Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202222418)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222418

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

17 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Asbestos in the property.
2. The resident’s reports of several repairs.
3. The resident’s request to be rehoused.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria includes applicants living in unsuitable conditions and applicants who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria and the assessment of such applications.
Since the resident’s request to be rehoused falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996), it cannot be reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman. As a result, this element of her complaint is better suited to the LGSCO.
The LGSCO can be contacted by visiting www.lgo.org.uk or by telephoning 0300 061 0614.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom, first floor flat. The resident acquired the property via a managed move in March 2021. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, however records show that she suffers from anxiety and depression, and her daughter suffers from respiratory conditions.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repair policy states it carries out repairs according to urgency. Priority will be determined on the type of issue and likelihood of harm:
1. Urgent emergency – within 4 hours
2. Emergency response – within 24 hours
3. Urgent – level 1 – within 7 working days
4. Routine – level 2 – within 20 working days
5. Planned – level 3 – within 60 working days.
The landlord has an asbestos policy which states that:
1. It will ensure that any asbestos containing materials identified as being damaged or at risk of damage are repaired, protected or removed by a competent person in line with regulations and best practice.
2. It will ensure that any asbestos containing materials that are high risk are removed or encapsulated to reduce their risk. In doing so, ensure that sufficient records of asbestos removal and remedial works are kept. Effective contractual and technical monitoring of contractors performance will take place.
3. Where asbestos surveyors recommend remedial action, these will be appropriately arranged. The asbestos manager or asbestos contract manager are responsible for reviewing the recommended actions arising from surveys, and arranging remedial works. The asbestos manager is responsible for providing technical advice and guidance to residents.
4. Any incident involving the uncontrolled release of asbestos will be subject to a full internal investigation.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint policy which states that:
1. Stage 1 – complaints will be responded to within 10 working days, extended by 10 working days for complex cases
2. Stage 2 – complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.

Summary of events

An Asbestos Insulating Board (AIB) in poor condition was identified in the property in an asbestos survey carried out on 14 April 2015. It was located below the water tank in the bathroom. The survey noted that the risk priority for the AIB was low but it needed to be removed in accordance with the control of asbestos regulations (CAR 2012).
The AIB was never removed, and was identified again in the same condition in a further asbestos management survey carried out on 24 March 2021. The risk priority was marked as medium and the recommendation was that it was removed. The landlord’s asbestos contractors were asked to attend on 1 April 2021 to encapsulate the AIB. It noted that the resident refused access because she wanted it removed. The job was cancelled and the contractor noted that it had informed the landlord that encapsulation did not take place.
On 17 May 2021 the resident reported a sewage smell from the drains immediately outside her property. The landlord arranged an appointment for 20 May 2021. The resident states that during this visit, the contractor poured acid down the drain in an attempt to clear it. The job was marked as “completed automatically” on the landlord’s system. The resident chased the landlord for an update on several occasions throughout June and September 2021, stating that she could still smell strong acid fumes.
On 9 September 2021 the landlord raised a job to unblock the front drains, repair holes in the bath enamel and repair a leaking toilet pipe. An appointment was booked for 5 October 2021. The contractor attended and noted that there was no issue with the bath and no leak in the toilet. A job for a drainage specialist was raised to assess the drains.
On several occasions throughout October 2021 the resident requested an update on the drainage report. On 13 October 2021 the resident made a complaint to her landlord. She said:
1. She had a number of problems since she had moved into the property, including a broken buzzer, a blocked drain, broken windows and a radiator that wasn’t working. She had been told by one of the landlord’s operatives that the property was to a temporary not permanent standard.
2. She had called to speak to the repairs team “untold times” to report issues which either hadn’t been done or needed to be redone. For example, someone had visited 3 times to look at the chipped enamel on her bath. She had also been “non-stop” complaining about the smell of acid from the drains outside her property.
3. She was concerned she and her family were breathing in harmful fumes and felt the property was not fit for human habitation. For example, a contractor had told her that he could not do anything about the drains because it was too dangerous and he did not want any of his operatives to get hurt. She recalled several members of staff she had spoken to and conversations she had about her concerns, but nothing had been done. She wanted a surveyor to attend her property and look at everything she had mentioned.
The landlord responded to the resident the same day and said that it would forward her concerns to the “relevant department”.
On 31 January 2022 the landlord raised a job to fix the bathroom window, remove the redundant water tank in the bathroom and unblock the drain. Several jobs were raised and marked as completed or cancelled.
A further asbestos management survey was carried out on 4 February 2022. It identified the AIB was still in situ, and deemed to be medium risk. As per the recommendations, a job was raised to remove it.
On 9 February 2022 the landlord noted that it was unable to unblock the drains without specialist coring equipment. It noted that there was a mass build-up of scale and battery acid.
On 14 February 2022 the resident made a complaint to her landlord. She said she had written to the landlord on 13 October 2021 to raise a complaint. She was informed it would be sent to the relevant department but had not heard anything since:
1. Acid residue was still in her drain and she could smell it through her window and outside her door. A drainage company had been called back to unblock the drain on several occasions and the operative said he was going to need to ask management to look at the previous notes as he could not remove acid he believed to be still there.
