London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202204359)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204359

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 May 2024

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of
  1. Remedial works following a leak.
  2. Its handling of asbestos removal at the resident’s property.
2. The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a 2 or 3-bedroom house under an assured tenancy with her two adult sons. The tenancy began in July 2014. The resident had suffered a number of leaks in 2018, 2019 and 2020. The leaks were resolved. The complaint is about the resulting remedial works.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement however, it had a statutory obligation under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair, including the drains and gutters.
The complaints process consisted of a two-stage process. The landlord would respond within 10 working days at Stage 1 and 20 working days at Stage 2. It would explain to the resident if it was unable to meet those timescales and then respond by a further 10 working days.
Under its repair policy, the landlord was responsible for “structural collapse”, floor coverings in the kitchen and bathroom and floorboards. The resident was responsible for floor coverings (e.g. carpets) in rooms except kitchens and bathrooms.
The landlord’s asbestos policy states as follows:
1. The instruction of Management Surveys of individual dwellings built before 2000 are required where minor work, such as decorating, is planned in resident homes, including internal cyclical improvement programmes.
2. Where any refurbishment or intrusive demolition work is to be carried out, an R&D (Refurbishment and Demolition) survey is to be instructed.
According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the UK, asbestos is not dangerous for the occupants if the building material is in good condition. In summary, if existing asbestos-containing materials (ACM) are in good condition and are not likely to be damaged, they may be left in place, their condition monitored and managed to ensure they are not disturbed.
While under Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord had an obligation to keep the property fit for habitation in relation to hazards, including asbestos, the presence of asbestos itself does not constitute disrepair. However, if it is damaged or has deteriorated and there is the risk of asbestos dust, then the landlord should act to prevent disrepair arising. In summary, there is no duty on the landlord to remove asbestos unless it has been damaged or it has deteriorated and presents a health risk to the occupier.
The duty of a landlord also extends to carrying out risk assessments before work at the property is carried out.

Scope

The resident reported how the events complained of affected her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and/or mental health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters, such as negligence, which are better suited for a court of law. However, the Ombudsman does carefully consider what a resident tells us about how they have been affected by the issues in their complaint, including the overall impact on them, and may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by a landlord.

