From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

One Vision Housing Limited (202334455)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334455

One Vision Housing Limited

28 August 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns with the property condition when moving in.
    2. The resident’s reports of asbestos in the property.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 7 August 2023. The property is a 3 bedroom property, and the landlord is a housing association. The landlord said that the resident is physically disabled. The resident repeatedly informed the landlord during the complaint process that she had disabilities. She also explained that she had mast cell activation syndrome, and exposure to dust could trigger a severe allergic reaction.
  2. On 7 August 2023 the resident reported that the property was not ready for her to move into. She described cracked, spongy and wet plaster around the property and requested the landlord inspected the issues. The landlord inspected the property on 14 August 2023 and raised repairs to remedy to the issues.
  3. On 12 August 2023 the resident reported that she removed floor tiles in the property and was concerned that those contained asbestos. The landlord made the area safe on the same day. It removed the waste and completed an environmental clean on 16 August 2023.
  4. Between 15 August 2023 and 30 August 2023, the landlord stripped the wallpaper off and replastered the walls and ceilings in the property. It then completed a full property redecoration between 30 August 2023 and 7 September 2023.
  5. On 22 August 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord, and said:
    1. She gave notice to end her tenancy with her previous landlord when she picked up the keys to her new property in August 2023. She explained that she had allowed herself a month to move in so that she could decorate and move in without exhausting herself.
    2. Because of her disability she gets fatigued, vertigo, dizziness, allergies and can get overwhelmed. She explained how distress and exertion triggered and increased her symptoms. She also explained that she had lung damage because of covid. She said that on 12 August 2023, she contacted the mental health crisis team for support because she felt “at breaking point”.
    3. She reported to the landlord that the property was in poor state of repairs. She described issues with cracks, mould, spongy walls, rotten floorboards, asbestos, sockets and light switches. She also said the landlord failed to remove some of the flooring.
    4. On 11 August 2023 the landlord said that it would inspect the property 3 days later. It then agreed to replaster the property and said this would take 1 week to complete.
    5. On 16 August 2023 the landlord informed her that it would also redecorate the property and could do this with her in situ. She explained that this was not possible because of her allergy to dust. She also explained that she would prefer the decorating completed before installing her new flooring.
    6. The work started on 18 August 2023, but she was concerned when the landlord would complete the repairs and whether she would become homeless. She said the landlord did not return her calls to help her understand what was happening, provide her with advice or support.
    7. She incurred unexpected costs because of the disrepair such as paying for storage and a painter. She explained that she organised for a moving van and booked a storage unit for her belongings because she did not know if the property would be ready before her previous tenancy ended.
  6. The landlord said it removed the tiles and screed the dining room floor on 31 August 2023. The resident said it had to come back because the floor was uneven and completed the repair on 7 September 2023.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 7 September 2023, and said:
    1. Once the resident started decorating her property ready to move in, she reported that the plasterwork needed redoing and the floor was damaged.
    2. It repaired the flooring on 16 August 2023 and replastered the property on 25 August 2023.
    3. It recognised that because of the disrepairs the resident could not move in as planned and it upheld her complaint. It explained that while it aimed to complete all repairs prior to residents moving in, some repairs do not become known during the void period.
    4. It offered to pay £409.53 in compensation to the resident to reflect the inconvenience caused to her. It said this was equivalent to 3 weeks rent for the time the resident was unable to move in. As a good will gesture it also agreed to redecorate the property.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 September 2023, and said:
    1. The landlord knew about the disrepair prior to her signing for the tenancy but decided not to complete the works because of the cost. It did not remove the laminated flooring as agreed and if it had it would have seen the asbestos tiles. She removed the laminated flooring and the underneath tiles, and, in the process, she unknowingly exposed herself to asbestos.
    2. She disputed that the landlord completed the repairs to the floor on 25 August 2023. She said that it had to return because the floor was not even and completed the work on 7 September 2023. She also said that the floor remained uneven, and because of this her flooring contractor could not offer her warranty for the flooring she bought.
    3. She moved in on 2 September 2023. The landlord started redecorating the property on 31 August 2023, but the landlord had not informed her in advance about this. She said that although the landlord completed the repairs by 7 September 2023, the works were of poor standard.
    4. The situation and the landlord poor communication had caused her distress, which impacted on her health. Additionally, she said that she incurred £1200 additional cost because of the delays with the move.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 11 October 2023.
    1. It acknowledged that it should have removed the flooring and decorated the property to an acceptable standard when the property was empty.
    2. It recognised that its failings to complete the works when the property was empty impacted on the resident’s health and it apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to her.
    3. It upheld her complaint and offered to increase its compensation offer to £591.54, which was equivalent to 1 month’s rent. It said that along with the plaster works and decorating of the property, it believed its offer was reasonable and reflected the impact on the resident.
  10. On 4 January 2024 the resident made a complaint to us about her landlord. She explained that there were delays in her moving into her property because of disrepair. She described how the delays caused her distress because she faced homelessness, and this impacted on her health. She also described how she “chipped away” at flooring, which contained asbestos, and she did not know it was there. As a resolution to her complaint and in addition to the landlord’s compensation offer, she sought for the landlord to reimburse her for the cost she incurred because of the delays in moving in.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident reported that the landlord’s handling of the matters significantly impacted on her physical and mental health. We can consider the impact that the issues raised have had on the resident, and whether the landlord acted reasonably. However, we cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions may have contributed to or exacerbated any physical and/or mental health issues. These are legal aspects better suited to a personal injury claim or court.