2. The acid was so strong that on 15 October 2021, it burnt through an operative’s hose. The same day, the landlord told her verbally that the drain was safe. She had to walk acid through her house as she was unable to lift the buggy up and over it. She had concerns about the safety of her children.
3. There were significant issues with her bathroom:
  1. She still had no way to lock her bathroom window as the handle was broken. In the wind, it had blown open. She couldn’t sleep at night because she was worried that one of her children could climb up out of it and die.
  2. Her bath still had chipped enamel in it, despite attempts to repair it. Her 2 year old daughter had scratched herself on it. She was living with mould in her bathroom that should “could not keep up with”. She was cleaning it every other day and it was getting worse
  3. The wooden boxing in the bathroom was falling apart and she had been left with an empty water tank.
4. There were several other issues in her property including issues with her kitchen drawers, the radiators and electric boxes that were not in use were on the floors with exposed wires.
5. The communal door had been broken for some months.
6. Since moving in, she had nothing but stress and worry and been ignored by everyone. The fact she had originally emailed to complain in October 2021 and had no response had summed up her experience.
The landlord’s asbestos contractors raised a works order to remove the AIB shelf on 25 February 2022. It conducted an air test which noted no concerns. The operative recorded that the area was “clean and tidy” before leaving and the job was closed.
On 28 February 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and said it aimed to write to her within 10 working days, but was still investigating all of her issues.
On 2 March 2022 the resident told the landlord that she wanted to add to her complaint:
1. She still had asbestos in her bathroom cupboard, and was told during a visit that she had to throw away anything that was not wipeable. She threw away her towels which she did not have the funds to replace.
2. She was concerned about the walls as her TV had fallen off. A surveyor seemed to be disinterested in what she was saying. The property had been a “danger to life” and had caused her nothing but distress. She felt that the landlord had not fulfilled its obligations at the beginning and throughout her tenancy.
On 8 March 2022 the landlord attended to fix the bathroom lock and handle but noted it could not repair the window “due to access of the fittings for safety reasons”. It screwed the window to the frame as a temporary fix.
The landlord’s records state on “??/03/2022” the resident complained about crumbs of AIB being left in her bathroom cupboard. An asbestos sampling report was undertaken by analysts on 18 March 2022. It found that two bathroom items had tested positive for amosite. The asbestos contractor was asked to reattend and carry out additional cleaning.
The resident contacted the landlord again about her complaint on 2 occasions in March 2022. She said:
1. She has been informed by the landlord’s asbestos contracts manager that the crumbs she had noticed had been left behind in her bathroom were asbestos. The operative who called her to explain this said that her personal items should not have been left in the cupboard.
2. She felt “sick to her stomach” that she had been left with asbestos in her home and had wrapped her babies up in towels that had come from the same cupboard.
3. She was concerned about developing cancer and the impact both the asbestos and the acid had on her and her children. Her daughter had been “non-stop coughing” for months and she was worried that they had been put at increased risk of lung cancers. She said she would spend the rest of her life worrying about it.
After speaking to the resident on 21 March 2022 the landlord contacted the repairs team and advised that it had specifically requested that the repair was not booked within school run time. However it had attended during that time and so it was “carded”. It was requested that it was booked in ASAP. The same day, it made a referral to the landlord’s damp and mould team.
The following day, the contractor attended to clean the asbestos but it was during school run time. The landlord noted that the contractor did air testing and the readings were “okay” but the test should have been done after the cupboard had been cleaned. The resident contacted the landlord the same day to update her complaint. She said that:
1. The job was booked for 1pm on both days but no one had managed to turn up on time. Given the seriousness, she would have expected the landlord to have attended at a time she was at home. Another 48 hours had gone by with asbestos in the property.
2. She did not know how much more she could take, and she was feeling distressed. She felt her property was dangerous and she would “never relax” about the health of her children.
On 24 March 2022 the landlord arranged for a reassurance air test before clearing out the bathroom cabinet and completing the additional cleaning.
Damp works were raised on 28 March 2022 to complete a mould wash, fix the extractor fan and replace the internal window seals. It reported it tried to complete several appointments but there was “no access”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 March 2022. She said:
1. Someone had attended to her property on 24 March 2022. They had put up a sign on the door but cleaned the cupboard out with the bathroom door open. When she challenged him, he said “you haven’t got asbestos” which she found condescending as there had been proof that there was asbestos present
2. She was of the understanding that all items would be removed, and protective paint would be put on the floor. However the operative left fabrics and items from the cupboard in the bath for her to put away
3. She was living in fear in her own home and she felt she would have worry “hanging over her head for the rest of [her] life”.
On 5 April 2022 the landlord’s complaint officer contacted the asbestos contract manager and asked that they call the resident to put her mind at ease as she was having sleepless nights, worrying that exposure was fatal. The same day, the landlord asked that a full investigative report into the management of asbestos be done as a matter of urgency. It also chased repairs to the window, boxes of wires, drains and damp and mould.
