Southend-on-Sea City Council (202234512)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234512

Southend-on-Sea City Council

10 April 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 the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of water leaking into the bedroom through the ceiling and the subsequent repairs to the property.
2. Response to reports of a gas leak in the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a 1 bed first floor flat. She has lived at the property since June 2010. She has several vulnerabilities, including cancer and issues with her mental health that the landlord was aware of.
The resident has provided this service with detailed notes of the calls referenced in this timeline. Both parties record that on 3 November 2022 a leak was coming through the bedroom ceiling. The landlord recorded an urgent repair and noted that the leak was contained with a bucket.
On 7 November 2022, the landlord inspected and determined that there were issues with the roof. It passed a repair to a roofing contractor to contact the resident.
The resident called the landlord on 17 November 2022 to say the leak had caused part of the ceiling to collapse in the bedroom. An urgent repair was recorded. The landlord sent a roofing contactor to the property on 18 November 2022. It found the ceiling sagging and believed that there may be asbestos present. It was unable to access the roof to conduct further repair without scaffolding. The resident noted that she was told the ceiling needed to be taken down because it contained asbestos. A follow up repair was scheduled for 21 November 2022.
The landlord removed part of the ceiling on 21 November 2022. The resident wrote in her notes on 29 November 2022, that roofing contractors were due to attend 6 days later. The hole in the ceiling had not been repaired.
The resident complained on 30 November 2022. She said that the hole had not been repaired, black mould was growing in the bedroom, her belongings had been ruined, and the property was freezing. She had sought advice from Citizens Advice and would withhold her rent if the matter was not resolved. The issues were impacting her physical and mental health.
The resident called the landlord on 1 December 2022. She reiterated her concerns regarding the hole in the ceiling. She said the landlord had patched up the hole in the ceiling and told her not to use the bedroom. She was told that the ceiling contained asbestos. She wanted some help from the landlord to find alternative accommodation. The landlord said that it would only consider decanting the resident if it was determined the property was unfit/unsafe to live in. Its internal records show there was come confusion about the repairs that had taken place and what was outstanding.
The resident complained again on 9 December 2022. She said:
1. She had been exposed to asbestos and the roof had not been repaired.
2. Since reporting the repair, 3 roofing contractors had attended but there was no scaffolding in place and the ceiling had not been repaired.
3. She was spending nights with her carer as she could not stay in the property.
4. She wanted compensation.
5. She wanted help with temporary accommodation.
The landlord logged a complaint and sent an acknowledgement letter the same day. It told the resident to complete a list of costs incurred because of the leaks.
On the same day the landlord recorded that it was concerned the resident had been waiting for “5 weeks with exposed asbestos” and hole in the ceiling. The contractors had attended but were unable to complete the repairs. The landlord made an unsuccessful attempt to call the resident about these issues.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 12 December 2022 it discussed meeting with the resident. It noted that it would only decant the resident if a surveyor said that it was required.
On 19 December 2022, the landlord issued a stage 1 response regarding the roofing repair works. This was around 13 working days after her initial complaint. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and the delays to complete repairs. It said:
1. Its contractor had taken “far longer than usual to respond to the remedial/repair works”. It discussed the case with the contractor and said that there were issues with sickness absence causing delays.
2. It apologised it was taking more than 3 weeks to complete the repairs.
3. It had instructed a new surveyor to inspect the work and ensure it was actioned without delay.
4. The contractor was scheduled to erect scaffolding on 18 January 2023 and start works on 20 January 2023.
5. It directed the resident to make a personal injury claim against its insurance for damages.
The resident reported that the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 6 January 2023. She was told that it was to begin works to repair the roof, however it was unable to start as there was no scaffolding present. She says the contractor would not cover the hole in the ceiling because of the risk of exposure to asbestos. She wrote that she had “wasted 4+ hours being cold & exposed to asbestos for nothing”.
