Rooftop Housing Association Limited (202503097)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property by a mutual exchange. The previous tenant did not remove rubbish from the back garden as agreed during the mutual exchange inspection. The household includes 2 children and a dog. For the purposes of this report, the resident’s husband will be known as the representative.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1.  Reports of rubbish left in the garden.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to rubbish left in the garden.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Rubbish left in the garden

4. The landlord did not remove the rubbish, which included asbestos, from the garden within a reasonable length of time. The resident and her representative had to repeatedly chase the landlord to get the works progressed. The rubbish remains in the garden nearly 18 months after the resident reported it to the landlord.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and the Code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The landlord carried out a mutual exchange inspection of the property on 30 May 2024. The inspection form documented there was rubbish in the garden which the outgoing tenant needed to remove before the exchange would be allowed to proceed.
7. On 9 July 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to advise she had moved into the property, but the previous tenant had not removed the rubbish from the garden as agreed at the inspection. On 18 July 2024 the landlord told the resident that this was down to her to resolve with the previous tenant, and it would not be doing anything to help.
8. The mutual exchange procedure states when work is identified at the inspection, the landlord will carry out a follow-on inspection to ensure the work has been completed prior to the exchange. It did not follow its procedure as a follow-on inspection was not carried out.
9. The landlord later acknowledged in its stage 1 response that it should have checked that the outgoing tenant had removed the rubbish prior to the mutual exchange.  It was appropriate to acknowledge this failing.
10. The resident had requested a copy of the mutual exchange inspection report to prove what had been noted at the visit, but the landlord delayed providing this. This was not reasonable or appropriate. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the resident was entitled to ask for a copy of the report and that the resident had been given the wrong information after the mutual exchange. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this. The landlord also confirmed staff training would address these matters to ensure this did not happen again.
11. In August 2024, the landlord changed its position on dealing with the rubbish in the garden when the resident expressed concern that the rubbish contained asbestos. This was appropriate as the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) identifies asbestos as a hazard. This rubbish in the garden was acknowledged as a HHSRS hazard by the landlord in an internal email dated 13 November 2024.
12. The landlord inspected the rubbish in the garden on 6 August 2024. On 7 August 2024 it raised an urgent works order for the removal of some corrugated roof sheets which were suspected to contain asbestos. The sheets were removed the following day on 8 August 2024. The removal of these sheets was actioned quickly once the order was raised which was appropriate.
13. Over the next 3 months the resident chased the landlord for when the rest of the rubbish was going to be removed. It was the resident contacting the landlord on 30 October 2024 that caused the landlord to chase a quote from a contractor for the removal of the rest of the rubbish. This was not appropriate. The resident should not have needed to repeatedly chase the landlord for the matter to be progressed. The landlord is expected to monitor its repairs and chase contractors where needed.
14. On 19 November 2024 a works order was raised for the rest of the rubbish to be removed. This was carried out on 16 December 2024. However, not all the rubbish could be removed at this visit. This was because further potential asbestos was identified and the contractor on this job was not licensed to remove asbestos.
15. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken prompt action when further potential asbestos was discovered. However, the landlord did not do so.
16. It was not until 23 January 2025, in response to the resident raising her complaint, that the landlord followed up on the outstanding work needed to remove the remaining rubbish in the garden. This delay was not appropriate, especially considering a further potential hazard had been identified.
17. On 23 January 2025 the landlord checked the status of the job with a contractor and raised a work order for an asbestos survey to be carried out. This survey was carried out on 17 February 2025. The report confirmed asbestos had been found.
18. On 29 April 2025 the landlord contacted a contractor to get a quote for the removal of a large area of soil from the garden. The landlord said the soil contained multiple items including asbestos, metal and plastic. It was not clear why it took nearly 2 months from further asbestos being found in the garden for a quote to be requested for its removal. It appears that this was only prompted by the resident escalating her complaint and the landlord issuing its stage 2 response.
19. On 1 July 2025 the landlord chased the outstanding quote and requested further quotes from other contractors. It was unclear why the landlord waited until 1 July 2025 to chase a quote that was requested on 29 April 2025. While the landlord is not responsible for the contractor’s delay in issuing the quote, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have chased the quote much sooner than it did.
20. The landlord received 3 quotes for the work by 21 August 2025. Three quotes were needed due to the cost of the work. This was in line with the landlord’s procurement process.
21. On 3 September 2025 a landlord internal email stated there did not appear to be an order for asbestos removal and for the area of the garden to be fenced off. This showed there had not been adequate oversight of the job for these actions to have been missed.
22. The landlord requested that this happened as soon as possible. However, this did not happen within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord had been aware that further asbestos was in the garden since receiving the survey report in early March 2025 which was 6 months prior.
23. On 9 September 2025 the landlord told us the work required on the garden to remove the asbestos, rubbish and contaminated earth would involve the removal of approximately 250 tonnes of soil and any remaining rubbish and debris. It said the area would then be backfilled with subsoil and topsoil with grass seed laid over this.
24. The landlord also told us it had updated its mutual exchange procedure in response to the issues identified in the resident’s complaint. This showed learnings had already been taken from this complaint.
25. In response to the representative asking about the scope of the works, the landlord emailed the representative on 18 November 2025. It confirmed it would be reinstating a fence and gate to the side of the property and would turf the area after the work is completed. It told the representative that a contractor would be in touch shortly with timeframes.
26. On 19 November 2025 the landlord told us that a contractor had been selected, and it was in the process of arranging a start date for the work. It was unclear why 3 months after receiving the quotes, the landlord did not have a start date confirmed. There has been an unreasonable delay in commencing the work.
27. The representative told us the household had not been able to use the garden for nearly 18 months. He explained that this was particularly difficult for their son who had been unable to play football in the garden. They had also not been able to let their dog use the garden.
28. In its stage 1 response dated 27 February 2025 the landlord awarded £120 compensation for the failings regarding the rubbish in the garden. The landlord awarded £400 compensation in its stage 2 response dated 9 April 2025, but this was for its response to the rubbish in the garden and also 4 other complaint elements the resident had raised. This equates to £80 compensation for each matter. Therefore, the resident was awarded a total of £200 compensation from the landlord during the complaints process for the landlord’s response to the rubbish in the garden.
29. The compensation awarded was proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance at the end of the complaints process. It has since been paid to the resident. However, the landlord did not carry out the work to the garden promptly. The resident and her representative had to continue to chase the landlord to progress the work. The rubbish, which contains asbestos, remains in the garden over 7 months after the landlord issued its stage 2 response.
30. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £300 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the ongoing delays in carrying out the work to the garden. We have also made an order for the landlord to complete the work.

31. The landlord contacted the resident to extend the stage 1 response time by 10 working days. This was reasonable and in line with the Code.
32. There were no failings identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. All timescales in the landlord’s policy and the Code were followed.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. More robust records on the outcome of jobs and adequate oversight of these would have prevented the delays in carrying out follow-on work such as fencing off the garden area containing asbestos. We would encourage the landlord to review the recommendations in our Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management and the key learnings in our Spotlight Report on complaints about repairs and to decide if it needs to take any action to improve its record keeping.

Communication

34. The landlord needs to proactively keep residents updated to avoid them needing to repeatedly chase it for information on how matters are progressing.