The landlord’s asbestos contractor completed a “tier one incident investigation report” on 11 April 2022 following the resident’s report that it had poorly removed the asbestos. Having reviewed all of the evidence, the contractor said that it was difficult to conclude that there was any negligence. They said that air testing on both visits had been below the clearance indicator and therefore there was little risk to the resident from asbestos exposure. In future, they would take additional photos to confirm the condition of the property before leaving.
On 20 and 28 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and said there was still crumbs of asbestos in the cupboard. It recorded that the resident was “sobbing her heart out” with worry.
The landlord completed a “incident investigation report” on 29 April 2022. It took into account the report that had been completed by the asbestos contractors. The landlord concluded that:
1. The underlying cause of the incident was poor communication between its contractors and the resident. The resident had accessed the ‘respiratory zone’ set up by the asbestos removal operative, which could have been avoided had they asked her not to enter the bathroom until it had completed the job. They had adopted unsafe behaviour by removing their mask to reassure the resident.
2. When the analyst arrived on site, they were not provided with risk assessments or a schedule of works as the removal operative had already gone. Without full information, they were unsure of the works to be completed. They did not carry out a thorough visual inspection of the cupboard where the resident’s personal belongings were, but the CAR2021 did not require them to do this.
3. The removal operative should have been aware of the full scope of works before removing all items from the cupboard and should have waited for the analyst to arrive.
4. It acknowledged that the AIB panel had been “left neglected” by the landlord since 2015 and put it in breach of legal requirements of the landlord and tenant act 1985, the CAR 2012 and the health and safety at work act 1974.
5. The landlord’s lack of processes contributed to the issues. It had ended its contract with the asbestos contractor and implemented a new procedure to help prevent the same incidents from happening again in the future.
6. The consequence of the incident was deemed serious but low risk. An analytical inspection and air test had taken place which did not highlight any issues. It deemed there was little risk of asbestos exposure to the resident. Despite this, it had asked its contractors to:
  1. decontaminate all surfaces in the bathroom and dispose of all non-cleanable items
  2. encapsulate the walls and ceiling and paint seal the floor
  3. provide reassurance to the resident and personal air monitoring in the hall and bathroom during and after completion of the works.
On 4 May 2022 an environmental clean of the bathroom cupboard took place. 3 bags of general waste were also removed. Reassurance air tests were completed during and after the works.
On 30 May 2022 the resident said that she wanted a response to the following repairs:
1. Acid was still down the drain and she had concerns for her health. Her carpets had been damaged because of her bringing in acid from outside with the pushchair
2. The bathroom window was still damaged. There was no catch to keep it closed and it opened when it was windy
3. Her bedroom door safety catch did not work, and her kitchen drawers remained broken.
Throughout May to August 2022 the landlord attended to look at the bathroom window and the bath. Works were raised but not completed for various reasons including that there was “not enough time”, “cancelled” or the resident thought the job was on a different day.
On 3 August 2022 the landlord’s customer resolution officer chased the repair to the window. They said they had asked on behalf of the resident when the repair would be done in June and July but had not got a response.
On 8 August 2022 the landlord attended to replace the bath. There was no shut down to the water in the property so a new appointment would have to be arranged for a time when it could shut down the water for the whole block.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 18 August 2022 and noted that:
1. The resident was “extremely upset”. Since raising an initial inspection for someone to look at her kitchen drawers, an operative had attended and said that the sink was not supported. Surveyors on previous inspections had not picked this up
2. Her window needed a mechanism and pane changing, but it did not need replacing. Normally it would be the residents responsibility to change the window pane, but because it had been left broken and swinging around that is what would have caused the damage.
3. When the operative came to change the bath, they removed a wall panel to look for a stop cock. The resident was told that doing that was likely to have disturbed the asbestos
4. She was still experiencing issues with the smell of acid which became more prominent when it rained.
Records show that from when the landlord accepted the complaint in February to September 2022 the customer resolution officer responsible for responding to the residents complaint, chased for updates from internal teams on approximately 40 occasions.
On 30 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process. It said it was sorry for the delay in responding to her complaint and had broken down her complaint into several elements:
1. Acid in drains – it noted that she initially reported issues with drains in May 2021. Its contractors had used acid at the time to try and clear the blockage.
  1. It sincerely apologised if this had aggravated her daughter’s asthma.
  2. Despite a change of contractor, and a different specialist attending the property, it acknowledged that the issue was ongoing and delays had been because it had identified that access was required via a neighbouring property. The repair would be fully completed “shortly”
2. Leak in the toilet – it could see that she reported a leak on 9 September 2021. A contractor had attended and said there was not a leak, however a surveyor later raised a repair which was completed in March 2022
3. Bathroom window – it first became aware of issues with the window in January 2022. Some of the appointments had been recorded as “no access” but it acknowledged that some of the appointments were not attended
  1. Between March and June, operatives had tried to fix the window but were unsuccessful. A new appointment had been made for 18 October 2022
  2. It had noted that during a visit in August 2022, the glass pane was still cracked. A further repair had been raised and she could expect to receive contact directly from the contractor
4. Bath enamel repair – it was first made aware of the repair in March 2021, a job was raised with its previous contractor but never resolved. In January 2022 a job was raised with its new contractor. There had been several delays with appointments due to access issues and having to shut off all the water in the block to replace the bath. The job was completed 31 August 2022.