Chronology

The repair records showed that the resident reported a series of leaks. The first leak appeared in October 2018. It had come though the living room light. The electrics were made safe. In December 2018, roofers carried out some works but were unable to identify the source of the leak. A plumber attended following a further leak in August 2019 but did not ascertain the source of the leak. In March 2020, a job was raised and marked as completed on the same day to address a toilet leak, which again, had come through the living room ceiling. It was noted that the leak had also damaged the resident’s flooring.
In April 2020, the landlord noted there was suspected asbestos in the living room ceiling. The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 April 2020 to express her concerns about the presence of asbestos. In July 2020, the resident reported a further leak. A plumber attended who recommended follow-on works by a roofer as the leak appeared to be coming down the soil pipe into a cupboard in the bathroom. Roofing contractors attended.
On 18 May 2021, jobs were raised to address damage to the bathroom caused to an “ongoing” leak from the roof. A waste pipe behind kitchen appliances was leaking, causing damage to the flooring underneath. According to the eventual “Stage 2 response” of 27 March 2023, an appointment was arranged for July 2021 to repair the walls in the bathroom damaged by the leak. However, the plasterer that attended reported that the flooring would need to be replaced before this work could be completed. On 14 June 2021, a job was raised to carry out an R&D survey.
According to internal emails, on 2 July 2021, an asbestos survey was carried out and was sent to the flooring contractors, and was to be sent to the resident, on 21 July 2021. The landlord has not provided this report to this Service.
On 22 July 2021, a carpenter inspected and advised the bath had “warped” due to the “rotten” floor. The plasterer reported that the floor to the bathroom cupboard was “rotten”. He could not carry out plastering repair until the floor was repaired. Its flooring contractors were due to attend to renew the vinyl. A surveyor inspection was raised to attend as soon as possible as the resident had been “messed around quite a bit” and “due to potential (Health and Safety) risk”.
On 28 July 2021, the flooring contractor informed the landlord that the surveyor needed to check whether the floorboards needed replacing, before booking an appointment. On the same day, the surveyor arranged to raise the following works (“the Works”):
1. Remove and refix bath, wash hand basin and WC pan.
2. Take up flooring in bathroom/WC and upper hallway including inside the bathroom cupboard.
3. Carry out remedial works to floor covering/ joist, to ensure floor is level and renew timber flooring.
4. Reinstate bath, wash hand basin and WC.
5. Following removal of asbestos, renew the ceiling to the living room. Its contractor was to renew flooring in bathroom and WC.
6. The records noted that the landlord emailed the planner to arrange asbestos removal in the living room ceiling and renewal of the ceiling.
A job was raised, as well as to the bathroom, toilet, and flooring, to remove any asbestos traced and request a decant to alternative accommodation whilst these works were undertaken. This was according to the landlord’s Stage 2 response of 27 March 2023.
On 13 September 2021, the landlord raised a decant referral.
The resident chased the landlord for progress on 7 January 2022.
On 21 February 2022, the landlord informed the resident that the works had been passed to its area surveyor who was waiting for rehousing team to decant them.
On 14 February 2022, the resident wrote as follows.
1. She referred to her conversation with the landlord on 30 September 2021. The landlord was to send her a full list of repairs including the asbestos removal and the bathroom and toilet works. She was to be decanted. The works were over 2 years overdue.
2. She had spoken to the contractors who would be replacing the toilet and bathroom and replacing the flooring after the asbestos was removed. The ceiling in front room containing the asbestos had tape over the open hole where it was tested, the bathroom, toilet and passageway flooring was “soft” and was “sinking” even further, causing a gap between the skirting board and the floor itself.
3. The bathroom cupboard was “completely destroyed” by the leaking/damp, along with everything in it, including clothes, toys, books.
4. She said she had health issues due to asbestos and damp.
5. She requested an update.
The landlord replied on 16 February 2022, that it was experiencing a very high demand for repairs and it could take several weeks before she received an appointment. It was experiencing shortages of materials and labour and was working through the backlog caused by restrictions during and after the coronavirus lockdown. Because of this, there was a longer wait for non-urgent work. It was recruiting. It would continue to prioritise emergency works, such as an uncontainable water leaks or a total loss of power.
On 18 or 21 February 2022, the resident made a complaint referring to the above exchange of recent emails and health risks.
On 22 February 2022, the landlord cancelled the works due to “waiting on tenant to be decanted and asbestos to be removed from the roof”.
The resident chased again on 31 March 2022, 28, and 27 April 2022.
On 15 June 2022, an inspection was raised for 28 July 2022 to include the removal of the asbestos.
On 22 July 2022, an asbestos refurbishment survey to the bathroom walls and landing floor prior to replacement identified as follows:
1. No asbestos-containing materials (ACM) were identified in the bathroom (Brick block walls with lath plaster) and first floor landing (timber flooring beneath laminate and underlay).
On 27 July 2022, the landlord escalated the complaint. The landlord stated that it was unable to give a timescale for a response. The resident chased again.
On 20 March 2023, this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to respond with its Stage 2 response on or by 27 March 2023. The resident also chased, citing physical and mental health concerns.