On 9 January 2023, the resident called the landlord. She said:
1. She was unhappy with how her complaint was being dealt with and the time it was taking to complete the works.
2. She had reported a repair 9 weeks prior to the ceiling coming down. She was then being told that repairs were not due to start until 14 February 2023. This meant that there will have been 15 weeks since she first reported the problem.
3. She had been using an electric heater in the living room as the heating was not working. This was costing between £5-10 per day.
4. She visited the property on 6 January 2023 to allow access to a contractor. They did not complete any repairs because of the risks present from asbestos.
5. She had done some research and found that the asbestos would have contaminated her personal belongings in the bedroom. They would all need to be discarded. She estimated that she would have incurred costs of £2,000-£3,000.
6. She had sought medical attention and was told by her GP not to return to the property. She would only return to allow access for repairs to take place.
7. She wanted compensation for the damage to property.
On 16 January 2023, the resident wrote that she was awoken by a loud bang. She went into the bedroom and found more of the ceiling had collapsed. She reported the repair and the contractor attended later that day to remove what had fallen and put plastic sheeting over the hole. She found live electrical wires exposed in the bedroom and sought an emergency repair. She was given a date for 23 January 2023, which was changed to an emergency after she spoke to the landlord. The landlord attended the same day and repaired the live electrical wires.
On 27 January 2023, the resident stayed at the property. She wrote in her notes that during the late evening she was in the bathroom when she was alerted by an alarm sounding. She traced it to the boiler where she was “hit with an overwhelming issue of carbon monoxide”. She realised that there was gas leaking and she had been exposed for an unknown period. She had to call the national gas emergency service who turned off the gas. They found that the flue had become disconnected from the boiler. The leak was because of the disconnected flue. The engineer provided a copy of the readings to the resident which showed dangerously elevated levels of carbon monoxide present. She said the operative told her she was “lucky to be alive”.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 31 January 2023. She said that the roofing contractor had been working on the roof on 27 January 2023. She believed that the contractor had dislodged the boiler flue during the roofing works. She was concerned that the damage to the flue was malicious because she had complained about the untidy way the work had been left previously. She said that she had logged a call for someone to attend on 27 January 2023 and was given a 24 call out, but no one had attended. There were photographs showing the condition of both parts of the flue. They show that the flue was dislodged from the roof and the boiler. The resident wanted this to be included in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord’s internal records from the same day show that it made enquiries following this report. There was consideration given as to whether the resident was targeted. It determined there was no malicious intent involved. It began investigations into the damage to the flue and the boiler but was unable to identify the cause. It notified senior officers and involved its compliance team for technical information.
On 2 February 2022, the landlord’s records show that that it reviewed the photographs sent by the resident. It notes that it was hard to determine if the dislodgement was from roof or internally by the boiler. It believed the damage was caused internally at the property by a force exerted on the terminal. This was because the flue was clipped in the loft.
On 6 February 2022, the landlord’s records show that the resident was no longer staying at the property. It made attempts to visit the property on 7 and 14 February 2023, but the resident was not available to provide access.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response regarding the roofing repair work on 14 February 2023. This was around 26 working days after the request to escalate the complaint. It said the complaint was about:
1. The time taken to repair the issues relating to the leak and damage to the property.
2. The associated issues with asbestos in the bedroom ceiling.
3. The time taken to bring the property to a reasonable standard.
4. The inability to use the bedroom and the inconvenience this caused.
The landlord upheld the complaint. It said:
1. It apologised for the situation. The explanation given at stage 1, was factual but did not address the substantive issue.
2. The delays to remedy the roof leak, reinstate the bedroom ceiling, cleaning and, making good fell below its expected standards.
3. It had completed air testing associated with asbestos and a specialist cleaning operation, which were omitted from its stage 1 response. Had it included these details it could have given the resident some assurances that she could use the bedroom.
4. It considered compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. It awarded £1,200 compensation. This comprised:
  1. £200 for service quality and communication. It acknowledged that matters associated with the delivery of works did not meet its standards.
