Leicester City Council (202426581)

Decision
Case ID	202426581
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Leicester City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	27 January 2026

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He lives in a 3–bedroom house with his wife and 4 children. The landlord has no vulnerabilities noted for the resident or his family.

What the complaint is about

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s request to be rehoused due to the suitability of the property.
2. Concerns of asbestos in the property.
3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused due to the suitability of the property is outside of our jurisdiction.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about asbestos in the property.
3. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

We found that:
1. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his request to be rehoused due to the suitability of the property being raised shortly after he moved in was within its capacity as a local council.
2. The landlord acted reasonably when it was informed about the asbestos including taking relevant action in arranging to remove it.
3. The landlord failed to follow its own complaints process and its response was unduly delayed.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 24 February 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 February 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

24 February 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

24 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 December 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. He said: He was unhappy with its decision not to offer him a second property, as its said it would make 3 offers however since then it has said he was adequately housed. He had followed the correct process of raising concerns about the suitability of the property shortly after moving in, in January 2022. But despite this it had never replied back to him to arrange a suitability review. There was asbestos in the property which he was not made aware of. He linked this to the health concerns that his family were experiencing.
21 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It had made arrangements for additional insulation to be installed at the property due to concerns raised by the resident. During the installation process it identified there was a panel which contained asbestos in the loft. It had attempted to remove this and to carry on with the insulation, but the resident had refused access. It added the removal did not require the resident to be temporarily vacated from the property. The issue of the allocation and condition of the property had previously been considered by it at both stage 1 and stage 2 which concluded the property met the housing standard. It added the matter had previously been considered by the Housing Ombudsman who had issued a determination confirming the property met the housing standard.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that he was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and that he wanted it to offer him a suitable property. This should contain 5 bedrooms and be free from asbestos as well as meeting a number of other requirements.

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 did not investigate

The resident told us that the situation had a detrimental impact on his health and wellbeing as well as that of his family. 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 have therefore not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The resident has continued to communicate to the landlord since the end of the complaints process, sending a number of emails concerning his complaint to a number of different individuals. While the core aspects of his complaint relate to the suitability of the property which he raised at the time he moved in, he has raised a number of other concerns. These relate to issues including the size of the bedrooms, the lack of a second toilet and the issue of overcrowding. In the interest of fairness this investigation is limited to issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. Any issues not subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint. The resident may refer any new complaints to us for separate investigation if he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response on those matters.
The resident has raised concerns relating to the issue of benefits including the capping of them as well as issues related to the landlord’s discretionary housing fund and payments as part of this complaint. The Ombudsman is not the appropriate body to deal with issues relating to the awarding and calculation of benefits including the capping of them. Matters relating to the landlord’s discretionary housing fund, also do not fall within the remit of the Housing Ombudsman. As a result, these aspects have not been considered as part of this investigation.

Complaint	The resident’s request to be rehoused due to the suitability of the property
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease or a social housing tenancy. This complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, in its capacity as a local authority. As such, we are unable to investigate the complaint. The resident may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), which is the appropriate body to consider complaints about actions and decisions made by local councils.
Therefore, after careful considering all the evidence we have determined that this complaint is outside of our jurisdiction.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos
Finding	No maladministration

