operative concluded that the damp patches had been caused by residual water from the original leak. Given that the resident had reported further damp patches, it was reasonable for the operative to have checked for any active leaks, including from the rainwater goods.
  19. Having established there were no leaks, the operative plastered the bathroom ceiling on 20 November 2023. This was 9 working days after it had been boarded. The landlord had therefore plastered the ceiling within a reasonable timescale after it was boarded. The landlord reinstated the light fitting on 21 November 2023 following the plastering. The light was therefore reinstated within one day of the plastering, which was reasonable. The bathroom extractor fan was also replaced at this time, which was reasonable to ensure there was no build up of condensation.
  20. The landlord’s records show that it fitted a new shower pole and curtain on 27 November 2023 and painted the replastered bathroom ceiling on 10 January 2024. The shower pole and curtain were therefore fitted within a week of the ceiling being plastered, which was a reasonable timescale. The timescale for repainting the ceiling was also reasonable given that it needed time for the plaster to dry.
  21. Overall, we have found that the landlord carried out much of the works to bring the bathroom back to a useable condition within reasonable timescales. However, the landlord sometimes relied on the resident ringing to chase for updates. For example, she contacted the landlord for updates on 6 and 13 November 2023. Furthermore, when she phoned on 13 November, she was unaware that the landlord had already arranged to plaster the ceiling on 20 November 2023. The landlord’s communication was therefore unreasonable given the distress that the resident had experienced and the discomfort of not being able to use the bathroom given her medical conditions.
  22. Overall, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the reported damp and mould and the subsequent collapse of part of the bathroom ceiling:
    1. The landlord did not arrange an inspection of the damp and mould when it was contacted by the resident on 5 and 6 September 2023, despite being told that she had been cleaning the mould, there was now a hole in the ceiling and she was part of a very vulnerable group.
    2. The landlord arranged an appointment to carry out mould treatment which was outside of its service standards and was 2 months after her initial call on 5 September 2023.
    3. The landlord filed the photos of the ceiling sent by the resident on the morning of 30 October 2023 and did not raise an emergency order to make the ceiling safe, despite her reporting that the ceiling was wet and bowing.
    4. The landlord had not identified the source of the leak that had affected the ceiling prior to attending on 1 November 2023 to reboard the ceiling.
    5. The landlord was not proactive in its communication with the resident, particularly during the period the bathroom was unusable during November 2023.
  23. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  24. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by using its revised stage 2 reply to acknowledge its failings in handling the damp and mould and subsequent collapse of part of the ceiling. It sought to put things right by apologising to the resident for the service it had provided and by offering compensation.
  25. In its stage 2 response dated 18 January 2024, the landlord identified ways that it had learned from its failings. For example, it said it would raise the errors with team leaders for learning and further staff training and it would be speaking to its teams to ensure they were clear about who would be responsible for communications going forward.
  26. In terms of the level of compensation, the landlord offered £519.06. £300 of this was for time and trouble, £194.06 was for items that the contractor had disposed of and £25 was for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. The latter 2 sums are considered below. In terms of the £300 offered by the landlord for time and trouble, we have considered this against the landlord’s Compensation Procedure and our own Remedies Guidance. The landlord’s procedure contains a matrix, which sets out ranges of compensation based on the time period over which any service failures occurred and the impact of these failures.
  27. In this case, we consider that the failings we identified occurred over a relatively short period of time, which was the last 2 days of October 2023 and during November 2023. However, we consider the impact was high due to the resident’s medical conditions and the additional inconvenience experienced by the resident and her partner while they were unable to use the bathroom. The landlord’s procedure states that the maximum compensation in cases of short duration and high impact is £200. However, we do not consider this would be proportionate to the failings we have identified during our investigation. Equally, we do not consider the landlord’s offer of £300 appropriately reflects the impact of the failings on the resident. We have therefore made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to pay an additional £150 compensation in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the subsequent collapse of part of the bathroom ceiling.
