Oadby and Wigston Borough Council (202419658)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419658

Oadby and Wigston Borough Council

28 July 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

The complaint is about:

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to her flooring.
The landlord’s failure to provide the resident with information about the presence of asbestos in her property at the start of her tenancy.
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident was an introductory tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 4 April 2024 and ended on 24 May 2024 after the resident chose to end her tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom, end terrace bungalow located at the top of a cul-de-sac. The resident has a number of health conditions that meant she needed an adapted property. These included her use of a wheelchair and mental health conditions including anxiety and depression. The resident told the landlord about her vulnerabilities in her Supported Housing Support plan. The resident signed this plan on 4 April 2024.
On 9 February 2024, the landlord signed off the property as being in void condition. The resident confirmed her expression of interest in the property on 21 February 2024 and attended a visit of the property on 12 March 2024. The resident was told at this visit by a contractor that the flooring tiles contained asbestos and that she should not disturb them in any way. The contractor told the resident that a few days before he had started work at the property, people with protective gear had come in to remove tiles from other areas of the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 March 2024, 15 March 2024 and 19 March 2024 to request further information relating to the presence of asbestos within the property. The landlord did not respond to these requests. In her email on 15 March 2024, the resident told the landlord that her flooring contractor had found that the flooring that she wanted to install in the property would likely fail because of the old age of the asbestos floor tiles underneath.
The landlord partially responded to the resident’s request on 4 April 2024 to confirm that she would not be recharged for her installation of specialist flooring, so long as the new flooring was professionally laid.
On 12 April 2024, the landlord’s maintenance surveyor attended the property to inspect the flooring.
On 15 April 2024, the resident made another request for a copy of the asbestos report for the property. The resident explained that she was worried about the flooring failing underneath the specialist wheelchair-friendly flooring she intended to install.
On 17 April 2024, the landlord emailed the resident to say that her request had been passed to the landlord’s repair team. The resident responded to this email on 18 April 2024 to ask when she would hear back from the repairs team as she urgently needed this information so that her flooring contractors could begin installing her new flooring.
On 19 April 2024, the landlord sent the resident a copy of the letter that its maintenance surveyor had prepared after his inspection of the property on 10 April 2024. This letter explained that the landlord did not think that all of the asbestos floor needed replacing, only specific damaged tiles around the edge of the floor. The landlord told the resident that the landlord would either replace the loose tiles with new ones that matched the existing floor or leave the area for the resident’s flooring contractors to apply bonding over the top. The landlord asked the resident to confirm what she wanted the landlord to proceed.
On 22 April 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she felt worried and did not know what to do next. The resident told the landlord that her flooring contractors would not guarantee the flooring unless the landlord replaced the whole flooring because there was a risk that it would fail. The resident told the landlord that the flooring contractor and an external asbestos management company had both told her that the tiles were likely compromised. The resident told the landlord that unless the landlord replaced the entire floor, she saw no choice but to end her tenancy.
In April 2024, the resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The landlord sent a response letter to the resident’s local councillor on 25 April 2024 to explain that the flooring was in a “largely stable condition with only a few perimeter tiles requiring attention”. The landlord explained that it would not replace the entire floor because the “overall floor is still functional”. The landlord said that it understood the resident’s concerns that any new flooring installed over the existing tiles may fail, but that the landlord could not guarantee that the new floor would not encounter issues if it was laid directly over the top of the existing tiles that remained securely glued. The landlord said that if the resident would have the existing tiles taken up at her own expense, it would support the resident with this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 April 2024 to say that she had not had a response to her previous email. The resident told the landlord that she would be ending her tenancy.
