Leeds City Council (202516072)

Background

1. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about a substance on his shower tiles having an impact on his breathing. He also asked for the property to be inspected for asbestos due to his health concerns. He was unhappy with the actions his landlord took in response to these issues. He has long term health conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s request for the bathroom to be retiled
   2. the resident’s request for an asbestos survey
   3. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for the bathroom to be retiled
   2. service failure in its handling of the resident’s request for an asbestos survey
   3. no maladministration in its complaint handling

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the bathroom to be retiled

4. The landlord tried to resolve the issue within a reasonable timeframe but was met with delays outside its control. It failed to show it was considering the potential impact of the situation on the resident’s health. It didn’t investigate what the substance on his tiles was or whether it posed a risk.

The resident’s request for an asbestos survey

5. The landlord gave a reasonable explanation for why it wouldn’t conduct a new survey at the resident’s request. However, it failed to provide him with the report from its most recent asbestos survey as a result of poor record keeping.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord responded within its timelines and followed procedure correctly. Responses were clear and set out actions it wanted to take.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

What we have not looked at

7. The resident told us he had reported problems with the tiles to the landlord for 4 years. The focus of this investigation will be on reports of issues from September 2024 which is his recent report leading to this current complaint. We have not considered the landlord’s handling of historical events due to the lapse of this time.
8. The resident also said his health had been impacted by the issue. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its response to his concerns.

The resident’s request for the bathroom to be retiled

9. The landlord aimed to resolve the issue within the timeframes set out in its Responsive Repairs Policy. It visited the property on 9 October 2024 within the 20 working days its policy allows for routine repairs. However, it acknowledged it did not complete works to a good standard and apologised for this in its stage 2 response. It was appropriate that it apologised. It could have considered offering compensation for time and trouble as it did not put things right at the first opportunity, in line with its compensation guidance.
10. Following the complaints process, it tried again to resolve the issue between April and July 2025 but was met with delays due to cancellations by the resident and its contractors. It worked with its contractor and the resident to try and complete the work, paying attention to concerns that were raised about damage to the tiles and the potential risk from dust. This was positive and showed it was considering the impact of the work.
11. The landlord logged the works as complete on 8 July 2025 and said it had cleaned the substance from all tiles. The resident told us that works had not been completed to a good standard and he would only be able to accept the complete replacement of all tiles. He told the landlord that its contractor had cleaned the tiles but did not remove the grout.
12. While we understand the resident’s concerns, we are unable to order the landlord to fully replace all the tiles, unless this has been identified as required by a suitably qualified person. We do not have the technical expertise to make this assessment. We have considered if the landlord went far enough in reassuring him and satisfying itself of the works required.
13. There is no evidence the landlord spoke to the resident following the work to discuss if he was unhappy with how it was conducted as its Responsive Repairs Policy says it will. This was not appropriate. He was not given a clear understanding of what steps it would take to address his ongoing concerns.
14. The landlord did not address the health concerns the resident raised. While it acknowledged he had concerns, it did not offer him enough reassurance in its responses. The only time it changed its approach was when the contractor raised concerns about dust. It did not consider making adjustments to its approach to the work, such as adjusting the priority of repairs as its Policy on Meeting Individual Needs and Reasonable Adjustments says it will. It recorded that he was vulnerable on 20 September 2024 but did not use this information to consider if he would have any individual needs as part of the complaint or repair process.
15. Given that the impact on the resident’s health was central to his complaint, the landlord’s failure to consider his vulnerability was inappropriate. It should have offered more support when it knew he was concerned his health was being negatively impacted. He faced ongoing distress as a result of its response.
16. There is also no evidence that the landlord investigated what the substance on the resident’s tiles was. It is unreasonable that he had raised concerns about the substance affecting his health but it took no steps to understand what risk it posed. It recorded his concern as part of its inspection on 20 September 2024 but didn’t try to identify the substance. While it eventually removed the substance, it missed an opportunity to offer more reassurance about the potential risk to him. It failed to show empathy and understanding as its Individual Needs policy says it will.

17. The landlord’s Asbestos Management Policy says it will carry out surveys of individual homes ahead of carrying out repairs or planned works that could disturb asbestos in the property. It says there is no duty for it to periodically reinspect asbestos in homes otherwise. It explained this clearly and reasonably to the resident in its stage 1 response.
18. In the stage 1 complaint, the resident said he had requested a new survey several times but had not had a response from the landlord. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not respond to his earlier requests. It missed an opportunity to offer him reassurance sooner, which resulted in the issue being raised in a formal complaint. Its poor communication will have added to his distress around the issue.
19. The landlord said in its complaint responses that its most recent asbestos survey was from 2015. However, it conducted a further survey at the property on 10 August 2020. The landlord told us it had missed this report mistakenly. It was unreasonable that it did not provide him with the more updated survey report when he raised concerns. It missed another opportunity to offer reassurance around his health as a result of poor record keeping.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”).
21. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 9 working days (13 February 2025 to 26 February 2025) which was compliant with the 10 days allowed by the Code
    2. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 20 working days (27 February 2025 to 27 March 2025) which was compliant with the 20 days allowed by the Code
22. The landlord demonstrated efficient complaint handling. It acknowledged the complaint at both stages and gave responses within its policy timeframes. Its responses were clear and set out actions it had taken and would take.
23. The responses were factually inaccurate when talking about the most recent asbestos survey being from 2015. However, this failing has been addressed as a record keeping issue above rather than a complaint handling failure.

Learning

24. The landlord approached the repair itself in a reasonable way but missed several chances to offer the resident reassurance around his health. It could consider whether it took the right approach given this was the main reason for his complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s record keeping around repairs was clear and presented a timeline of events. However, it could consider how well it used its record of the resident’s health conditions. It should have a robust system in place for highlighting vulnerable residents.

Communication

26. The landlord efficiently followed up reports and complaints with calls and emails, showing a positive approach to dialogue with the resident. There were some delays replying to his requests for a new asbestos survey ahead of the complaint.