5. Mould in the bathroom – a damp surveyor had attended the property in March 2022. They had noted that a mould wash and decoration was required which was completed on 4 May 2022. The fan was replaced on 5 August 2022
6. Asbestos – a surveyor visit in December 2021 highlighted that the water tank in the bathroom needed to be moved. A job was raised to its asbestos contractor to remove the AIB around it. It noted that the contractor did not attend at the agreed time causing additional delays.
  1. In March 2022 she had raised concerns about the way that the asbestos was removed and that crumbs were left behind. A thorough investigation took place and a new contractor attended on 29 April 2022 to dispose of any left over items. It was sorry for the worry she felt during this time
  2. It noted that she remained concerned about asbestos and that protective paint had not been used to paint the base of the cupboard. Further testing on the asbestos would take place on 3 October 2022.
7. It could not see that she had made previous reports of issues with her radiators prior to bringing her complaint. Its contractors had attended to bleed and test all the radiators and they were confirmed as working on 14 April 2022.
8. Broken kitchen drawers – a surveyor visit was raised in April 2022 but was not attended. A new appointment took place in August 2022 but a repair was not raised until 27 September 2022. It apologised for the delay.
9. Electrical box with wires – this was another job that had not been raised following a surveyor visit in December 2021. A works order was raised in May and it apologised that operatives attended during a time she had specified she was on a school run. The job was completed on 13 May 2022.
10. Broken communal door – a job was raised on 5 April and completed 17 May 2022. It was sorry for the inconvenience.
11. It provided her with move options if that was something she wished to pursue.
12. Taking into consideration everything that had happened, it wanted to offer her a total of £2,100 in compensation broken down as:
  1. £200 for the delay repairing the drains
  2. £100 for the delay repairing the window
  3. £200 for the delay repairing the bath
  4. £50 for the delay caused by surveyors
  5. £1000 for the service failure relating to asbestos
  6. £500 for missed appointments, stress and inconvenience trying to resolve the repairs
  7. £50 for the delay in responding to her complaint.
13. If she remained dissatisfied she could request that her complaint was reviewed at stage 2 of its process.
On 3 October 2022 the landlord noted it was still unable to unblock the drains as specialist coring equipment was required.
On 5 October 2022 the landlord received an up to date report from the asbestos team which confirmed no asbestos compliance works were identified during its visit 2 days prior.
On 24 October 2022 the resident requested an escalation of her complaint. She said that the landlord’s offer of compensation was insulting. She said:
1. The acid was ongoing and had not been resolved for approximately 17 months. It was impacting her daughter’s health.
2. The broken window in her bathroom had been ongoing for over a month and she was worried that her children could be hurt either trying to climb out of it or from it falling whilst bathing.
3. Its response about the asbestos was not reflective of the damage it had caused. She had been unknowingly using personal items its operatives had left in her cupboard for months before they were sent again to remove everything. Asbestos had been in her family’s mouths and on their skin. She still found crumbs “here and there” and was worried that in many years her family will come to suffer painful and hard to treat cancers. The protective paint she had advised would be used had not been put on.
4. There were several issues with the property that remained unresolved. These included ongoing problems with the communal door, and unused electrical boxes left on the walls with wires sticking out of them.
5. The landlord had not been considerate of her personal circumstances when booking repairs appointments, and contractors would arrive outside of arranged times and during school runs. It took multiple visits with failed attempts at fixing issues over many months to resolve repairs. For example, it took over a year to fix a leak in the toilet and an issue with the radiators.
6. She was unhappy with the general attitude of a surveyor who visited her property. She still had issues with her kitchen and the walls were so weak they could not hold up a TV. The landlord was yet to arrange the appropriate repairs.
7. During the time she had lived in the property, her physical and mental health had deteriorated. She had medication to control depression, anxiety and pain she was experiencing with her leg. She felt she was “at the end of [her] rope” with the way things were. She had nightmares where her children were dying of cancer or falling from the bathroom window. Being at stage 1 of the complaint process for so long had not helped matters.
8. She had sought legal advice and spoken to the press who both felt she had a strong case against the landlord. However her focus was on moving to a more suitable property where she could focus on a better quality of life. She had seen a ground floor property nearby which had been empty and wanted to be considered for a move.
On 21 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process. It said:
1. It had already apologised if she felt her health had been impacted within its stage 1 response. Checks had been carried out by specialist asbestos contractors and had confirmed that no asbestos was present.
2. Drainage works had been completed on 28 September and works to the gully completed on 13 October 2022. It had reviewed the window repairs and could see that operatives had attended on 18 October 2022 but further parts were required. It had chased the contactors for an update.
3. She had not raised that she thought the walls were too weak to hold up a TV as part of her initial complaint. However it would be unable to strengthen walls on an individual household basis.
4. It was sorry if her kitchen drawers had not yet been repaired and had requested an update. If she had issues with other units in the kitchen, she could report these to the repairs centre. It had sent a request to the damp and mould team to revisit her property.