  28. The amount we have ordered is broadly in line with our Remedies Guidance for cases where the landlord has made an offer of compensation but it is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

The landlord’s management of asbestos on the bathroom ceiling and its response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos

  1. The landlord’s Asbestos Procedure states:
    1. “Customers will be informed of the general arrangements for asbestos safety during their tenancy sign up process…Customers will receive a copy of the asbestos survey at sign up and are instructed to contact [the landlord] if they require any further advice before carrying out any home maintenance”.
    2. Asbestos survey information will be made available to operatives via their handheld devices and must be viewed as part of their “onsite dynamic risk assessment”.
    3. The removal of asbestos containing materials (ACM) is always carried out by competent and licensed contractors.
    4. Where ACMs are in good condition and unlikely to be disturbed, they will be left in situ.
    5. Where asbestos is known or presumed to be present and in a damaged condition, the room must be sealed and remain unused until licensed contractors can attend for urgent site clearance. This may require finding alternative accommodation for the occupant where kitchen or bathroom facilities are unusable.
  2. The HHSRS lists asbestos as a potential hazard. It says: “Damaged or likely to be damaged or disturbed asbestos should be assessed for repair, sealing, enclosure or removal by licensed (HSE) contractors”.
  3. The landlord’s records show that at the time of signing her tenancy, the landlord sent her a copy of the latest asbestos survey report for the property, which had been carried out on 6 April 2022. The report stated that the textured coating on the bathroom ceiling contained asbestos. The landlord also sent the resident an advice leaflet regarding asbestos. The landlord had acted in accordance with its Asbestos Procedure by sending the resident the survey report and the guidance leaflet.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 September 2023 to report mould on the bathroom ceiling. She advised that the ceiling now had a hole in it and would dent when touched. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord checked its asbestos register or gave the resident any safety advice, such as not touching the ceiling and not using the room. As the resident had advised the landlord there was damage to the bathroom ceiling and the landlord’s records showed that the ceiling contained asbestos, it was inappropriate that it had not provided the resident with safety advice at that stage. It was also inappropriate that the landlord had not arranged for the ceiling to be inspected by a suitably qualified surveyor or contractor to determine whether the resident was at risk from asbestos as a result of the damaged ceiling. This was contrary to its duties under the HHSRS, which says it must assess damaged asbestos.
  5. The resident phoned the landlord on the morning of 30 October 2023 to report that the ceiling was wet and bowing. She then phone in the afternoon and advised that part of the ceiling had collapsed. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord checked its asbestos register or provided the resident with any safety advice in relation to asbestos during the phone calls. This was inappropriate and contrary to its Asbestos Procedure as the resident had initially raised concerns that the ceiling was bowing and then advised the landlord that part of the ceiling had collapsed.
  6. An operative from the landlord’s out of hours team attended on the same evening and identified that the ceiling contained asbestos. The operative advised the resident that she should leave the property. It was appropriate that the out of hours team had asked the resident to leave the property as the operative believed the ceiling contained asbestos. Later during the same night, the landlord arranged for the resident to stay in a hotel. Its records stated that it took longer to arrange the hotel room as it had to find one that could accommodate the resident’s dog. It was reasonable that the landlord had arranged temporary accommodation due to the partial collapse of the bathroom ceiling, which contained asbestos. The time taken by the landlord to find the hotel accommodation was reasonable, in our view, as it had to find one that accepted pets.
  7. The landlord’s records show that it tried to contact its asbestos contractor during the night of 30 October 2023 but the contractor did not answer the phone. It was reasonable that the landlord had tried to contact the asbestos contractor shortly after the operative had attended the property on 30 October 2023.
  8. The asbestos contractor attended on 31 October 2023 and removed the ceiling. As the landlord had not been able to contact the asbestos contractor previously, it was reasonable that it had arranged for the contractor to attend on the next day to remove the ceiling and ensure the property was safe. The contractor had attended roughly within 24 hours of the ceiling collapsing. This indicates that the landlord treated the matter as an emergency, which was appropriate. The asbestos contractor’s report states that it had not deemed an air clearance test to be necessary and it had carried out a risk assessment which took into account the impact on the resident. The report also states that the contractor took safety measures when bagging up and removing the ACM.
