Gloucester City Homes Limited (202219320)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219320

Gloucester City Homes Limited

29 September 2023


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:  
    1. The condition of the property on letting it to the resident.
    2. The removal of asbestos at the property.

Background

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of a flat owned by the landlord.
  2. The resident’s tenancy began on 22 July 2022. On 8 August 2022 a complaint was made on her behalf by her representative. For the purposes of this report any contact with that person will be referred as to having been with the resident. The complaint was about the condition of the property on letting. She was concerned about a number of matters which included rubbish in the garden, broken drains, defects to the vinyl flooring and electrical issues.
  3. As a result of the complaint, the landlord carried out an inspection of the property and prepared a list of works which were required and this included a task in respect of the flooring in the bathroom. Its operative attended the property on 24 August 2022 to address this and noted asbestos in the tiles under the flooring and which needed to be removed. The landlord then identified that there was asbestos present in the kitchen and hallway too (in both flooring and ceilings). It instructed a contractor to remove the necessary areas and then arranged for testing to take place – both to the air in the property and to the dust generated by the works.
  4. As part of its complaint response, the landlord considered its handling of the asbestos removal as well as looking at any outstanding repairs. It concluded that further works were required and provided a detailed list. In terms of the work already carried out (specifically relating to the asbestos removal), it accepted that there had been delays and that a poor service had been offered but asserted that this was on the part of its contractors and was not the fault of its own staff members.
  5. By way of remedy, the landlord offered to pay the resident £250 towards redecoration of the property and £150 compensation for the delays. It also agreed to purchase and install a cooker hood. The landlord further confirmed that it would be reviewing its contractual arrangement with one of the contractors whose performance it was dissatisfied with.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and referred the matter to this service. To resolve the issues she wants all works to be completed and increased compensation to reflect the impact the situation has had on her.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property on letting it to the resident

  1. The property was empty for a while prior to the resident moving in. The landlord’s records show that it carried out an inspection during this void period and identified (and carried out) works to the heating and electrical systems. In addition, the landlord commissioned a “refurbishment” asbestos survey and received a report on the outcome following an inspection on 6 June 2022.
  2. The report noted the presence of materials containing asbestos in the ceiling and floors of the living room as well as in the kitchen, bathroom, bedrooms, and hallway in the property. It recommended removal, although it noted that the risk of asbestos fibres being released into the atmosphere was very low. The minutes of a meeting between landlord and resident on 12 October 2022 show that the start of the tenancy had been delayed by three weeks – the resident being under the impression this was so that the asbestos could be removed before she moved in.
  3. As set out above, however, the landlord arranged for the removal of materials containing asbestos from the kitchen, bathroom, and hallway one month after the tenancy start date – that is, not before it commenced. The landlord has not demonstrated, with evidence, that asbestos was removed from any other area during the void period – leaving just these parts of the flat outstanding. It is reasonable to conclude that the recommendations for removal made in the survey were not implemented by the landlord at all prior to the start of the tenancy.
  4.  
  5. The landlord might reasonably have been expected to either act on the recommendations made and remove the materials in question before the tenancy or make it clear to the tenant, from the outset, that this had not been done. If it was the landlord’s view that the risk was so low as to render it unnecessary, it might reasonably have been expected to set this out for the resident prior to her moving in. However, the fact that it decided to remove ceilings and floors in the areas that it did, so soon after the resident moved in, confirms the view that it was both necessary and should/could have been done beforehand.
  6. Consequently, the landlord’s omission to either carry out the work or set out the situation to the resident to enable her to make an informed decision amounted to a failing in the service it offered to her.
  7. Further, following the resident’s complaint, the landlord agreed that further works were needed to the property, centring around the flooring in the bathroom, the guttering, and the front door. Since then, it has agreed to undertake a further list of tasks in its stage 2 complaint response. In addition, in November 2022, the resident referred further issues to the landlord with the garage roof, driveway tarmac, the drains and with the time clock for the heating. A long list of outstanding works has been supplied to this service by the resident which she seeks completion of.
  8. The reports made by the resident can be separated into three broad categories – (1) those which have been complained about from the start, (2) snagging issues from the asbestos removal works; and (3) new reports of issues which may have been identifiable all along or which may have arisen since the start of the tenancy. Whatever the correct categorisation of the outstanding repairs, the volume of issues, coupled with the lack of asbestos removal, support a finding that the void inspection and works were not handled reasonably in this case.
  9. This service does not ordinarily inspect properties to identify what is and is not necessary by way of maintenance and/or repair. We also do not have the expertise to determine the specific actions to be undertaken in completing repairs. However, by accepting in the early days/months of the tenancy, that works were outstanding, the landlord has effectively acknowledged that its handling of the void period fell short as it failed to identify a number of issues for resolution. The service offered to the resident by the landlord in this respect fell below the standard she was reasonably entitled to expect.
  10. Whilst the landlord agreed to further works as part of its complaint response, it did not analyse whether the way it had prepared the property to be relet was reasonable. It offered some compensation by way of remedy, but this related to the distress and inconvenience to the resident of accommodating the removal works – it did not relate to the fact the resident moved into a property believing everything necessary had already been done – only to find out this was not the case. It did not reflect the impact on the resident of having to report and accommodate other issues as well, at least some of which might reasonably have been attended to during the void period. Its stage 2 response failed to address whether any of the works could or should have been done during the void period.
  11. An order has been made below for compensation of £250 which reflects the stress and worry caused by the landlord’s failure to identify and complete void works reasonably. There should be no permanent impact on the resident once all is concluded. This has been calculated in accordance with this Service’s Remedies Guidance. An order has also been made for the landlord to carry out a detailed inspection of the property to confirm exactly what remains outstanding to be attended to.