On 13 May 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to say that it would be willing to put down a self-levelling compound over the existing tiles. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 May 2024 to say that she would not be taking up the offer because it did not address her concern that the flooring she needed to install would fail because the original damaged tiles were still there underneath. The resident told the landlord about the impact that the situation had been having on her mental wellbeing.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 May 2024 to apologise for the distress and inconvenience that she had experienced. It told the resident that her position had been reinstated back on the application for housing list. It promised to use the resident’s feedback to improve its’ processes and to make sure that similar situations were handled better in the future.
On 6 June 2024, the resident made her stage 1 complaint. In her complaint, the resident said:
1. She was not told about the presence of asbestos tiles in the flooring until after the tenancy agreement was signed;
2. She needed to install specialist flooring in the property as she was unable to use her wheelchair on carpeted flooring;
3. The flooring contractors that she had instructed were not willing to put the specialist flooring over the existing asbestos tiles as they were “unstable, old and likely to be compromised;
4. She had consulted an asbestos management company who had told her the same thing about the age and stability of the tiles;
5. She felt that removing only the few loose tiles would not resolve the issue she was having because the floor was still likely to fail;
6. She needed suitable flooring within the property to be able to use her wheelchair and if the original tiles were kept, she would be worried that they could fail at any time;
7. She could not stay in a property that was causing her emotional and financial harm and therefore felt that her only option was to terminate her tenancy.
On 20 June 2024, the landlord sent the resident a copy of its’ stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said:
1. The resident had complained about the advice that she had been given about her flooring. The landlord said that the resident had felt that her only option was to end her tenancy because she had received inconsistent information from the landlord about the asbestos tiles.
2. The resident had asked the landlord for information about asbestos in the property before she signed her tenancy agreement.
3. That it was not appropriate for the landlord to have told the resident about the asbestos tiles without having given the resident “context and details of how this should be managed”.
4. That the landlord sent a letter to the resident on 19 April 2024 to say that the removal of the loose tiles would allow her flooring contractors to begin flooring works.
5. That the landlord agreed that it did not properly tell the resident how she or her contractors should best manage the asbestos in the property.
6. That the landlord should have given the resident a copy of the asbestos report and talked the resident through the findings.
7. That the landlord should have responded to the resident’s question about asbestos in the property within 3 working days.
8. That the landlord should have made the offer to screed the floor earlier on and should have given the resident help in addressing her worry that the floor might fail.
To put things right, the landlord offered the resident:
1. £450 in compensation, made up of the following:
  1. £150 for its failure to acknowledge/respond to her enquiry on 15 April 2024 within three working days;
  2. £150 for its “failure to identify the opportunity to provide relevant information about the property (asbestos survey);
  3. £150 for avoidable distress/frustration;
2. To reinstate her housing application to the same position on the housing register as before the resident was offered the property;
3. To re-take up the tenancy at the property with the landlord adapting and making the flooring suitable for the resident’s use by installing a floor covering to meet her needs;
4. To take on responsibility for maintaining the flooring during the resident’s tenancy;
5. To improve the sign-up process for future residents to include information about any asbestos surveys that have been carried out;
6. To remind the landlord’s employees about the importance of responding to resident’s requests within their promised timeframes.
On 2 July 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The resident told the landlord that she was not happy with the level of compensation that they had offered. The resident said that she could not move into a property that did not have suitable flooring, due to her using a wheelchair.
The landlord provided its’ stage 2 complaint response on 30 July 2024. The landlord said:
1. That the landlord had accepted that there had been failings in the way that the landlord had managed issues with the flooring in its’ stage 1 complaint response.
2. That the £450 compensation that the landlord had offered was discretionary compensation for to the landlord’s failure to meet service targets; failure to act reasonably and because the landlord did not give the resident the information she needed about asbestos in the property.
3. That the landlord felt that the compensation was acceptable because the property was habitable at all times since the beginning of the tenancy.
4. That the resident had had an accompanied viewing of the property with the landlord before she signed the tenancy.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to her flooring