The landlord arranged for a fresh inspection, given the length of time that had passed. It internally noted that it wanted to avoid an adverse finding by the Ombudsman.
On 27 March 2023, the landlord replied with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. The resident had requested in her email 21 March 2023 that the landlord respond when all the works had been completed. This Service had “instructed” that the landlord should respond no later than 27 March 2023.
2. The resident had complained on 21 February 2023 about:
  1. Asbestos to be removed following an asbestos test.
  2. The resident had not received any information in connection with decanting and the asbestos removal.
  3. There had been delays to replacing the bathroom and toilet. The flooring also required replacing.
  4. There was a hole in lounge ceiling covered in tape where asbestos testing had been undertaken.
3. It apologised that a Stage 1 complaint decision letter was not sent “at the time”.
4. It set out the history of the leaks including the report of a leak through her lounge ceiling light in October 2018, a leak in August 2019 through the same light, a leak in March 2020 from the toilet, causing damage to the floor and through the ceiling and a leak in July 2020, again through the ceiling from upstairs either from the toilet or the bathroom. In July 2020, roofing contractors attended and completed repairs as required. In May 2021, it arranged to repair the walls in the bathroom that had been damaged by the leak. The flooring would need to be replaced before this work could be completed. In July 2021, work orders were raised to complete the repairs to the bathroom, toilet, and flooring, to remove any asbestos traced and request a decant to alternative accommodation whilst these works were undertaken.
5. It apologised that the Works had not been completed.
6. The works had been outstanding for “longer than expected”. The landlord was operating a reduced repairs service from March 2020 until April 2021 due to the pandemic, which involved only completing emergency repairs. This had led to a backlog of repairs. It apologised. This would have been frustrating. It acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused by these delays.
7. It had instructed a building surveyor who had arranged an inspection on 3 April 2023 and to make the necessary arrangements for all outstanding works to be completed.
8. Claims for personal possession damaged by leaks fell “under insurance responsibility” and “followed financial claim protocols”. It would not consider such claims within its complaints process as a matter of policy. Any “judgement” made by its insurers superseded that of the complaints process. The landlord advised residents to have home insurance in place and if not, they would have to contact its insurance team to make a claim. It set out what information would be required. The insurers would decide whether the landlord was “legally at fault”. This could take up to 40 working days.
9. There was a backlog in complaints.
10. The level of service was “not reflective of the high standards (it) aimed to provide”. Repairs and communication “should have been managed more effectively and delivered more swiftly”.
11. It would monitor the works.
12. It offered a payment of £2,850, to be offset against her rent arrears and consisting of as follows:
  1. £100 failure to provide Stage 1 complaint resolution letter.
  2. £100 delay between Stage 2 escalation request and response
  3. £30 Communication failures – failure to return 3 calls.
  4. £100 Time and effort in bringing these matters to its attention.
  5. £1,260 inconvenience in relation to the period July 2021 – March 2023 (21 months).
  6. £1,260 distress in line with its compensation redress policy and procedures for the same period.
On 3 April 2023, the resident replied that while the need for compensation was acknowledged, the amount was less that she would like, given her mental, physical and financial anguish. The surveyor failed to attend. There seemed to be no urgency to resolve this matter. She reported further leaks.
On 6 April 2023, the inspection took place. The surveyor concluded that no repairs were evident. The following defects were identified:
1. 1st Floor bedroom had penetrating damp to window frame and required repointing, repair defective wall plaster to under window wall and patch repair wall plaster and paint one wall.
2. Bathroom floor tiles required replacing with vinyl sheeting. It was the resident’s responsibility to replace these.
3. Ease and adjust cupboard room door.
4. Stair landing wear and tear to laminated flooring. This was the tenant’s responsibility to replace.
5. An electrical installation certificate was required.
On 18 April 2023, the resident telephoned the landlord. The longest place the surveyor spent time in was in her son’s bedroom. This was a recent repair. He did not put on the light in the cupboard to see where the leak was coming from in the bathroom. He did not test the floor.
There followed an internal discussion as to whose responsibility the flooring was. It was decided it was the landlord’s. A job was raised on 20 April 2023 to fit the bathroom floor.
On 24 April 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident that it had raised an order for the flooring to be replaced in the bathroom. No asbestos had been detected on the bathroom floor. It requested access for the contractor to measure the bathroom floor.
On 30 April 2023, the resident chased the landlord for a response.
The landlord noted on 2 May 2023 that the resident had refused the bathroom floor to be replaced and that the works were very different from the works that were originally agreed. It had a further discussion with the surveyor.
On 4 May 2023, internally, the surveyor stated that the resident had showed him the defects resulting from a roof leak in the bathroom. There was no evidence to “her claims”, except for damage to the wall plaster in the 1st floor rear bedroom caused by damp from the window frame. A previous order however had already been raised on in July 2021 which identified defects to the kitchen and living room ceiling, and to the bathroom and stair landing floors, caused by flood damage, resulting from a roof leak in the bathroom. It referred to “a new deal” for repairs which the tenant was entitled to. Floor coverings were the tenant’s responsibility and the ceilings to living room and kitchen areas were not defective.