  9. We do not have the expertise to determine whether the contractor dealt with the removal of the ACM in line with accepted protocols and took the appropriate measures to protect the safety of the resident. However, as the contractor was licensed to remove and dispose of the ACM, the landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of the contractor in taking the necessary safety measures.
  10. The landlord’s records show that it reported the incident to its health and safety team on 31 October 2023 and advised that there had been an incident involving asbestos. It was appropriate that the landlord had followed its health and safety procedure and notified its health and safety team about the incident. This would help the landlord to review its actions and identify any learning.
  11. The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 November 2023 and said she was unhappy that its stage 1 reply had not mentioned her exposure to asbestos. In response, the landlord wrote to the resident on 22 November 2023 and provided details of its insurance team so she could make a personal injury claim if she wished to do so. It explained that the claim would then be forwarded to its public liability insurers. It was appropriate for the landlord to send the resident details of its insurance team and advise that she could make a personal injury claim. She had expressed concerns about exposure to asbestos, which implied that she wanted to make a claim against the landlord. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that the landlord cannot use the policy for matters such as personal injury claims.
  12. One of the resident’s concerns was that she had not been advised that asbestos was present before or during the removal of the asbestos. The landlord’s internal emails sent by the manager who was on-call and who booked the resident into the hotel on 30 October 2023 stated that he advised the resident to avoid the bathroom due to asbestos. This is disputed by the resident who wrote to the landlord’s Insurance Team on 10 December 2023 and said she only became aware that the ceiling contained asbestos after the ceiling had been removed.
  13. In situations where there are conflicting accounts about conversations and events, we rely on contemporaneous documentary evidence to reach conclusions. In this instance, there are conflicting contemporaneous documents from both the landlord and the resident in relation to the events on 30 October 2024. Therefore, with insufficient evidence to confirm either way whether the resident was informed by the on-call manager about the presence of asbestos, it would not be possible for us, as an independent arbiter, to establish whether the resident was advised by the landlord’s on-call manager to avoid the bathroom due to asbestos.
  14. However, the evidence shows that when she signed the tenancy agreement the resident had been sent a copy of the asbestos survey produced in 2022, which showed that the coating on the bathroom ceiling contained asbestos. We have therefore not identified a service failure regarding the resident’s report that she had not been advised about the presence of asbestos prior to its removal.
  15. One of the other concerns raised by the resident was that the asbestos contractor had disposed of all of her personal items in the bathroom. In its stage 2 reply dated 18 January 2024, the landlord offered the resident £194.06 as reimbursement for the items that the contractor had disposed of. The sum was made up of:
    1. £128.36 for items that were disposed of where the resident had provided proof of purchase. The sum was calculated at 50% of the purchase value.
    2. £65.70 for items that were disposed of where the resident did not have proof of purchase. The landlord said it was making a 50% contribution for these items.
  16. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 response that there had been failures, for example, in its staff not checking the asbestos register when the resident contacted it on 5 and 6 September 2023. Therefore, it was appropriate and in line with its Compensation Policy it had offered to reimburse the resident for her losses. The policy states that it will compensate to the value of the loss where that can be determined. In this case, the evidence indicates that the resident provided some receipts and the landlord calculated the ‘value’ of those items as 50% of their cost. In our view, the landlord’s approach was not unreasonable as a way of taking into account the age and condition of the items.
  17. It also offered a 50% contribution for some of the items for which the resident did not have receipts. This was reasonable as the landlord was not obliged under its Compensation Policy to make such a payment as no receipts had been provided.
  18. The landlord was entitled to rely on the contractor’s expertise and judgement in deciding which items should be disposed of. However, we have not seen any evidence that the contractor produced an inventory of the items it disposed of or took photos of the items. This was unreasonable as without an inventory or photos the resident was unable to provide evidence of the items the contractor had disposed of. It meant the resident had to spend further time and trouble in January 2024 providing the landlord with the photos she had taken of the bags of items. It also added to her frustration as she was unable to provide proof that all of the items in the bathroom had been thrown away.