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that there are three categories of repairs that are not planned woks. These are defined as follows:
1. An emergency repair is where there is an immediate danger to a person or a serious risk of damage to the property. These repairs should be responded to in 4 hours and made safe. A follow up appointment will be booked if more works are needed.
2. An urgent repair is not defined in the policy, but it says that the landlord will respond to an urgent repair in 5 working days.
3. Routine repairs are all other repairs that are not emergencies, urgent or planned works. The policy says that for routine repairs it will book an appointment with the resident within 25 working days. Routine repairs might need another appointment after this for follow up works.
Once a landlord is told about some disrepair to a property that it is responsible for, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable enquiry into the cause of the disrepair and then complete a repair. This should be done in a reasonable period of time after it has been put on notice. What is a reasonable time depends on all the circumstances of a case.
A delay in repairs is not always considered a failure, especially when the issue is complicated. However, the landlord should be proactive in its management of the repair and complete the repair as soon as it can. The landlord should keep the resident updated and manage their expectations. The landlord should also complete works to make the property safe in the meantime if there is an immediate health and safety risk to the resident.
The landlord instructed an external asbestos management company to complete a survey of the property at some point in around September 2023. The report was issued on 4 October 2023. Whilst the asbestos management company did not recommend any immediate action, the report showed that in the longer term, the asbestos floor tiles and adhesive would require replacement. It also said that the flooring should be inspected at regular intervals and that the landlord should consider labelling the area if they had not already done so. The report also said that the asbestos could be “easily disturbed”. The landlord knew about the asbestos in the property before the resident signed her tenancy agreement. This means it should have told her about the asbestos in the property when she first made her enquiries about the property in March 2024. This would have allowed the resident to make an informed decision about whether she wanted to proceed with signing the tenancy agreement. This is especially important because of the resident’s vulnerabilities as the landlord knew she was a wheelchair user and would need to do works to the flooring where there were easily disturbed asbestos tiles.
The resident asked the landlord to clarify what asbestos was present in the property in a number of emails in March 2024. She also reported to the landlord on 15 March 2024 and 19 March 2024 that she had been told by an external flooring contractor that the flooring had been compromised and was at risk of failing.
The landlord did not attend the property to complete its’ own inspection until 12 April 2024. We find that, taking into account the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to classify reports of compromised asbestos flooring as an emergency repair. This is because the resident had been advised by an external contractor (an expert) that the flooring had been compromised. Any concern that a resident has that asbestos has been disturbed should be treated with adequate gravity by the landlord. The landlord also had the outcome of the above asbestos report which had confirmed the presence of asbestos in the property and the fact that it was in a place that could very easily be disturbed. The landlord should have categorised a report of potential asbestos disturbance as an emergency repair and followed its’ own repairs policy by responding to the resident’s report of the repair within 4 hours.
The only provision that the landlord’s asbestos policy has for the reporting of asbestos is that it advises residents should contact the landlord for advice. The resident did this on a number of occasions from 15 March 2024 but the landlord did not attend the property to inspect until 12 April 2024.
Regardless of whether the landlord felt there was an actual risk of the flooring failing or not, it is clear that this was a very real concern for the resident. In the meantime, the landlord did not communicate with the resident or explain its actions to her. The landlord should have explained to the resident that it did not feel that there was an immediate risk to her health and safety and provided her a timescale for when it anticipated it would be able to inspect the property. There is no evidence to show that the landlord advised the resident in the meantime that she should not disturb the asbestos whilst she waited for an appointment from the landlord. If the landlord had taken the time to reassure the resident about her concerns, the resident would have had a better understanding about the risk to her. Because the landlord did not do this, the resident said she was left feeling very anxious.
The outcome of the landlord’s inspection was not conveyed to the resident until 19 April 2024. The landlord did not communicate properly with the resident because she was left without reassurance that her flooring was not going to fail until this time. Again, the resident said this left her feeling very anxious. She said that she ultimately ended her tenancy because she was not reassured about the safety of her flooring and whether she would be able to carry out the works she needed safely.
The landlord did find damage to the flooring when it inspected the property. The landlord found that some of the perimeter floor tiles were loose. The landlord should have taken steps to make safe these tiles upon its inspection of the property. This is not only because the tiles contain asbestos, but also because the resident is a wheelchair user and loose tiles pose a health and safety risk to her. The landlord’s repairs policy says that the floors should be even and free from tripping hazards, and this is even more applicable to the resident’s particular circumstances and her use of the wheelchair.
As works were not completed to make the flooring safe whilst the resident decided how she wanted to proceed, the resident was left with unsafe flooring for the rest of the duration of her tenancy. The evidence shows that the landlord did not follow its own repairs policy in doing this, which was a failing.