The resident has raised concerns about what he says is “too much asbestos” in the property. He has said this was confirmed to him by a number of different individuals including the landlord’s contractors who attended to insulate the loft as well as those attending to the property in 2023 and 2025.
The presence of asbestos in properties built before 2000 is not unusual, as builders commonly used products containing asbestos in construction during that period. It has been well documented and publicised that asbestos can cause a serious risk to health. It is therefore understandable that the resident was worried whether the asbestos in his home presented a risk not only to himself but to his family including his children.
The Housing Health and safety Rating system (HHSRS) says that it is the landlord’s responsibility to consider hazards within its properties that may require management or remedy. This includes landlords identifying and managing potential risks from asbestos by locating the asbestos, assessing its condition, removing or encapsulating it as appropriate and keeping a register. It explains that Chrysotile is the less hazardous form of asbestos, which when in good condition, presents minimal risk to health. It says that where asbestos is in good condition and undisturbed, landlords should manage it in situ. When existing asbestos is damaged or disturbed, landlords must assess the situation and either enclose the asbestos or remove it.
The landlord has a duty to manage asbestos, as specified by regulation 3 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. This legislation requires the landlord to take reasonable steps to identify, maintain records of, protect residents to exposure from, and execute a management plan for asbestos.
The landlord’s records show that it carried out an asbestos survey in July 2021. This was prior to the property being offered to the resident. The surveyor took samples for testing to determine whether asbestos was present and if so whether it required addressing. The surveyor also carried out a risk assessment in relation to the presence of asbestos where it identified this, which was in keeping with the requirements under HHSRS. The survey identified the presence of Chrysotile in the property in parts of the property however the risk was low and it did not recommend any action (to disturb any asbestos). It is worth noting that there is no evidence that the asbestos survey including accessing the loft and removing any of the existing loft insulation.
The evidence has shown that following the resident raising concerns about the lack of insulation in the loft, the landlord arranged for the insulation to be topped up. It’s operative attended to the property on 15 August 2024 and identified what it believed to be possible asbestos in the roof. The resident has said that the operative informed him of it and said that they could not carry out the insulation which they had already marked as having been completed due to the presence of possible asbestos. The resident has provided this Service with a copy of the signed loft insulation completion certificate. While it would have been appropriate for the operative to have completed this only after the job had been completed, there is no evidence to show that in signing this beforehand that the resident was caused any distress or inconvenience.
Following the operative having reported the matter to the landlord, the landlord arranged to attend to the property to carry out an asbestos survey, and this occurred on 21 August 2024. This was to confirm whether or not the identified issue was asbestos and to determine the appropriate action for it to take should this be the case. The landlord attended, within 4 working days which was in keeping with its repair priorities for a non-emergency repair. The landlord has provided evidence that it identified that the asbestos needed to be removed and that it had instructed a specialist asbestos removal company to do this. This was appropriate action for it to take.
It is clear that the resident has raised concerns about the removal of the asbestos especially concerning the risk to his health and that of his family. As a result, he has not allowed access to the property for the work to be carried out. The landlord has provided evidence that it has written to the resident setting out that it needs access to the property in order to carry out the removal of the asbestos. It has also set out in its stage 2 response the actions the specialist contractor would take to prevent the spreading of asbestos fibres and that based on their advice that the resident did not need to be decanted while the work was carried out. There was also information on the issue of asbestos available on the landlord’s website including an information sheet on the issue of asbestos in a property.
Overall, after considering the evidence, the landlord’s actions in dealing with the asbestos were appropriate. It promptly acted after being made aware of the possibility of asbestos. Once it confirmed this to be the case it made arrangements for a specialist licenced asbestos contractor to attend and remove it from the loft. However, as the resident has prevented access to the property it has been unable to deal with the matter to date.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

Our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case came into effect in April 2024. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies broadly with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. The landlord’s policy also allows for an extension, if more time is needed to reach a decision, which should be communicated to residents. The landlord’s policy does not however set out the maximum time that it could extend the complaint before issuing its stage 2 response.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, within 2 working days. It set out in this response that it would expect to respond within 10 working days. While the landlord did contact the resident on 3 further occasions to extend the response time, there were gaps between the date the response had been due to it then requesting a further extension. Following the last request for an extension of a further 7 days on 19 February 2025, the landlord did not issue its formal response until 21 March 2025, some 30 working days later and over 4 months since the complaint had been raised. This was not in keeping with the Code.
The landlord also failed to follow the 2-stage approach to complaints. While it has provided its reasons for escalating the complaint straight to stage 2 and it clear the resident had continued to communicate with it in the interim this was not in keeping with the Code.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to put matters right. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord should improve its record keeping practices by ensuring that clear and accurate documentation is maintained, particularly regarding communication from both the resident and those parties representing him. It should also inform operatives to not sign completion certificates prior to the completion of any work.

Communication

The landlord’s overall communication with the resident was poor. It was clear that he had written a large number of emails, which were similarly worded to a number of individuals. It should have considered appointing a designated point of contact for him. Language also appeared to be an issue however there was no evidence that the landlord offered him any reasonable adjustments. Good communication plays a key role in fostering transparency and trust, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.