Magenta Living (202311316)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311316

Magenta Living

30 May 2025

 

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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs in her home.
    2. The landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property.

Background

  1. The resident became an assured tenant of the landlord on 29 May 2023 through a mutual exchange on a terraced house.
  2. After moving in, the resident told the landlord she had removed the carpet in her lounge and hallway, exposing crumbling tiles that might contain asbestos. She also said she had stripped the wallpaper, revealing polystyrene tiles, there was a leak in the bathroom, the radiators were rusty, and 2 doors were damaged.
  3. The landlord inspected the property on 12 June 2023. It agreed to remove the floor tiles in the hallway and lounge, which the resident said may contain asbestos. It also said it would raise all other repairs to be completed by 7 September 2023. However, it said it would not replace the radiators as these were functional.
  4. The resident raised her formal complaint on 26 June 2023, she said she was concerned that asbestos fibers were being walked on and spread throughout the property. She said the landlord should treat this issue as a priority. She also said the radiators were rusted and degraded and should be replaced.
  5. The landlord responded to the complaint on 30 June 2023, it said its surveyor inspected the property and raised the jobs according to their urgency. It said all jobs would be completed within 60 working days as per its repair policy. It said it would not change the rusted radiators as they were in working order. In her July 2023 escalation, the resident reiterated her safety concerns and said the floor tiles should be assessed as a matter of urgency as this was a health and safety matter. She also said the landlord should change the radiators as the rust also affected their operating efficiency.
  6. The landlord responded to the complaint on 30 June 2023, confirming all jobs would be completed within 60 working days as per its repairs policy. It said it would not change the rusted radiators as they were in working order. In her July 2023 escalation, the resident reiterated her safety concerns and said the floor tiles should be assessed urgently. She also said the landlord should change the radiators as the rust affected their operating efficiency.
  7. In its 18 August 2023 final response letter, the landlord said that as the property was mutually exchanged, its surveyor had not inspected the property before her tenancy started. It said once the resident had raised the repairs, its surveyor inspected the property and raised the repairs according to the urgency of each job.
  8. The landlord removed the tiled floor on 7 September 2023. It said it booked a single contractor for October 2023 to complete all outstanding repairs (except the radiators).
  9. The resident asked the Service to investigate her complaint in October 2023. She said she was dissatisfied that it took 5 months for the landlord to schedule repairs. She said she had initiated the pre-action protocol for housing conditions and, following legal advice, cancelled the landlord’s scheduled repairs for October 2023.
  10. In May 2025, the resident told us the disrepair protocol was abandoned, and the landlord completed the repairs in 2024, except for the radiators. To resolve the complaint, she seeks an apology for the delay in removing the tiles, compensation, and radiator replacement.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs in her home

  1. The tenancy conditions reflect the landlord’s obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to repair and to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof and heating systems.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs into 4 categories, starting with the most urgent priority 1, where repairs would be made safe within 24 hours, up to priority 4, where planned routine repairs would be completed within 60 working days.
  3. In response to the resident’s request for repairs on 30 May 2023, the landlord inspected the property on 12 June 2023 and agreed to carry out the repairs. The landlord raised the jobs under priority 4 to be completed within 60 working days, meaning the target completion date was 4 September 2023.
  4. The only exception to this was the resident’s request to replace the radiators. The landlord said these were in working order and it would not replace them. This was reasonable because the landlord’s obligation is to repair and keep the property in repair and working order. The radiators were functioning, and as such, the landlord was under no obligation to replace them. It informed the resident that if she experienced any issues with them in the future, she should raise the repair, and the landlord would reassess the situation. That was appropriate because it reflected the circumstances and the landlord’s obligations.
  5. According to the evidence, in the following weeks, operatives attended to repair the bathroom leak. During the work, they traced the leak to the roof, which complicated the job and required additional time to complete the repair. This was beyond the landlord’s control.
  6. After the roof repairs were completed, the landlord told the resident on 1 September 2023 that it would book a single contractor to complete the bathroom decoration, remove the polystyrene tiles, and replace the damaged doors. This was appropriate, and it would have ensured the resident had a single point of contact to complete the outstanding repairs. The contractor confirmed with the resident that it would start the work in October 2023.
  7. However, the resident decided to suspend the works and initiated a pre-action protocol for housing conditions. That meant the landlord could no longer proceed as originally planned.  It sent its operatives and completed the work once access to the property was granted in 2024.
  8. In summary, the landlord acted appropriately according to the terms of its policy and in line with its obligations. Following its inspection, it agreed to carry out the works it reasonably believed were needed, and its operatives were in the process of completing the repairs accordingly. As soon as access was regranted, it returned and completed the repairs.

The landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property

  1. In 2020, the landlord commissioned an asbestos report for the property, which identified that the tiles in the lounge and hallway contained asbestos. The report said they were in fair condition and unlikely to release airborne fibres if left undisturbed.
  2. Upon receiving the resident’s report on 30 May 2023 that the tiles in the lounge and hallway were damaged, and may contain asbestos, the landlord inspected the property on 12 June 2023 and raised the job with its contractor on 26 June 2023 to remove the tiles that may contain asbestos. However, the landlord’s Asbestos Safety Operational Guidance says that “in situations where suspect or known ACMs have been disturbed or damaged to the extent that they may release fibres, the location should be secured without delay to prevent access if possible, or alternatively the immediate area must be isolated and the emergency protocol detailed in this plan followed.” Amongst other things, the protocol states that:
    1. The landlord should inform the resident to stop all work and to isolate the area immediately.
    2. An emergency licensed contractor and an analyst should attend the site and carry out an asbestos risk assessment and air sampling tests. If no ACM is detected, the protocol would end.
    3. If ACM is detected, the contract manager should oversee the work to completion and may consider whether a decant was necessary to ensure residents’ safety.
  3. Nothing in the evidence indicates that the landlord either considered and took such steps, or explains why they were not taken. In the absence of such evidence and given the potential seriousness of an asbestos report, not following the relevant procedures was a failing.
  4. The resident reiterated her safety concerns over asbestos dust in her complaints. She said the floor needs to be addressed as a matter of priority. Internal emails on 7 July 2023 show an officer asking for information to reassure the resident she was not at risk, or to confirm whether the job should be raised as priority 1 and made safe within 24 hours. No evidence of a response or further action has been seen.
  5. In its 18 August 2023 final response letter, the landlord stated it had met its obligations and ensured there was no potential risk to the resident. However, the landlord has provided no evidence that it assessed the risk to the resident before its final response letter.
  6. The landlord removed the tiled floor on 7 September 2023 by a fully qualified asbestos-registered contractor.
  7. Overall, there is no evidence that the landlord treated the resident’s asbestos concerns any differently from other routine repairs raised, despite its policies and procedures setting out the steps and actions to it should take after learning of potentially disturbed asbestos. That was a significant failing.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in handling the resident’s reports of repairs in her home.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of asbestos in the property.

Orders

  1. We have relied on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for situations where the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident directly £500 for distress caused by its handling of asbestos in the property.
    2. The head of service responsible for overseeing asbestos in properties must write a letter of apology to the resident.
    3. Evidence of the payment and the letter must be sent to the Service.