  2. £500 (contribution to property beyond effective cleaning processes) for asbestos contamination. It said it would arrange for belongings to be cleaned by a specialist contractor. It offered the resident an opportunity to provide further information on losses that it would review.
  3. £200 (contribution to repair items) for the costs associated with heating. It was given as an estimation based on information provided at stage 2.
  4. £300 for inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, and delays in getting matters resolved. It said matters associated with the dealing with the works and reinstatement became protracted.
5. This was a full and final settlement, subject to decontamination being successful.
The landlord issued a complaint holding letter for the issues regarding the boiler and gas flue on 15 February 2023. It sought to extend the response period for a further 10 days. The landlord’s records show that it attended the property on the same day and noted that the asbestos removal contractors were removing the damaged ceiling.
The landlord’s records show that the repairs to the boiler and roof were complete on 20 February 2023.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response regarding the boiler and gas flue on 27 February 2023. It said:
1. The complaint was about the damage to the gas flue suffered while roof works were in progress at the property.
2. It noted that the gas had been isolated at the property. The flue repairs were completed in a timely manner and the boiler had been certified as safe. The cause of the damage to the boiler was unclear.
3. The resident already had alternative living arrangements in place during the works.
4. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s records are unclear when some works were complete. The evidence suggests that it finished plastering the bedroom ceiling between 10 and 14 March 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 March 2023. It said that its offer of £1,200 compensation was made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It would not review the offer.
The resident sent evidence to the landlord of the damage done to her possessions on 28 March 2023. She said that she was unable to live at the property because she had not heard back from the landlord about payments that she could use to buy carpets. She had been unable to stay at the property for 5 months, only being able to return to move things around or decorate the living room. She found cracks, black mould, water marks on the ceilings and plaster falling around the window. She asked for a surveyor to inspect the property.
The landlord inspected the property on 10 April 2023. It said the mould in the property was a result of a lack of air circulation. It found tape over a passive vent in the lounge and the trickle vents on the window was shut. It gave some advice on how to resolve damp.
The resident asked for her complaint regarding the boiler and gas flue repairs to be escalated on 12 April 2023. She said the stage 1 response did not resolve the issues regarding the conduct/behaviour of the roofing contractors. She said that her mental health had been severely impacted. She intended to seek independent legal action against the roofing contractor.
The landlord issued a separate stage 1 response regarding mould and damp repairs on 21 April 2023. It said:
1. The following repairs had been scheduled:
  1. Conduct mould wash to all affected areas.
  2. Remove and renew any infected mastic and seal water stains to ceiling.
  3. Renew damaged missing trim to bay window once mould wash completed.
2. It gave advice on improving ventilation throughout the property.
3. It said its offer of compensation of £1,200 was “still as it stands”. The amount was a full and final settlement as per its letter sent on 13 February 2023.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s responses. She contacted the Ombudsman on 28 April 2023. She said that she refused the offer of compensation from the landlord. She had post traumatic stress disorder resulting from carbon monoxide poisoning. Her clothes had to be thrown away because of the damage caused by the water leak and rodents entering the property. The asbestos dust was throughout the property and she had to throw all her kitchenware away. She was living with her carer and struggled with returning to the property. She wanted compensation to replace her damaged possessions and somewhere safe to live.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response regarding the boiler and flue repairs on 17 May 2023. It said it had reviewed its response from 27 February 2023. It upheld the complaint and said:
1. There were discussions at the time of the incident associated with both the possible cause of the damage and the requirement to have the flue inspected, repaired, and tested.
2. It apologised that the stage 1 response identified the actions taken but did not include information on the cause of the damage.