The resident’s concerns with the property condition when moving in

  1. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy says that it will complete urgent repairs within 7 days and routine repairs within 28 days. It elaborates that it will complete small projects, which it cannot complete within 28 days, as soon as it can and will prioritise those works. It says that it will keep residents informed of the expected timescales to complete the works. It also says that when a property is empty, it will inspect it and ensure it is up to letting standard.
  2. The resident picked up the keys for her new property on 4 August 2023 and gave notice to her private landlord. She said this gave her a month to move in and redecorate her new property. She shared with the landlord that she organised the move in that way so that she did not exert herself and trigger her health symptoms.
  3. We understand that 4 days after she first reported the problems the landlord informed the resident that it would inspect the property on 14 August 2023. We recognise this would have felt like a long time to the resident and she reported feeling ignored by the landlord. However, the landlord booked the inspection within 4 days and inspected the property 7 days after the resident first reported the issues. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord in keeping with its obligations as outlined in its Repairs and Maintenance Policy.
  4. The evidence shows that following its inspection, the landlord promptly raised the remedial repairs. It said it would strip the wallpaper, replaster the property and redecorate. The evidence shows that it provided an expected timeframe to the resident for completing the repairs. It completed the works 24 days later, which was reasonable. Its handling of the repairs was in keeping with its obligations as outlined in its Repairs and Maintenance Policy.
  5. We recognise that the resident reported that the repairs to the floor took longer than expected because of poor workmanship. She explained that the landlord had to come back to redo the floor because it was uneven. The evidence shows that it promptly returned to rectify the problem and completed the repair on 7 September 2023. This was reasonable by the landlord, when the resident reported the problem, it promptly acted to rectify the matter.
  6. However, the landlord did not show that it acted on her next report that the floor remained uneven. On 22 September 2023 the resident informed the landlord that on 8 September 2023, her flooring contractor had informed her that the floor was uneven. She said that because of this, her contractor refused to guarantee the flooring it put down. However, we did not see evidence that the resident reported the issue or gave the landlord the opportunity to rectify the problem prior to installing her new flooring. We cannot determine there was a failure by the landlord to redo the floor before the resident put her flooring down because we saw no evidence that it knew about the problem at that point.
  7. Nevertheless, the landlord did not show that following her report on 22 September 2023, it discussed the problem with the resident or offered to return and redo the floor. We understand the resident may not have wanted for the landlord to disturb her newly laid flooring. Nonetheless, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect the issue and discuss a remedy with the resident, if it found the floor was uneven. However, we saw no evidence that the resident made further reports about the uneven floor or that the issue remained unresolved.
  8. We understand that the resident contacted the landlord several times to discuss the repairs. We also understand that on some occasions it would take a few days for the relevant staff to return her call. We understand this was distressing for the resident, who sought reassurance from the landlord that it would complete the works in time for her to move in. She also reported that it did not inform her when the redecorating would start. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm all repairs appointments with her, including the redecorating. However, the evidence did not show that the landlord ignored the resident, failed to communicate with her on the matter, or failed to return her calls. Overall, the landlord acted fairly and its communications with the resident were proportionate.
  9. From its own admission, the landlord poorly managed the repairs when the property was empty. The evidence shows that it did not complete all the repairs it identified during the void inspection prior to the resident moving in. It said that its operatives requested authorisation to complete additional plastering, but it failed to follow up. It explained that because of this it handed the property over to its letting team without completing the additional plastering and redecorating. This was unreasonable by the landlord. It should have ensured that it completed all the required repairs before letting the property. Its failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  10. We have no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010 or the Human Rights Act 1998. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties.
  11. In this case, the resident informed the landlord that it failed to consider her disabilities when completing the repairs. Since reporting the disrepair, the resident repeatedly reported that she had disabilities. She also explained that she had mast cell activation syndrome and exposure to dust could trigger a severe allergic reaction. The landlord did not show that it discussed this with her or considered whether it should make reasonable adjustments when delivering its services to the household. This was unreasonable by the landlord, it should have considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998. We recognise however, that we did not see evidence its failings significantly impacted the overall outcome for the resident.
  12. The resident said she had to pay for storage and for removal vans because of the delays in moving in. We understand she was “preparing for the worst” by organising storage in case the property was not ready by the time her notice expired. We also understand that she preferred that the house was empty and redecorated prior to installing her flooring. She was also concerned about exposure to dust, especially as the landlord was replastering the property.
  13. We recognise that it would have been easier for the resident to install the flooring and redecorate when the property was empty. However, it was not necessary because landlords often do such repairs with residents in situ. Additionally, we did not see evidence that it was necessary for the resident to put her belongings in storage and pay additional moving costs. This is because the resident said that she continued to live in her previous property until she moved and the evidence shows that the landlord replastered the property prior to her moving in. It also showed that it had provided the resident with a timeframe for the completion of the repairs, and she was able to move in by the time her previous tenancy ended. Therefore, while we understand why the resident planned the move the way she did, we cannot order the landlord to reimburse her for the costs she incurred because of the move.
  14. In summary, it is evident that the landlord did not adequately manage the repairs when the property was empty. It is also evident that its failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who was concerned she could become homeless and about the impact on her health. During the complaint process, the landlord acknowledged its failings and apologised to the resident. It showed that once the resident reported the disrepairs, it promptly acted to remedy the issues. It also offered to pay her £591.54 in compensation and carried out a full redecoration of the property as a goodwill gesture. It is our opinion that the landlord’s total offer reflected the failings identified in this report. Therefore, we determine that, in all circumstances of the case, the level of compensation amounts to ‘reasonable redress’.