The landlord’s failure to provide the resident with information about the presence of asbestos in her property at the start of her tenancy

The evidence shows that the landlord’s specialist surveyors found asbestos in the property in their survey report dated 4 October 2023. This was before the resident’s tenancy started. The specialist surveyors assessed the risk as low but recommended that the landlord inspects the asbestos tiles at regular intervals. The report also categorised the accessibility of the asbestos as “easily disturbed”.
The resident says she was not provided with information about asbestos in her property until 12 March 2024 when a contractor told her that the flooring was made up of asbestos tiles. Whilst we do not doubt the resident, without any supporting evidence unfortunately we cannot make a finding on this aspect of her complaint. There is evidence to show that the resident did go on to request information about the asbestos from the landlord a number of times but did not receive a response.
The landlord was aware that the resident would be installing new wheelchair-friendly flooring but did not take any steps to provide the resident with the asbestos survey report that explained that the existing flooring tiles were made of asbestos and were easily disturbed. We find that this is a failure by the landlord to properly communicate with the resident. This then led the resident to experience anxiety and distress at the uncertainty about how she should move forward with managing the asbestos in her property.
The landlord’s failure to tell the resident about the asbestos in her property caused detriment to her. Once the resident found out that there was asbestos in the flooring of her property, she was caused anxiety and distress as she was left with uncertainty about how to safely proceed with installing a flooring that was suitable for her wheelchair. The resident has told the service that she never actually lived in the property because of this and eventually made the decision to end her tenancy without having ever moved in.
The resident says that because the landlord did not communicate properly with her about the asbestos in her property, she experienced emotional distress because she did not know how to proceed with fitting a flooring that would be suitable for her wheelchair.
Section 9 of the Housing Act 2004 gives local authority landlords guidance about their management of hazards within their properties. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) gives more detail about each hazard. The HHSRS explains that there are real concerns about the health risks from asbestos exposure. Because of this risk, the landlord should have provided the resident with information about the presence of asbestos in her property at the start of her tenancy. The landlord failed to do so. The landlord continued to fail to provide the resident with information about the presence and location of asbestos in the property when reasonably requested by her.
The landlord repeatedly did not communicate effectively with the resident during her tenancy. This left her feeling anxious and frustrated. If the landlord had communicated with the resident about the asbestos in her property before she signed the tenancy agreement, she would have been able to make an informed decision about whether she wanted to sign up. The landlord’s ineffective communication with the resident for the rest of her tenancy continued. It did not share a copy of the asbestos report with her or explain how to manage the asbestos properly. This left the resident feeling like she had no choice but to end her tenancy.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy says that the landlord will acknowledge all complaints within five working days of receipt. There are no records to show that the landlord did this with either of the resident’s complaints.
The landlord also offered in its’ stage 1 complaint response to reinstate the resident’s position on the landlord’s housing application list to where it was before the resident applied for this property. The landlord told the resident in an email on 28 May 2024 that the resident’s application on the housing list was going to be reinstated. This was an attempt by the landlord to make things right with the resident.
The landlord’s housing allocations policy says the landlord can make reasonable adjustments for applicants. One example of an adjustment that the council can make is where vulnerable applicants cannot make a bid on a property, the council can make a bid on their behalf. The council can also make a direct offer of accommodation when the applicant has a specialist need for adapted accommodation and the availability of suitable accommodation is limited. The landlord provided the Service with confirmation that the resident actively logs into her housing application account. This does not show that the resident has been able to complete bids independently. The resident’s representative (her father) emailed the landlord on 4 March 2025 to explain that the resident was having difficulty knowing what properties would be suitable for her to bid for. The Service has not been provided with any evidence to show that the landlord has considered any of the above reasonable adjustments in this situation to help the resident.
The landlord also offered in its stage 1 complaint response for the resident’s tenancy at this property to be reinstated. If she chose to do so, the landlord said it would install a floor covering to meet the resident’s needs and that it would take on responsibility for maintaining this flooring during the rest of the resident’s tenancy. It is appreciated that this is an attempt by the landlord to make things right, but as this offer has been left open-ended, it is presumed that the landlord would no longer be able to offer this particular property as it has likely now been occupied by another resident. The Service has contacted the landlord to ask for clarification on this point but has not yet received a response.
The landlord also said in its stage 1 complaint response that it would update its housing team’s sign-up process to include information relating to the result of asbestos surveys carried out on a property. The landlord also said that it would remind its teams of the importance of communicating with customers in the promised timeframe. In the circumstances these are both appropriate responses to the complaint made by the resident.
In its’ stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it intended to uphold its’ stage 1 complaint response. The landlord acknowledged that there had been failings in the way that it had managed the issues with the flooring. The landlord said that the £450 compensation that it had offered within its’ stage 1 response was appropriate because the property was habitable at all times since the start of the resident’s tenancy.
The landlord also said that the resident had had an accompanied viewing of the property before she signed the tenancy agreement. This is implying that the resident should have known about the condition of the flooring by her visit. This is unreasonable because the resident is a lay person and could not have known about the tiles from a visit. The landlord themselves did not give the resident the information she needed about the asbestos, despite her asking for it on a number of occasions. Because it is the landlord’s responsibility to give the resident the information she needed about asbestos before the tenancy agreement was signed, in not doing so it was reasonable for the resident to have believed that there were no issues with asbestos when the tenancy began.
The landlord’s actions in its’ stage 1 complaint response were ultimately an attempt to make things right, which is appreciated and is a positive step. However, the landlord has failed to manage the resident’s expectations by making an offer for her to resume her tenancy at the property without a timeframe for the her acceptance. We have asked the landlord to clarify whether this property would still be available for the resident to resume her tenancy at, but we did not receive a response. An order relating to this aspect of our findings has been made below.
Whilst the landlord’s compensation offer was reasonable, it did not fully reflect the failings that had taken place or the impact that the situation had had on the resident, who felt that her only option was to end her tenancy. An order for further compensation to be paid to the resident is made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect to its response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to her flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its failure to provide the resident with information about the presence of asbestos in her property at the start of the tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the unnecessary distress and inconvenience caused by the service failures identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £600 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failure to properly respond to and address her reports of disrepair to her flooring;
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failure to provide information relating to the presence and location of asbestos in her property at the start of the tenancy and subsequently when requested.
  3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failure to manage the resident’s expectations in terms of what the landlord offered the resident in its’ stage 1 complaint response.
3. Contact the resident to discuss her position on its housing application register as offered in its stage 1 complaint response. It is to determine what assistance it can provide the resident with bidding on suitable properties, particularly in light of her vulnerabilities.
The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to evidence its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers staff training to ensure it provides correct information about the property condition during its sign-up process.