The removal of asbestos at the property

  1. The landlord scheduled work to commence on asbestos removal for 26 August 2022. Further, scraping of artexed ceilings was scheduled for 2 September 2022. By the end of August 2022 the floors had been dealt with. However the ceiling work was experiencing delays, the contractors were arriving late and leaving early, an operative failed to attend due to illness, and there was dust in the property and which the resident was concerned may be hazardous.
  2. On 7 September 2022 the landlord arranged for another contractor to attend site to take air and dust samples for testing purposes. The dust tested positive for asbestos in the bathroom and on 13 September 2022 the landlord arranged for a clean-up. The resident reported that the first team which arrived to do this work had no personal protective equipment (PPE) and just vacuumed and wiped surfaces, but a second team which came out handled it professionally. The resident reported this to the local authority’s environmental health team. An attempt to decant the resident failed in the meantime due to a lack of anywhere to move out to.
  3. A further attempt to finish the ceiling scrape was scheduled for 22 September 2022 but the contractor had once again left early and run out of time. By 26 September 2022 the ceilings in the kitchen and bathroom had been cleared, boarded, and plastered but the hallway ceiling was still awaiting attention. This was scheduled for 5/6 October, with plastering for 10/11 October 2022 and an electrician on standby to remove/reinstate light fittings.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it accepted that there had been significant service failings in the way the works had been handled. It acknowledged that “on multiple occasions” the contractor had arrived late and left early (and on occasion failed to attend at all); the work was not to an acceptable standard; the testing contractor had failed to attend when requested on an emergency basis; there was poor communication; and there was confusion over the electrical work leading to further delays. It was important that the landlord accepted these failings which were reasonably identified given the chronology of the works. The resident was still living in the property and was reporting significant distress at the position. This was exacerbated by the fact a close family member had suffered from asbestosis and the resident and her family were very conscious of the health risks associated with this substance.
  5. The landlord’s response to the complaint failed to acknowledge the fact it had originally delayed the tenancy start date to remove asbestos during that time. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s compensation offer would have differed to the one made had it considered the complaint from this perspective (and identified the additional service failings identified in this report). This represented a further failing in the service it offered to the resident.
  6. As set out above, the landlord offered to give the resident £250 towards redecoration of the property. It agreed to purchase and install a cooker hood. Finally, it offered compensation of £150 as a “goodwill gesture” for the delays experienced.
  7. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  8. In the Ombudsman’s view, the redress offered was not fair and reasonable for two reasons. Firstly, the use of the term “goodwill gesture” suggested that in the landlord’s view, it had done little, if anything wrong. Indeed, it has stated that responsibility rested with its contractor(s). However, it is responsible for their actions and might reasonably have acknowledged that and in a clear way. Secondly, its compensation offer does not adequately reflect the impact on the resident in terms of her distress and the inconvenience of having major works carried out barely weeks after moving into the property. The task should have been carried out beforehand.
  9. Further, the resident lived in the property during the work, knowing there was a possibility of dust and particles in the air. This Service cannot offer an opinion as to whether this was the case and whether it could or did impact the resident’s health. It is hoped that that is not the case. The resident reasonably reports finding the whole situation extremely worrying.
  10. This Service’s Remedies Guidance provides that where there has been a considerable service failure with no permanent impact, an award in the sum of £250 – £700 is justified. This case comes at the higher end of that bracket and an order for £600 compensation has been made below. The landlord’s offer to pay £250 towards redecoration costs was reasonable and will be reflected below too.
  11. As part of the inspection referred to above, the landlord should address whether there is any remaining asbestos in the property, the level of risk it poses, and whether there are/should be any plans to remove it.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was  maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
    1. The condition of the property on letting it to the resident.
    2. The removal of asbestos at the property.

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the total amount £1,100 in compensation, calculated as:
    1. £850 for service failings, distress, and inconvenience.
    2. £250 for redecoration costs.
  2. The landlord should carry out a full inspection of the property (to include in respect of any remaining asbestos) and produce a schedule of repairs.
  3. It should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the Order within four weeks of receiving this determination.