3. It was unable to confirm how the flue was damaged, or who was responsible.
During contact with the resident in March 2024, she told the Ombudsman that she had returned to the property. She had been unable to live at the address for a total of around 5 months. There had been a lasting impact on her physical health because of the gas leak. The issues with water penetrating her bedroom had persisted and there was evidence of damp and mould in her hallway. She had to throw away most of the items in the property because of the damage and had not been directed to the landlord’s insurance. She said there was no update from the landlord following its final response on 17 May 2023, until a new inspection was done on 12 March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. As a result, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the delays to complete repairs impacted the resident’s health. However, we can consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health and property is more appropriate for the courts.
Additionally, we cannot establish liability regarding the cause of the gas leak into the resident’s home. This is outside of the expertise of the Ombudsman. We can consider the landlord’s response and the distress and inconvenience the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to liability is more appropriate for the courts.
The records show complaints made by the resident regarding reports of damp and mould from 28 March 2023. The landlord has issued its stage 1 response on 21 April 2023. However, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme these reports have not been considered as part of this investigation. This is because they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and there is no evidence that it did not respond in a reasonable timeframe. The resident may wish to raise this to the landlord separately.

Policy and procedures

The landlord states that it aims to respond to emergency repairs within 2 hours of being reported. It aims to rectify the issue within 24 hours. It considers an uncontainable roof leak to be an emergency repair. It will respond to routine repairs within 28 days of being reported.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint procedure. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints in 20 working days.

Response to reports of water leaking into the bedroom through the ceiling and the subsequent repairs to the property.

Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, and to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout her tenancy. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards.
The resident reported a leak coming into the property on 3 November 2022. The landlord did not provide an emergency response in line with its procedures. The evidence suggests that the earliest response was on 7 November 2022, when it passed a repair to a roofing contractor. This was inappropriate and did not recognise the impact the incident had on the resident. The hole in the ceiling introduced additional hazards to the resident. There was a risk of exposure to excess cold and asbestos. Both of which are potential category 1 hazards proposed by the HHSRS.
The bedroom ceiling collapsed further on 17 November 2022. This was around 14 days after the resident made her initial reports. The landlord’s contractor attended within 24 hours of the report, but there was no immediate action to remedy or reduce the risks posed to the resident. The landlord’s records show that no work was done to remedy the hole in the ceiling until around 16 January 2023. This is when there was a plastic sheet used to cover the hole. The temporary repairs were started considerably more than the 24 hours set out in the landlord’s policy and procedures. Its response was unacceptable and did not consider with the risk to the resident, or the impact it had resident’s vulnerabilities.
As a result of the landlord’s delays, the resident was left without the full use of her bedroom between 3 November 2022 and 14 March 2023. The landlord took around 4 months to complete works to repair the cause of the leak and the hole in the ceiling. During this period the resident was unable to occupy the property and was living with her carer. The landlord did not pursue the resident’s request for temporary accommodation in December 2022. The landlord should have considered if the property was habitable and decided to decant the resident while it completed the works.
The records show the resident was at risk of exposure to asbestos from around 17 November 2022 to 15 February 2023. It took nearly 3 months to remove the asbestos from the property. The landlord should have completed a detailed assessment of the risk, with clear records. It should have determined if the incident was notifiable or non-notifiable work and ensured any exposure was contained. However, the records are not clear if any of these assessments took place. The landlord should have kept records when it conducted air tests and assessed the risk to the resident. The Ombudsman has not seen any copies of these tests within the landlord’s records. There was no record of any discussion taking place between the landlord and the resident about the risks posed to her or how they were being managed.
The landlord acknowledged many of its failings regarding the repairs to the roof and ceiling in its stage 2 response 14 February 2023. It recognised that it had caused distress to the resident and offered £500 compensation for service quality, communication, time, and trouble. This offer did not reflect the impact on the resident caused by the delays to complete repairs. The repairs were still ongoing and she was unable to occupy the property. She was left for an unreasonable period without full use of the property and risked harm when she visited to allow access.
The resident was unable to occupy the property for a further month after the landlord issued its stage 2 response. When she asked the landlord to review its offer of compensation, it refused to make any other offer on 24 March 2024. This was unreasonable and did not demonstrate an intention to put things right for the resident.
