London Borough of Ealing (202529241)

Decision
Case ID	202529241
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Ealing
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	29 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in the property with her son. She has asthma but the landlord does not hold any record of vulnerability for her. On 21 October 2024, the landlord surveyed the property for asbestos before carrying out works in the bathroom. She was concerned about the asbestos and the landlord’s handling of her concerns led to her complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
5. There was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of asbestos concerns

6. The landlord failed to provide the resident with reassurance about the level of risk from asbestos in the property and did not explain asbestos safety. It failed to respond to a report of potential asbestos exposure in line with its asbestos policy and repair timescales. The failures caused her distress, inconvenience, uncertainty, and loss of confidence in the landlord.

The complaint handling

7. The landlord failed to track agreed actions in both complaint responses. It did not identify that it had not addressed the substantive issue of the complaint and it delayed in paying the compensation agreed. These failures contributed to the resident’s distress and caused her time and trouble in chasing up agreed actions.

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 27 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 made up as follows: £200 for failures identified in its response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos £100 for failures identified in 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. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 27 May 2026
3	Inspection order  We have made an inspection order because the landlord has not provided evidence that it surveyed the reported asbestos concerns as it agreed to in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the reported areas of concern. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve    The landlord must ensure that the surveyor:    inspects the areas of reported concern and produces a written report with photographs    The survey report must set out:    whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible  a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible)  the likely timescales to commence and complete the work    The landlord must provide us and the resident with a copy of the survey report.	No later than 27 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 May 2025	The resident complained because the landlord found asbestos throughout the property but only removed it from the bathroom ceiling. The resident: reported that the ceilings throughout her property were not in good condition, in particular her hallway ceiling which was flaking  was unhappy that she was not informed of the presence of asbestos since she moved in As a resolution, she wanted: the landlord to remove asbestos in her property the landlord to explain why it had not advised her of the presence of asbestos in the property information on what DIY jobs could not be done to ensure the asbestos was not disturbed
18 June 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It said: the results of the asbestos survey on 21 October 2024 indicated that asbestos containing materials identified were in good condition it had arranged a surveyor to inspect her reports of cracks and flaking in her ceiling to establish if removal was required it was unable to establish why she was not informed of asbestos in the property when she moved in it had a new process in place which issued letters to residents advising them of the result of asbestos surveys advising them of the result and offered guidance
16 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She remained unhappy because the asbestos surveyor had not contacted her to arrange an appointment. As a resolution she wanted the landlord to survey the asbestos concerns as agreed at stage 1.
6 August 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint and: apologised for the delay in arranging the asbestos survey and arranged for a surveyor to contact the resident offered £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delay
Referral to the Ombudsman	When the resident brought her complaint to us, she remained unhappy because the landlord: had not paid compensation offered at stage 2 did not follow up on the agreed works after the asbestos survey on 6 August 2025  As a resolution she wanted the landlord to: remove the asbestos materials it agreed to pay additional compensation for the further delay and inconvenience

 

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not looked at and why

8. The resident reported concerns about potential detriment to her and her son’s health if the household was exposed to asbestos. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for her to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have looked at