5. There had been a number of issues affecting her experience including changes to the contractor, the pandemic and limited staff resources. However this was not an excuse for poor service. Regular meetings had taken place to address the issues within its repair services and learning was taking place to ensure improvements were being made for all residents.
6. Given the further delays she had experienced, it wanted to increase the compensation it had offered by a further £250, a total compensation offer of £2350.
7. If she remained dissatisfied she could contact the Ombudsman.

After ICP

The resident approached the Ombudsman in December 2022. On 17 April 2023 the landlord completed works to the window. On 10 July 2023 a surveyor visited the resident to post inspect works and noted that all repairs had been completed, apart from the kitchen drawer. Additional damp works were identified and scheduled for 11 August 2023.
On 6 August 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident following the visit. It said that:
1. It was sorry for the level of service. Both contractors who were involved in the specific issues relating to the acid and the asbestos no longer worked with the landlord. It was working hard to try to improve the service it was delivering to residents.
2. It had reviewed the level of compensation that it had offered at stage 2 of its process and wanted to increase the amount to £3,600. If she wanted to make a claim for any health impacts she could do this through a housing liability claim.
3. It had reconsidered her request for a move and was pleased to advise she had been given priority move status.
On 25 August 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident again and said it had reconsidered its offer of compensation to include damaged belongings. It wanted to increase its offer to £4,035. This was to include:
1. £500 towards replacement of her carpet
2. £50 for damage to belongings
3. £375 ex-gratia payments towards a replacement bed.
In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident advised:
1. She had significant damp issues in her last property which prompted the landlord to move her into the property via a management move. Since moving, she had “nothing but issues” and the same poor experience. She would call the landlord regularly to say she was unhappy with the state of the repairs. Only one particular customer relations officer was helpful and they shared frustrations that they too couldn’t get answers from the appropriate repairs teams.
2. She had several operatives attend the property over the past 2 years and at least 3 surveyors had visited. The disruption had a negative impact her and she didn’t like that she had been left with several men coming and going from her property. On one occasion there was a man in her house for over 4 hours whilst waiting for a part to arrive for the window, which made her feel uncomfortable.
3. The way that the acid, asbestos and window had been handled were her main concern. The landlord had “downplayed” her experience and she lived with a lifelong worry that the health of her and her children have been affected by asbestos and acid inhalation.
4. She believed the landlord increased its compensation several times once it became aware she had a case with the Ombudsman. She had lost faith in the landlord and her main focus is to move to a more suitable property.

Assessment and findings

This Service recognises that the situation has caused the resident significant distress as she has raised concerns about exposure to acid and asbestos as a result of the landlord’s handling of repairs. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of her living conditions on the health of herself and her children. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident is concerned about the future impact on the health of her and her children. However unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.

The landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property.

The landlord was obliged to act on the recommendations following the asbestos survey in 2015 and promptly remove the AIB. Its asbestos policy states where surveyors recommend remedial action, these will be “appropriately arranged” by its asbestos managers. However there is no evidence that the landlord arranged the removal in a timely manner or that it revisited its asbestos records until the resident moved into the property.
Given that the recommendation to remove the AIB was part of an asbestos management survey report carried out by a specialist contractor, it was inappropriate for the landlord to have asked the resident whether it could encapsulate it instead. When she refused its encapsulation, it took no further action. It was not until a third asbestos management survey in February 2022 that the landlord made arrangements to remove the AIB. By failing to take the appropriate action to remove the AIB following the initial survey for approximately 7 years, the landlord was in breach of its legal obligations under the landlord and tenant act 1985 and the CAR2012.
In accordance with its asbestos policy, the landlord must ensure that sufficient records of asbestos removal and remedial works are kept. In this case, the contractor removed the AIB on 25 February 2022 and noted that the area was “clean and tidy” before leaving. Their notes were recorded on the job sheet which was shared with the landlord. On the same day, a separate contractor attended to conduct an air test which was appropriate and noted that there were no concerns. However it is unclear whether these results were shared or explained to the resident.
It is clear from the later evidence that the removal was poorly carried out and “asbestos crumbs” were left behind. Landlords should have appropriate systems in place to ensure its contractors work to appropriate standards, particularly in potentially hazardous conditions. In this case, the poor workmanship of the landlord’s contractor placed the resident at an unknown risk by failing to remove all items from the cupboard and fully decontaminating the area.
The landlord noted that it first became aware of the resident’s report of the leftover crumbs on “??/03/2022”. Landlords should have appropriate mechanisms in place to record resident contact about repairs and maintenance. It is inappropriate given the seriousness of her concerns that the landlord failed to note the date she reported the issue. As a result of her contact, the landlord appropriately instructed analytical testing and additional air testing to take place on 18 March 2022. However in the absence of noting the date the resident reported the issue it has been unable to demonstrate how quickly it responded to her concerns.
It was reasonable for the landlord to have communicated the results of the analytical testing to the resident and it did so within a reasonable time frame. A record of the conversation was not seen, however it is clear that on being informed of the outcome, the resident reported she had considerable worries about the impact on her and her young family. Records show that the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions concerned about the risk of cancer, was “sobbing her heart out” and unable to sleep thinking about the impact on her children.