On 10 May 2023, an internal email to the complaints officer stated that all the repairs that were picked up during the surveyor’s inspection had either been completed or orders raised. The complaints officer noted that the resident was querying as to why the works requested in 2022 were so different from last time when she was told that she would need to be decanted “due a positive asbestos report” as well as various other works. The job had been marked completed but the notes stated that the asbestos had not been removed. The complaints officer queried the discrepancies. The landlord’s explanation was that no works were required to the ceiling and the ceiling was safe. There would have been no reason for the resident to be decanted for these works to be carried out. It needed to go with the most recent inspection as things could have changed since the initial inspection was carried out. If the works were still needed then this would have been picked up during the inspection “which was very comprehensive”.
On 6 June 2023, the resident chased the landlord. On 21 June 2023, an appointment was made for the second order for works. The contractor did not attend on 27 June 2023 due to their administrative error. She chased again on 17 July 2023. There were no notes in the system.
On 19 July 2023, the landlord wrote with a Stage 1 complaint as follows (the complaint itself was not provided to this Service):
1. It referred to the Stage 2 response of 27 March 2023.
2. It set out the outcome of the inspection 6 April 2023, citing that the floors were the resident’s responsibility.
3. Its contractors stated she had refused to have the work done, as she wished to be decanted. The works did not require a decant.
4. Submitting a complaint and then denying access was “counterproductive”. It required reasonable access to the property. Without co-operation, the repairs would remain outstanding and “further review from the landlord or the Ombudsman Service would not alter this”.
The resident replied on the same day that the landlord had not addressed the Works including the hole in the living-room ceiling. She did not wish to live with detected asbestos and wanted a decant or a move. The situation was preventing her from decorating the house and the disrepair was causing her a lot of anguish and was affecting her physical and mental health. She wanted a “professional” inspection.
Following an internal discussion, on 20 July 2023, the landlord arranged for a different surveyor, “who would explain things” “in more detail” as to what “really” did need doing, to attend on 4 August 2023. Jobs were raised as follows:
1. To a carpenter to lift floorboards to check the joist underneath to assess its condition.
2. To roofing contractors to investigate a leak through the roof, via the stack pipe. This had been leaking “a while” and had cause “considerable damage to the interior of the property”.
3. An R&D survey in relation to the walk-in cupboard in the bathroom. The ceiling would require testing as there was “bad water damage” and would need to be removed once the leak was fixed.
On 15 February 2024, the resident wrote to this Service as follows:
1. The landlord’s contractor had started work the day before on the damaged floors to the toilet and bathroom.
2. They informed her that the main middle beam under the floor from the bathroom was “ruined” and this had caused the subsequent subsiding.
3. The “whole house” was subsiding. The doors were “lop sided” and that the surveyor thought it likely that all the houses in the row had subsided.
4. The contractor was to report back to the landlord.
5. The operative re-laid the flooring on top of the “ruined, major, subsided” beams.
6. It would not re-lay the upstairs hallway, even though it was “lop sided and soft” to walk on.
7. The landlord had told her that she would need building insurance to take care of the passage.
8. It had not replied to her Stage 2 complaint due 9 February 2024.
9. The landlord had not yet removed the asbestos in her living room ceiling.
10. She was very distressed.
On 21 March 2024, the resident informed this Service that the living room had not been repaired. She was becoming increasingly distressed and had suffered a stroke.
On 25 March 2024, according to a file note of the landlord, the resident made a further complaint regarding the joist in the bathroom and the asbestos removal in the living room:
1. Works were raised and approved in 2021. It referred to notes on its system of 22 February 2022 that “asbestos still not removed and resident not decanted”. The flooring was changed in the bathroom and toilet, however, the joist was not attended to. The floor was still lopsided in the upstairs hallway, bathroom, and toilet.
2. The resident reported that the house was subsiding. She felt that she was “on a boat”. The ceiling had not been attended to nor the asbestos removed.
3. The landlord had failed to communicate properly when relating to repairs. There has been poor quality of workmanship.
4. The resident had had respiratory issues since 2020.
The landlord wrote with its Stage 1 decision letter as follows (the version provided to this Service was undated):
1. It referred to a telephone conversation with the resident.
2. It upheld her complaint.
3. It needed to “capture some information” before providing a resolution.
4. It would reply further on 12 April 2024.
5. It asked her to let it know if the resident felt that the complaint had not been addressed.
According to the landlord, the complaint was not escalated.
Further to this Service’s enquiries to the landlord and request for an update, it replied on 23 May 2024 with the following internal emails:
1. On 26 March 2024, the landlord requested an inspection referring back to a previous works order completed in 2022.
2. On 4 and 11 April 2024, the landlord chased the surveyor internally.
3. On 16 April 2024, the surveyor responded citing his inspection of 24 April 2023.

