Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202337065)

Background

1. The resident said the landlord replaced the doors in the block and he was concerned it had not used a tool to detect asbestos during the repairs. He felt the contractor was unhelpful when he approached them about this.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns of asbestos in the block during repairs.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns of asbestos in the block during repairs.
   2. Complaint.

Summary of reasons

Concerns of asbestos in the block during repairs

4. The landlord followed its asbestos policy. It completed inspections for asbestos in the block, brought in an asbestos specialist during the replacement of the doors, and acted transparently by answering the resident’s queries.

The handling of the complaint

5. The landlord met its stage 1 timeframe. Although it issued its stage 2 response 1 day late, the delay was not significant.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The landlord inspected the block for asbestos in November 2022. It found that there was low risk of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) in the window beading and inner lining of some fire doors. The fire risk assessment of the block set out that some doors needed to be replaced.
7. The landlord planned that if ACM was found during the door replacements, it would stop work and report it to the supervisor. It would then make the area safe, arrange testing, and report it to Health and Safety Executive (HSE).It also confirmed the contractors completing the repairs had asbestos awareness training and it had arranged for an asbestos specialist tobe on site, known as a “watching brief”.This was in line with its asbestos policy that said contractors must have training and supervision about possible ACM to safeguard residents.
8. The landlord had also paid due regard to the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 that set out it must identify ACM prior to repairs and have a plan in place if ACM was found.
9. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about their interaction with the operative. It found the operative responded to the resident’s query about a “thermo-scientific MicroPHAZIR” and said there was no concern about the asbestos. The operative explained to the resident there was a specialist on site if there were any issues and offered to share what it was doing. The landlord apologised to the resident for any upset caused during the interaction. This was in line with its code of conduct policy that it will treat possible breaches of conduct seriously.
10. In the landlord’s complaint response, it said it had provided a copy of its asbestos report to the resident and said that it had found no ACMs during the replacement of the doors. It offered to discuss this with the resident face to face. This was a fair and transparent approach to answer the resident’s queries.
11. Since that time, the resident said they wanted the landlord to complete medical checks on residents. However, there was no obligation for it do so.
12. Considering the above, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue. The landlord acted in line with its relevant policies and procedures and responded to the resident’s concerns in its internal complaints procedure.

13. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition.
14. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, and the resident should receive a stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2, the resident should receive a formal response within 20 working days of escalation.
15. The landlord’s acknowledgement and response to the resident at stage 1 was in line with its policy. It was 1 day late in sending the stage 2 response which was a shortfall of its service. However, there was no evidence that the short delay caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Considering there was a very minor delay that had not caused detriment to the resident, we found no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

16. The landlord offered to meet face to face to talk further about their concerns. This was positive to build trust about the repairs.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord kept clear records of its reports, communications with contractors and communications to and from the resident. This was positive and something it should continue doing.

Communication

18. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and enquiries about the substantive issue and provided a copy of its report. This was a positive and transparent approach.