The landlord’s asbestos policy states that it will provide technical advice and guidance to residents. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident promptly to explain in more detail what the results meant, alleviate any concerns and reassure her that it was managing the situation. A request seen from the landlord’s complaints officer to the asbestos contract manager highlighted the importance of this contact. However there is no evidence that this request was actioned. This demonstrated a lack of empathy towards the resident who reported that she was suffering from nightmares and was left “living in fear”. There is no evidence that the landlord took into consideration that the resident suffered from anxiety and the increased worry about the asbestos evidently had a significant impact on her.
The asbestos team requested emergency attendance to conduct personal air monitoring and to carry out full decontamination of the cupboard on 21 March 2023 following confirmation of the presence of amosite. Around this time, the resident made it clear that she could be available for appointments outside of the school run. However this request was not noted and the contractors arrived at times she was unavailable. The emergency appointment was therefore delayed and did not take place until 24 March 2022. The additional delay caused by the lack of coordination between the landlord and its contractors about appointment times was unreasonable and prolonged the resident’s distress.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns about asbestos and that it had a considerable impact on her. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been sympathetic to her worries and explained what actions it would be taking during its decontamination visit. There is no evidence that it did this, and as a result she raised understandable concerns about the way that the appointment was handled, including that the operative was not wearing the correct protective equipment. The lack of communication caused the resident unnecessary further worry and upset.
Given the legitimate concerns and significant failures, it was appropriate for both the asbestos contractor and the landlord to conduct investigations into the visits undertaken at the resident’s property. From evidence seen, the reports were comprehensive and included analysis of job sheets, witness statements from operatives and photographs where available. However within the landlord’s investigation, there was a date missing with regards to when the resident first reported her concerns, and an inaccuracy with regards to when she reported issues with the second visit. For example, it noted that the resident complained about debris being present in the cupboard on 5 April 2022 which prompted its request for an urgent report. However records show that she informed the landlord earlier, on 29 March 2022. This further highlights that there were failures in the landlord’s record keeping, and that there was a 1 week delay in referring the matter for investigation.
The landlord’s report into the asbestos acknowledged that it had failed in its obligations under the landlord and tenant act 1985, the control of asbestos regulation 2012 and the health and safety at work act 1974. To put matters right, the landlord made comprehensive recommendations and learning points that were specific to how it manages its asbestos work orders. Whilst the landlord updated its asbestos management plan with the recommendations, it failed to promptly arrange to paint seal the bathroom. 6 months after the report, the resident had to chase the landlord on 24 October 2022 to notify it that the works were outstanding. This was not appropriate and further evidences a lack of empathy towards the resident.
The delay in overseeing recommendations noted within its own investigation report was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s feeling that the landlord had not taken the situation seriously. In the absence of independent oversight into the incidents and the landlord’s lack of prompt action on its own recommendations combined with its recording keeping failures, there is insufficient evidence that it took sufficient action to put matters right and ensure similar failures couldn’t happen again. Accordingly, an order has been made for the landlord to instruct an independent review into its handling of the asbestos.
There were missed opportunities for the landlord to have apologised for its failures and communicated the learning outcomes from its internal investigations. It was not until the stage 1 response in September 2022 that the landlord apologised for the worry caused to the resident during the time it had tried to facilitate the removal of the AIB. The delay was inappropriate and contributed to the resident’s feeling that it had not taken her concerns seriously. Whilst the £1,000 it offered was in line with its compensation policy, the landlord did not fully recognise its failures or respond sensitively to her concerns about the impact on her health and wellbeing. It was not until approximately 1 year later that it provided her with details of how she could make a housing liability claim.
Both the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses failed to acknowledge that it had not yet carried out the paint seal as per the recommendation in its own investigation report and did not consider the impact on the resident. It did not respond empathetically to her concerns that she was so sick with worry about asbestos and that she had been left with “painful and hard to treat cancers”. Its response that it had “already apologised” for its failures when the paint seal was outstanding and where she reported she felt asbestos was still present was inappropriate and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the impact on the resident.
In determining whether there has been maladministration, we consider the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake. In this case, it should not have taken approximately 7 years and 3 asbestos management surveys for the landlord to make arrangements to remove the AIB. Once the removal was instructed, the workmanship of the removal works was poor and there was a lack of coordination between the landlord’s contractors which caused confusion and distress to the resident.
Had the landlord not taken steps to conduct a full investigation into its handling of asbestos and compensated the resident, the Ombudsman would have made a finding of severe maladministration. However, it largely took the appropriate steps to try to put matters right. It’s full investigation was comprehensive and identified significant learning points that influenced positive change within its asbestos management policy. The landlord also ended its contract with the asbestos contractor. Furthermore, it offered the resident £1,000 in compensation which was in line with its policy and appropriate for its failures at the time of the stage 1 response.
