ForHousing Limited (202214578)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214578

ForHousing Limited

12 September 2023 (amended at review)

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 response to the resident’s concerns about repair delays and asbestos at her property, and her request for compensation.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a two-storey house with the bathroom situated over the main living room.
3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 30 March 2022, as she was unhappy with the delays to the repairs and the potential exposure to asbestos in the property. She wished to know why the asbestos survey had not been carried out earlier, believing the landlord was previously aware of the asbestos through historical works raised. She asked the landlord move the planned repair dates forward.
4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 4 May 2022. It gave a timeline of the events, agreeing that the repairs to the living room ceiling had remained outstanding since September 2021. It apologised for the delay caused by not arranging the asbestos survey earlier. It acknowledged its service levels fell below the resident’s expectations, but explained it could not move the works forward due to their nature.
5. In further communications with the landlord on 18 May 2022, the resident again raised her concerns about the asbestos and the potential exposure. She said that the repair appointments had caused her to lose two days’ worth of income, as she had taken unpaid holiday off work to be present. The landlord offered her £50 compensation to the resident, attributing the repair delays to the asbestos survey not being carried out because of limited staff availability due to covid-19.
6. The asbestos survey was done on 19 May 2022 by an asbestos testing company. It’s report states that the “measured airborne…fibre concentrations are below the limit of detection”. Internal emails between the landlord and the asbestos company refer to arrangements to remove asbestos.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 June 2022. She disputed the compensation offer of £50. She wanted the landlord to increase it, or consider a rent reduction. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 30 September 2022. It upheld its stage one decision but acknowledged that it had not considered the full timeframes and delays to the repairs, offering £100 compensation to remedy this.
8. The landlord attended on 25 October 2022, cutting a hole in the residents living room ceiling to conduct a visual inspection of the bathroom pipework following the resident’s reports of a leak.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with this outcome and brought her complaint to this Service. She sought further compensation in light of her lost earnings, and a rent discount for the period in which the asbestos remained an issue. The repairs to the ceiling were completed on 9 December 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident reported further repair problems following the end of the landlord’s complaint investigation. The Ombudsman can only potentially investigate a complaint after the landlord has conducted its own investigation. Accordingly, the resident would need to raise these further developments with the landlord as a formal complaint before the Ombudsman can assist with them.
11. In her complaint the resident said that she had lost of earnings on several occasions and wanted the landlord to provide compensation. In general, the Ombudsman would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work or loss of wages whilst repairs are carried out. Whilst such works will inevitably cause inconvenience to any resident, their occupancy agreement requires them to provide access for repairs, and a request for actual lost earnings would require assessment of liability and a claim to the courts. It would be outside the complaints procedure and the Ombudsman’s remit.

The repair delays and asbestos at the property

12. The landlord has a legal duty to manage asbestos, as specified in regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. It requires the landlord to take reasonable steps to: identify, maintain records of, protect residents to exposure from, and execute a management plan for asbestos.
13. According to its records, the landlord originally arranged for the asbestos specialist to survey the property on 23 March 2022, with the intention of attending the next day to complete the repairs. The asbestos survey did not go ahead, however, apparently for reasons outside the landlord’s control, which impacted on the follow up repairs. The landlord’s notes of the resident’s complaint in on 30 March state that she was frustrated about the delay caused by the need to rearrange the survey, and the fact that the need for the survey had not been identified originally when the work started in September 2021. Its notes show that it rang the resident the next day, and confirmed her complaint centred on the time taken to complete the ceiling repairs, and her request for them to be brought forward. In its complaint response it acknowledged the delay caused by the need for the survey, and apologised. However, it explained it could not bring the survey and repair dates forward. That response was only partly reasonable, because despite acknowledging that the work was still outstanding since the previous year, the only remedy it offered was an apology. That could not reasonably be described as a proportionate remedy at that stage.
14.  After receiving the landlord’s complaint response the resident emailed it on 18 May 2022. She explained that she did not believe its response was appropriate, in light of the anxiety she had been caused from having her family living in a house with “confirmed asbestos.” She repeated her concerns about the delay arranging the survey, explained how she had had to chase for updates, and how she had had to take two days of unpaid leave to for some of the repair appointments. As compensation for its failings and the distress caused to her she asked the landlord to repair some of her garden fencing.
15.  The landlord’s internal emails confirm that it received the resident’s email, and agreed to her repair request. However, in the meantime the resident had resolved the repair, and asked for financial compensation due to “living with asbestos in the home.” The internal emails show discussion between several officers, in which an amount of £50 was agreed as “more than reasonable” for a seven month repair delay. There is no indication of how that figure was agreed or what it was based on, and no consideration of the resident’s concern that she had been potentially exposed to asbestos. In the circumstances of the resident’s serious concerns and the extensive delays, the consideration given, and the amount offered, were not reasonable. The resident understandably declined the offer, reiterated the concerns she had raised in her previous email, and asked again for compensation.
16. In its final complaint response the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays with both the repairs, and the asbestos survey. It apologised for not previously acknowledging the full scope of the delays, or providing compensation, and offered £100. Nothing in the final response addresses the resident’s concerns about the asbestos, confirms whether asbestos was found or not, or explains how the compensation amount was decided. The final response was an opportunity for the landlord to fully remedy the resident’s concerns, but it failed to do so. It also gave no indication of how it would learn from the resident’s experiences or use the complaint to assess where its processes and procedures could be improved, all of which are basics of good complaint handling, and set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code
17. As part of her complaint the resident asked the landlord to reduce her rent as compensation. A rent reduction is usually only considered when some or all of a home is completely unusable and unliveable. The resident’s concerns in this case are wholly understandable, but nothing in the evidence indicates the landlord should have considered a rent reduction or discount.

Complaint handling

18. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will provide a response to an escalated complaint within 20 working days. In this case the landlord took from 23 June 2022 to 30 September. There is evidence of an update to the resident on 17 August explaining a delay due to staff shortage, but nothing else in the evidence explains the significant delay, and the landlord’s final complaint response did not acknowledge, explain, or apologise for it.
19. Where a delay is unavoidable, it is considered good practice, and in line with the Code, to arrange a deadline extension with the resident, clearly stating the reason for the delay and responding no later than a further ten working days. Yet the landlord did not evidence what actions it took, if any, to communicate these delays to the resident, and did not request an extension of its formal complaint responses.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
    1. Its response to the resident’s concerns about repair delays and asbestos at her property, and her request for compensation.
    2. Its complaint handling.

Orders

21. In light of the failings found in this investigation, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £500 for its poor handling of the repairs and asbestos. This is inclusive of the £100 it already offered.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for its complaint handling delays.
22. These orders have been decided in light of the scale of the identified failings, the length of time involved, and the specific circumstances involved, i.e. the asbestos, a well-known health risk.
23. These payments must be made within four weeks of the date of this report, and should be paid to the resident, rather than to a rent account. Evidence of compliance must be provided to this Service by the deadline.