Assessment and findings

The remedial repairs

The evidence showed that damage had been caused to the resident’s flooring in 2018 and then to the living room ceiling in 2020, by a series of leaks. There would have been damage to the ceiling from the initial leak. It was not clear when the bathroom was affected. There was no evidence that this was addressed or that works were raised until May 2021. There would have been increasing worsening of the decorations over a period of time. The resident stated in her email of 14 February 2022 that she had been expecting remedial repairs for the previous two years.
While not a definitive conclusion, and noting the leaks may have been multi-causal, it is indicated that the damage to the internal property was at least partially due to the delay in identifying and repairing the cause of the leaks.
Once the repairs were raised, the works to the wall and the bath did not progress as the flooring needed addressing. There was a further delay as an asbestos report was required. There was no evidence that there was undue delay to that survey or in sending it to the flooring contractors. The list of works was settled in July 2021. Before progressing the works, any asbestos would need to be removed. The landlord assured the resident that it would decant her during the works. While there was some delay at that stage, the landlord acted reasonably in raising the works, arranging asbestos removal, and a decant.
The landlord provided to this Service an asbestos survey undertaken on 27 July 2022. This showed no evidence of asbestos in the bathroom or first floor landing. Yet the reason given for the Works not progressing in 2021 was because asbestos had not been removed. Unaccountably, instead of the landlord investigating what had occurred, it had cancelled the Works as the asbestos removal had not been carried out. This was not explained.
There followed a lengthy gap to June 2022 and then a further lengthy gap to March 2023, when the landlord raised a further inspection, prompted by the complaints process and the involvement of this Service. While it is welcome an inspection was raised, it is concerning the landlord responded following the escalation of the complaint and referral to this Service. The Ombudsman would expect that the landlord would act according to its service standards and good practice in any event, without being prompted by a complaint or referral to this Service.
It was reasonable to reinspect the condition of the property in 2023, should it have changed. However, the surveyor who re-attended came to different conclusions, even disagreeing internally where the responsibility for the flooring lay. It was reasonable that the complaint officer queried the surveyor’s conclusions of April 2023, given the disparity, of opinion and given that the landlord had raised the resident’s expectations. It was also reasonable to suggest a different surveyor, with the intention that the surveyor would explain its recommendations.
While, under its policy, the landlord was not responsible for the landing floor, the landlord had stated that it would replace the hallway flooring. The damage might have been caused by the delays to repairing the cause of the leaks and the evidence of 2024 indicates that the floor itself, is in disrepair, and therefore would fall within the landlord’s obligations. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman will make an order that the landlord replaces the landing flooring. It is noted that the damage may also be due to subsidence. While this may complicate repairs and does not in itself fall within the ambit of this report, the order will reflect this possibility.
There was no evidence of an explanation why there was a discrepancy between the surveyor’s inspection of July 2021 and April 2023, why an order was raised to remove asbestos, but not carried out, and why the bathroom works were delayed to await removal of asbestos but were then deemed to be safe after all. The landlord’s later explanation that if no works were required to the ceiling, there was no need to remove any asbestos is reasonable. However, the works in July 2021 had referred to removing the asbestos and renewing the living room ceiling. The lack of certainty and communication is not satisfactory. It would appear the lack of clarity was at least partially due to a lack of record keeping and monitoring.
While some of the further delay was due to the resident not providing access in May 2023, this was because she wanted the asbestos to be removed, having been told that was necessary. It is noted that the landlord informed the resident that no asbestos had been detected under the bathroom flooring but it was the need for removal that had been the reason the Works had not taken place and were cancelled in February 2022. The situation was very confused and the landlord did little to clarify its position or reassure the resident that carrying out the works was safe. This was unreasonable.
The landlord made an offer of £2,750 in relation to the delays to the works from July 2021 to March 2023. The Ombudsman considers that was a reasonable offer for that period. However, it does not take account of the delays since July 2020 to July 2021. The pandemic did create a backlog of repairs, due to shortages of materials, shortage of staff and because non-emergency repairs were put on hold for a period in 2020. As distressing as the condition of the property was to the resident, the Works would not have been deemed to be urgent. Moreover, the resident did not raise a complaint until February 2022 and the landlord considered the period from July 2021. However, some consideration should have been given for the delays to date and also to review the compensation, given the further delays. In addition, the issues are still not resolved.
The landlord has not provided a satisfactory explanation for its change of course of action regarding the Works. There is no evidence that the condition of the property had improved in the meantime or repairs carried out. The landlord has not demonstrated that it had good reason to change this course of action or, even if the change of plan was justified, considered that the resident’s expectations had been raised. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s change of stance, in particular after such a length of time, unreasonable.
While orders have been raised, there is no evidence, as at the date of this investigation, that the Works have been carried out, apart from laying the bathroom floor in February 2024. The evidence indicates that the landlord laid the bathroom floor but without works to the joist. The upstairs hallway remains unresolved. If it is the case the landlord referred the resident to buildings insurance to address the hall floor, as opposed to the floor cover, as reported to us by the resident in February 2024, that would be an inappropriate response as the floor itself would fall under its statutory repairing obligations.
In all of the circumstances, including the poor communication, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