However whilst the landlord made reasonable efforts to remedy the situation, its investigation report contained discrepancies in the timeline of events. Communication with the resident about the outcome of the investigation report was inadequate and failed to rebuild its relationship with the resident. The landlord’s communication lacked empathy and it failed to promptly attend to repaint the bathroom to alleviate the resident’s ongoing concerns. The Ombudsman has made a further award of compensation reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the delay in communicating the outcome of the report and completing the paint works to the bathroom.

The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of several repairs.

There were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of several repairs within the property. The resident first reported a strong smell of sewage in the drains outside her house in May 2021. The smell of sewage should have been treated as urgent priority in accordance with the landlord’s policy and it attended within 3 days which was appropriate. In an attempt to clear the blockage, an operative poured a substantial amount of acid down the drains. The smell it caused prompted the resident to contact the landlord on several occasions over approximately 4 months, expressing her concern about the impact inhalation of the acid might have on her family. There is no evidence that the landlord responded swiftly to her concerns and there were significant delays in its arranging a reinspection.
Around September 2021, the landlord attended to look at the drain and noted that it required a specialist to attend with coring equipment to clear it. There is no evidence that the landlord arranged this within an appropriate time frame or that its notes about the visit were clear. As a result different operatives reattended over a period of a year without the specialist equipment, repeatedly failing to fix the problem and causing the resident evident frustration.
The resident was understandably concerned about the impact the smell of acid had on her health and reported that she had brought acid through her property with the pram which had damaged her carpet. There is no evidence that the landlord responded empathetically to these concerns or provided her with reassurance of what steps it was taking to resolve the matter. Its offer of £200 in compensation in September 2022 was not reflective of the considerable length of time she had been left worrying since she first reported the issue. Furthermore it did not respond to or take into account the damage caused to her carpet.
Neither the stage 1 or 2 complaint responses provided the resident with conclusive assurance of when the issue with the drains would be resolved, and records show that it took the landlord over 2 years to complete the job. The landlord did not go far enough to investigate the drains within its stage 2 response and failed to take ownership, simply stating that it would “chase the contractors”. The delay in concluding the drainage repair was inappropriate and significantly outside of the timeframe expected within its repairs policy.
It is clear from the resident’s correspondence on 13 October 2021 that she had a number of outstanding repairs and asked that a surveyor attend to look at them, which was a reasonable request. The landlord’s records make reference to a surveyor visit that took place sometime in December 2021, but notes of the visit were not seen. It is imperative that the landlord keeps contemporaneous notes of maintenance visits so that it can reflect on the condition of the property and what actions had been agreed. Without details of the surveyor visits, the landlord cannot have reasonable oversight of the condition of its property.
The resident reported that she had an issue where her bathroom window was not closing correctly and she had concerns about her children climbing out of it from around October 2021. The landlord sent several operatives to look at the window and at one point screwed it shut as a “temporary measure” in March 2022. The landlord was not proactive in its management oversight of this particular repair, despite the resident chasing the landlord on several occasions for an update. It was not until April 2023, 18 months later, that it completed the repair. The delay was unreasonable and highlights that the landlord failed in its obligation to attend to repair within an appropriate timeframe.
The landlord acknowledged that repairs to the bathroom window had not been actioned in accordance with its repair policy within its complaint responses. Its offer of £100 for the delay in resolving the window repair was unreasonable given that the matter had been ongoing for approximately 1 year and it knew it remained unresolved. The stage 2 response offered no further reassurance as to when the repair could be completed, causing the resident further frustration.
There were further failures in the landlord addressing several other repairs within the property. Whilst the resident informed the Ombudsman that the other repairs did not have such a significant impact on her as the drains and the windows, it is recognised that these too were poorly managed over the timeline of her complaint. For example, the landlord took approximately 17 months to repair the resident’s bath and over 18 months to repair her kitchen drawers. The resident experienced an unnecessary volume of repeat appointments for these repairs over a prolonged period of time, causing her disruption and inconvenience.
Over the timeline of the complaint, the resident has said she had been complaining “non-stop” to the landlord and has been able to recall conversations she had with specific members of staff about repairs. The Ombudsman has not seen records reflective of this frequency of contact with the resident. However it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord failed to appropriately update its customer relationship management system and repairs records from the start of the resident’s tenancy. This is evidenced by the number of repeat appointments arranged for contractors who did not have the correct equipment and a significant number of internal email chasers trying to establish what advice had been given to the resident and what the status was of repairs.
Overall there were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of several repairs at the property. It failed in its duty to attend to repairs within a reasonable timeframe and the resident was inconvenienced by several appointments which failed to fix the issues. Poor record keeping and communication with the resident was a contributory factor to the landlord’s failures.
The landlord’s complaint responses recognised that it had failed to provide the resident with an effective repairs service. It apologised for this and offered the resident £1,050 which was in line with its compensation policy. The amount it offered would have been appropriate had it concluded all of the resident’s outstanding repairs and been more specific about what learning it had taken from her experience. However it did not go far enough to take ownership and oversee all outstanding repairs through to conclusion within its stage 2 complaint response. As a result, the resident experienced further distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time.
