Kingston upon Hull City Council (202108897)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108897

Kingston upon Hull City Council

15 November 2022


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 the resident’s request that it test the bathroom walls for asbestos.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He moved into the property in 1997, via a mutual exchange with the previous occupier.
  2. The exact date is unclear, but the resident asked the landlord to undertake an asbestos survey in his bathroom as he wanted to remove the wooden cladding that the previous resident had installed. The resident feared, that, due to the age, there could be material containing asbestos behind the cladding, and wanted it tested before undertaking any work and disturbing it.
  3. In July 2021 the resident contacted this Service. He said he had attempted to make a complaint to the landlord about its response to his asbestos request, without success. We wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident.  The landlord responded on 15 July 2021 stating it had no record of a complaint regarding this issue but would log it and respond.
  4. In the landlord’s complaint response, it explained that its records showed that no repairs were required to the bathroom and, as the resident wanted the test for decoration purposes, it would not cover the costs to carry one out as decorating was the resident’s responsibility.
  5. The resident’s remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

  1. In line with general asbestos regulations, landlords do not usually have an obligation to remove asbestos unless it has been, or will be, disturbed and is potentially posing a risk to health and safety. However, a landlord does have a duty to maintain any areas within the property that contain asbestos and manage them on a regular basis to ensure they are in a safe condition.
  2. The landlord’s policies and procedures state that it will not carry out asbestos tests unless required as part of a repair which it is undertaking. In this case, it is the resident who wishes to undertake improvements to his bathroom himself. Nothing in the evidence seen for this investigation suggests that the landlord has an obligation to take responsibility for asbestos checks in the circumstances present in this complaint. Because any potential asbestos risk will only come from the resident’s proposed work, the landlord’s response to the resident was reasonable, and in line with its policies and other obligations.
  3. As part of the landlord’s stage two complaint response, a surveyor attended the property on 15 September 2021 to check for any repair issues in the bathroom. The operative concluded that the cladding (wooden panels) were fit for purpose and, therefore, no repairs were required. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this, because it would usually be responsible for any repair issues to the bathroom, and that may have impacted on its position regarding any asbestos checks. As no repair issues were identified, it was reasonable for the landlord to maintain its original decision
  4. It bears mentioning that social landlords have a broad obligation (in line with the Decent Homes Guidance) to ensure their properties have “reasonably modern facilities and services.” For bathrooms, the guidance recommends that modern generally means less than 30 years old. Given the timeframes described for the resident’s bathroom in this case, it may be that it comes due for assessment for renewal as part of the landlord’s major works schedule in the next several years. That is something the resident may wish to take into consideration in deciding on any renovations. A recommendation is made below in that regard.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. In light of the age of the resident’s bathroom, the landlord should consider explaining to the resident its plans, if any, to carry out any renovations or renewal of the resident’s bathroom as part of its scheduled or major works plan in the near future. It is also open to the resident to make the same enquiry of the landlord.