  19. In summary, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s management of asbestos on the bathroom ceiling and its response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos:
    1. The landlord did not check its asbestos register nor provide the resident with any safety advice regarding the asbestos on the bathroom ceiling when she phoned on 5 and 6 September 2023, even though she said there was a hole in the ceiling.
    2. The landlord did not arrange for the ceiling to be inspected to assess the risk to the resident when it received the calls on 5 and 6 September 2023.
    3. The landlord did not check its asbestos register nor provide the resident with any safety advice about the asbestos when she phoned on the morning of 30 October 2023 nor during the afternoon when she phoned to advise that the ceiling had collapsed.
    4. The asbestos contractor did not take an inventory or take photos of the items that it disposed of on 31 October 2023.
  20. We have again used our Dispute Resolution Principles to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 reply dated 18 January 2023 that it had failed to check its asbestos register at various times when the resident had reported issues with the bathroom ceiling. It also acknowledged that it had failed to provide the resident with safety advice regarding the asbestos during these calls.
  21. The landlord sought to put things right by offering £300 for the time and impact of its failings and by reimbursing the resident for items that were disposed of. We have considered the £300 offered by the landlord in relation to its management of the asbestos on the bathroom ceiling and its handling of the damp and mould, which was covered earlier in this assessment. Our conclusion based on the failings we have identified, is that the landlord did not offer appropriate and proportionate financial redress to put things right in relation to the management of the asbestos on the bathroom ceiling. The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable due to health conditions and yet did not provide her with appropriate information during her calls to help her avoid unnecessary risks. Furthermore, it did not arrange for the asbestos to be inspected to assess the risks. The evidence shows that the landlord’s management of the asbestos and the lack of advice given to the resident caused her distress. For example, she advised the landlord during a phone call on 17 November 2023 that the stress of the situation had aggravated her medical condition. Whilst we cannot comment on her medical condition, we have seen sufficient evidence that the resident experienced distress due to the landlord’s failings.
  22. We have therefore found there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of asbestos on the bathroom ceiling and its response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos because:
    1. There were important failures by the landlord which adversely affected the resident and caused her distress.
    2. Although the landlord acknowledged these failings and made some attempt to put things right, we do not consider the offer was proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
  23. Based on the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £400 in relation to its management of asbestos on the bathroom ceiling and its response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos. The sum is in line with our Remedies Guidance for cases where we have found there was maladministration due to failures that adversely affected the resident and caused distress.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. Our Complaint Handling Code states that “exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received”. However, any extension should not exceed 10 working days without good reason. Any extension beyond 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 should be agreed by both parties.
  3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 31 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 November 2023, which was 3 working days after receiving it. The landlord therefore acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale which was in line with its policy.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 17 November 2023, which was 10 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord therefore replied within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy.
  5. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 17 November 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 5 December 2023. The landlord took 12 working days to acknowledge the complaint, which was inappropriate as it was not in line with its policy. The landlord then sent its stage 2 reply on 16 January 2024, followed by a revised stage 2 response on 18 January 2024. The landlord therefore took 27 working days to send its initial stage 2 response after it had acknowledged the complaint. The time taken was inappropriate as it was not in line with its policy. However, the landlord had sent a ‘holding’ response on 21 December 2023 to reassure the resident that it was in the process of investigating her stage 2 complaint and would reply as soon as possible.
  6. In its revised stage 2 reply dated 18 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged the delay in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint and offered her compensation of £25. Although the landlord had not agreed an extension of time with the resident, it had sent a holding reply and had not exceeded the 10-working day extension period stated in our Complaint Handling Code. Therefore, in our view the landlord’s offer of £25 compensation was reasonable to put things right. On this basis, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the subsequent collapse of part of the bathroom ceiling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its management of asbestos on the bathroom ceiling and its response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident a total of £550 compensation which is comprised of:
      1. £150 for the distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the subsequent collapse of part of the bathroom ceiling.
      2. £400 for the distress caused by the landlord’s management of asbestos on the bathroom ceiling and its response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.