It is acknowledged that since the resident raised her concerns to the Ombudsman, the landlord reviewed her complaint and increased its compensation on 2 further occasions. The landlord’s more recent actions cannot be considered reasonable redress as they took place a year after the end of its complaint process. However the revised financial offer was reasonable to its more recently identified failures and the Ombudsman will not be making a further order of compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There were significant failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. It is evident that the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s repair service on 13 October 2021. Whilst the landlord acknowledged her complaint, it failed to respond to her within 10 working days in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). As a result, she had to complain again on 14 February 2022 causing her frustration and inconvenience.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days but may need to extend the response time to a further 10 working days if the issue is complex. It is accepted that there were many elements to the resident’s complaint however it did not discuss an extension with the resident and a stage 1 response did not follow until 158 working days later. Given that the resident had already expressed her concerns in October 2021, the additional delay was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s distress.
The Code makes clear that in order to put things right for the resident, the landlord should consider financial remedies which are reflective of the service failures and level of detriment caused to the resident. In this case, the landlord apologised for the delay in handling her complaint and offered her £50 in compensation. It failed to acknowledge that it had taken approximately 11 months to respond to her original complaint and so the amount it offered was not proportionate to its complaint handling failures.
From evidence seen, a contributory factor in responding to the resident’s complaint was the delay in responses between its own internal teams. Records show that the landlord’s customer relations officer took appropriate steps to try to support the resident in seeing her complaint through to conclusion. However they experienced considerable difficulties obtaining a response from internal teams and had to chase repairs on approximately 40 occasions, some without response. As a result, the stage 1 response was issued without concluding all of the resident’s outstanding repairs, which was unreasonable. For example, it noted that repairs to the drain would follow “shortly”. The failure to provide an affirmative action plan for the resident caused her unnecessary frustration and distress.
When the resident requested an escalation to her complaint, the landlord responded within an appropriate timeframe. However there is no record that it contacted her to further discuss her concerns before issuing a stage 2 response and did not seek to understand all that she remained dissatisfied with. In failing to do so, it had review her complaint again and issued 2 further complaint responses, which was inappropriate.
Given the significant distress the resident reported, for example that she was “at the end of her rope”, the landlord failed to offer support to the resident at both stages of her complaint. In particular, the landlord’s stage 2 response lacked empathy. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have concluded that it had “already apologised” for worries she had about her health, when repairs to both the drains and asbestos remedial works remained outstanding.
Overall, although the landlord acknowledged it had provided a poor service, it did not demonstrate that it had learnt from outcomes and failed to confidently conclude the outstanding repairs. Its offer of £50 for its complaint handling failures was not reflective of its poor level of service. Furthermore, it should not have taken contact from the Ombudsman and approximately a further 8 months after the stage 2 response for the landlord to have reviewed her complaint, reconsidered her compensation and arranged for a surveyor to conclude repairs. Therefore further compensation has been awarded which better reflects the time and trouble the resident experienced in obtaining a full response to her complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of several repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed in its legal obligations to manage the asbestos in the property between 2015 and 2022. Once it instructed the removal of the AIB, there was a lack of coordination with its contractors where a scope of works was not shared. As a result, the resident was extremely concerned that she and her family had been exposed to asbestos. It was appropriate for the landlord to conduct a full investigation into the matter and its offer of £1,000 in compensation would have been appropriate to its failures at that time. However there were discrepancies within its report and it failed to communicate the outcome to the resident. There were delays in raising the works to paint seal the bathroom and therefore the landlord did not go far enough to put matters right for the resident.
There were significant failures in the landlord’s management of a number of repairs within the property. Several repairs were significantly late, and its communication with the resident throughout the timeline of her complaint was poor. The landlord’s poor record keeping contributed to the delays and there is learning that could be taken from this which it has not identified. The landlord’s original offer of £1,050 would have been appropriate had it seen all repairs through to prompt conclusion. However it failed to do so and this resulted in 2 further increases of compensation, the final being more appropriate and in line with its failures.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s first complaint and was considerably late in issuing a stage 1 response. It failed to provide the resident with firm reassurance of when all repairs could be concluded. The landlord did not speak with the resident before issuing its stage 2 response to understand all she remained dissatisfied with, and this resulted in 2 further complaint responses which was inappropriate.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord’s director for housing to apologise to the resident in person, within 4 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £4,885 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is comprised of:
1. £4,035 the landlord offered the resident on 25 August 2023, if not already paid.
2. £600 additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property.
3. £250 additional compensation for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s complaint handling
The landlord is ordered to arrange for an independent specialist to conduct a review of its handling of asbestos in the property, within 4 weeks.
The outcome of any recommendations identified as a result of the above review to be completed within a further 4 weeks.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss her vulnerabilities, update its records and offer any appropriate support, within 4 weeks.
The landlord carry out a full senior management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices within 6 weeks. The review must include:
1. an explanation of how the landlord will quality check the works of its contractors, and how it intends to identify and respond to repeat repairs in the future
2. review of its procedures for record keeping. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight report Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
3. a review of its working practice between its repairs and complaints team and confirmation of how it will ensure that appropriate information is shared in a timely manner
4. confirmation of its training schedule on complaints handling for staff.