Asbestos

Despite a specific request for the July 2021 survey, this was not provided to this Service. It is not known what survey was carried out at that time or what was found. Given the resident’s report in February 2022 of a hole in her living room ceiling following an investigation, it may have been to the living room ceiling. While there is a reference to the ceiling being safe, the Ombudsman has not seen this evidence.
The landlord acted reasonably in carrying out an asbestos test before carrying out any works. In July 2023 the landlord informed the resident that there was no asbestos in the bathroom flooring therefore it was safe for the works to go ahead. The removal of asbestos is only required where there are any works to take place that would disturb any asbestos. As it has been noted, the landlord did not explain why it was no longer removing it.
While the landlord is not obliged to remove asbestos where it does not pose a risk, the Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns. It was clear that the asbestos caused the resident considerable concern, as it does many residents. The resident’s concern and anxiety regarding asbestos is understandable, in particular as the landlord had stated asbestos would be removed.
The landlord’s position regarding the asbestos was contradictory. It stated it would remove it before carrying out the Works and yet later on, state that there was no asbestos in the flooring and therefore it was safe to carry out the Works. It is not satisfactory to state it would remove asbestos and arrange a decant while doing so, and then either not carry it through or proactively provide an explanation why not. The landlord provided no explanation or assurances. Indeed it did not consider, despite the resident’s expressions of concern, communicating its position, even when it was aware that the resident had refused access to the flooring works because of her concerns.
There was an inappropriate delay to repairing the hole in the living room ceiling. While this may have had little impact in decorative terms, this was linked to the resident’s anxiety about the asbestos.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s communication and the way the landlord managed the resident’s expectations in relation to the risk of asbestos.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the delays to its complaint response and that it had not responded at Stage 1 of the process, so that it agreed to escalate the complaint to Stage 2. There was no explanation for the omission. There was an overall delay to the complaint response from February 2022 to March 2023. While the landlord stated an extension had been agreed, there was no evidence of this and indeed the resident had contacted this Service. The better approach is to provide the resident with a response with an action plan and resolution and then monitor that resolution. If there are further delays, the landlord can always review its compensation at a later date.
This caused additional frustration and the landlord lost an opportunity to resolve the matter sooner. As noted, the Stage 2 prompted a further inspection. It was the complaints team, to its credit, who pursued an explanation for the discrepancy in works and suggested an alternative surveyor who could also explain matters to the resident. It also challenged which party was responsible for the flooring, which, under the policy, was different for the bathroom as to the landing.
However, there was no other evidence of the complaints team monitoring resolution since that date, as it had assured it would so do in its Stage 2 response of 27 March 2023. The update the landlord provided at this Service’s request of May 2024 was no later than the inspection of April 2023. The discrepancies about the repairs to the living-room ceiling and upstairs floor remain unresolved.
The 2023 and 2024 complaints were not referred to this Service, or the evidence that they reached Stage 2. However, the complaints are very closely linked to the original complaint and were a continuation of the complaint under investigation. The Ombudsman will therefore apply its discretion under paragraph 42 of the Scheme to consider the landlord’s responses insofar as they related to the resident’s 2022 complaint.
The July 2023 complaint did not address the discrepancy in the landlord’s change of plan regarding the asbestos. It did not look at the underlying reasons for the resident’s refusal to grant access in May 2023. Its position on the re-laying of floors was contradictory. However, it reasonably suggested that there be a further inspection by a different surveyor who would explain matters to the resident and further jobs were raised. As no update was received, the outcome is unknown.
The Ombudsman notes that not even the resident’s further complaints prompted an update or explanation about the asbestos removal. The 2024 complaint did prompt a request for an inspection, to which the surveyor responded to by providing his April 2023 inspection. The landlord did not appear to take this further or consider subsequent inspections and events.
It was unreasonable that it treated getting back to the resident by 12 April 2024 constituted resolution to the 2024 Stage 1 complaint. While landlord would have been obliged to reply within 10 days of a complaint, it was open to the landlord to manage the complaint process, including by agreeing an extension of time. Appearing to treat the promise of a response as the resolution itself was not satisfactory.
While there were benefit to the landlord’s complaint handling, and the delays were addressed by the offer of £200 compensation, there was an overall lack of monitoring of the repairs and communication with the resident. It also did not properly take into account the impact on the resident that she reported. Altogether, it missed the opportunity to explain the discrepancies in the landlord’s reports and works undertaken.