The resident’s reports of asbestos in the property

  1. The presence of asbestos in properties built in the late 20th century is not unusual, as builders commonly used products containing asbestos in construction during that period. In this case, on 12 August 2023, the resident reported that after removing flooring in the property, she also removed the underneath tiles. She reported to the landlord she thought the tiles may contain asbestos and she had not known this prior to removing them. It has been well documented and publicised that asbestos can cause a serious risk to health. It is therefore understandable that the resident was worried whether the asbestos in her home presented a risk, especially as she had lung damage.
  2. The Housing Health and safety Rating system (HHSRS) says that it is the landlord’s responsibility to consider hazards within its properties that may require management or remedy. This includes landlords identifying and managing potential risks from asbestos by locating the asbestos, assessing its condition, ensuring they safely sealed it and keeping a register. It explains that Chrysotile is the less hazardous form of asbestos, which when in good condition, presents minimal risk to health. It says that where asbestos is in good condition and undisturbed, landlords should manage it in situ. When existing asbestos is damaged or disturbed, landlords must assess the situation and either enclose the asbestos or remove it.
  3. The evidence shows that in April 2016, the landlord carried out an asbestos survey at the property and took samples for testing to determine whether asbestos was present and required addressing. The surveyor identified Chrysotile in the kitchen but did not recommend any action. The landlord acted appropriately in keeping with its obligations as outlined by the HHSRS.
  4. The landlord informed this service that it provided a link to its online Home Safety Guide to the resident at the start of her tenancy. The guide is available on its website alongside additional information on managing asbestos. It includes advice on identifying asbestos in the property such as floor tiles, and what to do if it is damaged or disturbed. The landlord provided relevant information to the resident about asbestos, which was reasonable.
  5. The evidence shows that when the resident reported she may have disturbed asbestos in the property, the landlord’s promptly appointed a specialist contractor to deal with the issue. The contractor attended on the same day to make the area safe and then returned and carried out an environmental clean of the area and removed the asbestos tiles. It completed the works within 4 days of the resident reported the matter. Although the resident was not living in the property, the landlord acted with a sense of urgency and promptly removed the asbestos tiles. This was reasonable by the landlord and in keeping with its obligations as outlined in its Repairs and Maintenance Policy.
  6. We understand the resident believes that if the landlord had removed the laminated flooring as agreed, it would have seen the floor tiles. She said this would have prevented her from exposing herself to asbestos. However, we did not see evidence that the tiles were damaged prior to the resident removing them. Therefore, we cannot determine that the landlord would have removed the tiles if it had removed the laminated flooring. This is because if the tiles were in good condition, it could have managed the asbestos in situ as advised by the HHSRS.
  7. After considering the evidence of the case, we determine there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of asbestos in the property. It promptly acted on the resident’s reports and safely removed the disturbed asbestos. Its actions were in keeping with its obligations as outlined in its Repairs and Maintenance Policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident in relation to her complaint about its handling of the resident’s concerns with the property condition when moving in prior to investigation which, in our opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of reasonable redress.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of asbestos in the property.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend for the landlord to discuss the resident’s disabilities with her and consider whether it should make reasonable adjustments to its future service delivery in keeping with its obligations.