9. The landlord’s asbestos policy sets out that it will:
   1. Be clear about the repair and maintenance responsibilities for the landlord and the tenant.
   2. Manage asbestos containing material safely, unless it becomes a risk for it to remain in-situ as it is not always essential to remove asbestos containing materials.
   3. Respond to reports of asbestos in line with its responsive repair timescales.
10. It is not disputed that there were failings with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised, offered £150 compensation for delay and distress caused, and arranged for a further asbestos survey to take place. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is our role to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. We consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
11. On 9 September 2024, the resident reported concerns about asbestos in the property. She reported that an electrician carrying out works the previous week said that her ceiling looked ‘odd’ and suspected that it contained asbestos. She reported concern for the health of her 14-year-old son to the landlord. She chased it again on 17 September 2024 and it instructed a survey on 6 October 2024. While there was a delay in instructing the survey, it was an appropriate action for the landlord to take.
12. The landlord surveyed the property on 21 October 2024 and found asbestos throughout the property in the floor tiles and ceilings. It found that the asbestos was at a low level and low risk. The surveyor recommended that the landlord should remove areas identified in advance if they would be directly affected by construction, installation, refurbishment, or demolition.
13. On 17 January 2025, the landlord removed asbestos in the bathroom ceiling before carrying out works. On 3 February 2025, the resident called the landlord and asked why the asbestos was only removed in the bathroom when it was found throughout the property. At that point, the landlord could have provided the resident with a copy of the asbestos report and guidance to provide reassurance about asbestos safety. It did not provide the report to the resident until 10 months later.
14. The landlord’s failure to provide the resident with a copy of the survey, and clearly explain the findings, at an earlier stage caused uncertainty, loss of confidence in the landlord, and avoidable distress to the resident.
15. When the resident complained in May 2025, she reported that ceilings throughout the property where not in good condition and were flaking. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord took appropriate action by instructing a surveyor to assess if asbestos removal was required. However, the survey did not take place and the resident escalated her complaint 1 month later on that basis. This caused the resident frustration.
16. After the survey in August 2025, the evidence shows that the resident contacted the surveyor 3 times without reply between 11 August 2025 and 22 September 2025. In this correspondence she requested an update on the removal of asbestos containing ceilings as agreed. After she brought her complaint to us, the landlord emailed her on 11 December 2025 and said that “there was some miscommunication between our teams regarding your case, with each assuming the other had raised the work order”. It apologised and said it had raised an urgent work order. However, she reported that this work remains outstanding. This was an unreasonable delay, significantly beyond the landlord’s repair timescales of 28 working days for routine repairs.
17. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it had not provided the resident with information about the presence of asbestos when she moved into the property in 2013. It apologised for the oversight and said that it had reviewed its processes to ensure better communication. This included informing residents of survey results and providing guidance on how it manages asbestos. While this demonstrated learning from complaints, it could have put its learning into practice at that point and provided the resident with its most recent survey with an explanation of asbestos safety and guidance.
18. When we requested a copy of the August 2025 survey, the landlord said that it held no record of a request for the asbestos survey and would arrange a new survey. This contradicts its previous email to the resident saying that it had raised an urgent work order. This demonstrates record keeping failings and poor internal communication, especially considering that it was the landlord’s complaint handling team who requested the survey.
19. There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos. While the landlord appropriately surveyed the property initially, it was unreasonable that it did not provide the resident with a copy of the report at an earlier stage with a clear explanation of the findings. This failing caused avoidable distress to the resident who reported concern for the health of her child.
20. When the resident reported further concerns about flaking ceilings which contained asbestos, and raised a complaint, the landlord’s records show that it delayed initially in surveying the issue. It could not find a record of the survey it requested and ultimately has not evidenced that it addressed the resident’s concerns of asbestos in line with its asbestos policy and repair timescales. The landlord’s failures caused the resident distress, inconvenience, uncertainty, and loss of confidence.
21. Our order for the landlord to pay £200 compensation is in line with our compensation guidance for a failure which adversely affected a resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

22. Our Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a stage 1 complaint response should be provided within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It also states that a stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a stage 2 complaint response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
23. While the landlord delayed in acknowledging the complaint by 3 working days, thereafter it issued its responses within the timescales set out in its complaint handling policy. The evidence shows its complaint investigation was good. It identified its failings, apologised and offered fair actions to put things right. However, it failed to follow through with agreed actions. The Code sets out that landlords must track outstanding actions and action these promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.
24. After its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord failed to track the survey it agreed to complete as a resolution. After its stage 2 response, it again failed to follow up and obtain a copy of the survey it arranged. It also delayed in paying compensation for 17 weeks beyond its agreed timeframe for issuing payment. The resident went to considerable time and trouble after the stage 2 response to chase the compensation and agreed actions from the survey.
25. Complaints can provide independent, practical, and unique insights providing an early warning system for significant problems and acting as a catalyst for organisational learning. The landlord identified failures in its processes and said that “we have reviewed our processes to ensure better communication and follow-through in the future”. However, the evidence provided shows that the landlord’s communication and follow-through remain an issue and the substantive issue of the complaint remains outstanding.
26. Our order of £100 compensation is in line with our compensation guidance for when a landlord has identified failure but has not quite reflected the detriment to the resident.

Learning

27. The landlord may wish to consider training staff to provide a consistent approach to asbestos concerns and robust internal communication.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord internal processes were affected by its poor record keeping. This was especially evidenced when it was unable to locate a copy of a survey it carried out in August 2025. The landlord’s poor record keeping was a contributing factor to the delays experienced by the resident.
29. Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report highlights the importance of good record keeping. The evidence assessed in this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report if it has not already done so.

Complaint handling 

30. This investigation identified complaint handling practices that did not comply with the Code. We encourage the landlord to review this case against the Code and implement any learning it finds to improve its complaint handling.