The landlord’s record keeping.

This investigation has noted a number of instances of poor record keeping which would have contributed to the landlord’s lack of monitoring, lack of action and its poor communication, including that the asbestos removal had been marked as completed. The landlord is referred to the Ombudsman’s report of Knowledge and Information Management . KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) .

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of remedial works following a leak.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of asbestos removal at the resident’s property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

There were a number of unexplained contradictions in the landlord’s inspections. The evidence indicate that a number of works remain outstanding.
The landlord’s stance towards its handling of asbestos was confused and contradictory.
While there were benefits of its complaint handling and the landlord acknowledged its failures early on, there was lack of monitoring and cohesion to its complaint handling so that the 2022 complaint remained unresolved.
The poor record keeping impacted on the monitoring of repairs.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 2 weeks, the landlord should evidence to the Ombudsman that it has paid to the resident the sum of £2,850 offered in March 2023.
2. Within 2 weeks of this report, the landlord should provide to the Ombudsman and the resident a copy of the current EICR.
3. It there is no current EICR, it should secure one within 4 weeks of this report.
4. Within 2 weeks, the landlord should provide a copy of the 2021 asbestos survey to this Service and evidence that any repairs to the living room ceiling does not require the removal of asbestos, if that is the case.
5. Within 4 weeks of this report, an operational director should write to the resident, with a copy to the Ombudsman, with an apology and an explanation for the contradictions identified in the findings of this report.
6. Any lessons from the explanation should be incorporated in a guidance note for its repairs and complaints staff, and a copy provided to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of this report.
7. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £1,500 excluding the sum of £2,850 and consisting as follows:
  1. An additional £1,000 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the remedial repairs to cover the period to May 2024.
  2. £300 in relation to the handling of asbestos removal at the resident’s property.
  3. An additional £100 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. £100 in relation the landlord’s record keeping.
8. Within 4 weeks of this Report, the landlord should arrange for an independent RICS surveyor to inspect the condition of the bathroom and landing floor.
9. Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord should provide a schedule of works to the Ombudsman and the resident with a reasonable timescale of any works recommended by the RICS survey.
10. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should arrange to replace the landing flooring. If this requires works to the landing and bathroom floor beforehand, the time frame will be extended to 8 weeks.
11. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should carry out the repairs to the living room ceiling. If this requires a R&D survey, and/or removal of asbestos, the time frame will be extended to 8 weeks.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4, 6 and, if applicable, 8 weeks of this report.