The resident reported instances where she had to stay at the property for hours at a time waiting for appointments. Some of which were not attended by the landlord/its contractor. This was avoidable and a cause for learning for the landlord. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that shows that the landlord offered any alternative access arrangements to complete the works. If it had decanted the resident, then it could have arranged for access that would not have inconvenienced or placed the resident at any risk.
The resident told the landlord that contractors attended the property to complete repairs, only to refuse to start when they were told of the asbestos. The landlord did not take sufficient action to reduce the risk of harm to the resident. It did not give the resident and the operatives conducting repairs at the property reassurance that it had done anything to manage the risk. The resident described throwing items of furniture and kitchenware away, fearing contamination from asbestos. The landlord did not recognise the impact this had on the resident. Its actions and communication regarding asbestos caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
As a result of the landlord’s unreasonable delays, the resident was left without the full use of her property between November 2022 and April 2023. The records show that the leak in the bedroom ceiling led to the collapse of the ceiling. This exposed the resident to asbestos and put her at risk of excess cold. The landlord took around 5 months to complete the works to the ceiling and roof. During that time, the resident had to stay with her carer and make lifestyle changes to mitigate the impact of the landlord’s failings. She told the landlord that she was concerned about the habitability of the property and sought temporary accommodation from 30 November 2022. These were significant levels of disruption for a prolonged period.
In the landlord’s final response on 14 February 2024, it said that it had completed air testing associated with asbestos and a specialist cleaning operation. It did not describe the dates these took place. It recognised that it should have included this information much earlier. It made an offer of £500 compensation for the asbestos contamination. However, it was not reflective of the impact the incident had on the resident and did not put things right in the circumstances.
It is not possible for the Service to determine whether the property was completely or partially unusable for the period. The resident reported increased anxiety about asbestos exposure, amongst other safety issues. There was a significant impact on the resident’s enjoyment of the property as a result. In deciding an appropriate level of redress in this complaint, the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s level of rent, the landlord’s failures and the inconvenience and distress caused.
The property is one-bedroom flat and all rooms were affected by the leak. While the rooms were not entirely out of use, the resident could not have full enjoyment of them. As a result, the Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our calculation will consider compensation to reflect her loss of use of the rooms, along with a separate award to address the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of water leaking into the bedroom through the ceiling and the subsequent repairs to the property. It took an unreasonable amount of time to respond to the initial reports of a leak. It failed to communicate effectively with the resident. It failed to complete repairs in line with its policy. It did not recognise the impact of both the leak and exposure to asbestos had on the resident. Its offer of compensation did not reflect the detriment caused to the resident. The landlord must pay the resident £3,000. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer.
The Ombudsman has considered the period November 2022 and April 2023 in our calculation. This additional compensation is awarded in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her by not having full use of the property. It is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation of rent paid for that period. It comprises of:
1. £1,600 which is reflective of the rent due for the period.
2. £500 for distress and inconvenience.
3. £500 for asbestos contamination.
4. £200 for service quality and communication.
5. £200 for the costs associated with heating.

Response to reports of a gas leak in the property.

The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences (RIDDOR) 2013 is a legal requirement that covers mandatory reporting to the HSE of workplace injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences. RIDDOR 11(2) is a duty on the gas conveyor to make a report to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) where a gas fitting, flue or ventilation used in connection with gas could, in their opinion, be so dangerous that it could kill someone, make someone unconscious or cause them to be taken to hospital.
The records show that the boiler was categorised as immediately dangerous, disconnected and labelled “Danger Do Not Use”. There were clearly risks posed to residents because of carbon monoxide poisoning, which are also a category 1 hazard under the HHSRS.
There is little evidence available to the Ombudsman that the landlord did any substantial investigation into the cause of the gas leak. The gas operative took a photograph showing the flue disconnected from the boiler on 28 January 2023. The resident showed evidence of the flue being disconnected from the property in a photograph from 31 January 2023. There was evidence that suggested an incident had occurred, causing the flue to become disconnected from the boiler. This incident caused a serious risk of harm to the resident.
The landlord should have completed a detailed assessment of the risk, with clear records. It should have reported the incident to the HSE as a dangerous occurrence in a domestic premises. The landlord did not make this referral or complete any risk assessment.
The landlord was dismissive of the residents reports. There was a serious and substantial risk posed to the resident because of the damage to the flue. In its stage 1 response the landlord told the resident that it had repaired the flue and certified the boiler as safe. It said that the cause of the damage to the boiler was unclear. However, it did not set out how it had made this decision, what investigations had taken place or recognised the severity of the impact this incident had on the resident. She had told the landlord that she had been exposed to levels of carbon monoxide that put her life at risk. The landlord did not reflect on this in its response.
When the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it apologised for the inconvenience caused. However, it still did nothing to put things right for the resident. It did not set out how it had learned from the incident, or how it may prevent further instances occurring in the future. Its response that it had discussed the incident did not go far enough into explaining how it investigated or what it found.
The resident stated that there was an impact on her health because of the gas leak. The landlord should have directed the resident to its liability insurer to have a claim assessed for damages. The Ombudsman recognised that the landlord did refer to its insurance for damages as part of its initial stage 1 response. This was for the damage done following the leak into the bedroom and the resultant damage to the resident’s property. However, it did not consider this when issuing its complaint responses regarding the gas leak.
The Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a gas leak in the property. The landlord’s responses were dismissive of the resident’s concerns. It did not treat the resident fairly or set out how it had learned from outcomes. It did not offer any redress for the gas leak. It did not direct the resident to its liability insurance or make any efforts to put things right. Its offer of apology was not reasonable redress. The landlord must pay the resident £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It must also provide the resident with details of its liability insurance and advice on how she can make a claim for damages.

Complaint handling.

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
The timeline shows a short delay of around 3 working days to issue the stage 1 response regarding roofing repairs. This delay was unlikely to have caused significant detriment to the resident. However, the landlord should have acknowledged the delay in its complaint response.
The landlord’s stage 2 response regarding roofing repairs was delayed by around 6 working days. The response demonstrated the landlord’s intention to resolve the substantive issue and it recognised that there had been delays conducting repairs. However, as discussed above there were failures to recognise the impact on the resident. The landlord did not address the delay in its response. It did not consider its own complaint handling during its investigation. It should have offered some redress and demonstrated that it had learned from outcomes.
The landlord’s request to extend its stage1 response to the complaint regarding gas flue and boiler took around 11 working days. Although it was reasonable to make this request to extend these timescales, this protracted response did little to improve the outcome for the resident. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 27 February 2023 failed to resolve the concerns raised by the resident. It did not address the delays in issuing the response, or any means of redress for those delays.
There was a further short delay of around 3 working days to issue the stage 2 response on 17 May 2023. The response lacked detail, did not offer any means to put things right for the resident and did not demonstrate how it had learned from outcomes.
Overall, there were combined delays of around 13 working days. The landlord’s responses varied in quality. The landlord’s responses did not follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, ‘Be Fair, Put Things Right, and Learn from Outcomes’. The landlord placed too much emphasis on a full and final settlement when considering redress for the resident.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord should have acknowledged the delays in its responses. It should have demonstrated learning throughout and offered to review the offer of compensation and substantive issues. The landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Severe Maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of water leaking into the bedroom through the ceiling and the subsequent repairs to the property.
2. Severe Maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a gas leak in the property.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failings identified in this report. A copy of the letter to be sent to the Ombudsman.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £4,200. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous compensation of £1,200 awarded in February 2023. If the landlord has already paid the resident compensation set out at stage 2, this should be deducted from the compensation ordered. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £1,600 which is reflective of the loss of enjoyment.
  2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its response to reports of a gas leak.
  3. £500 for distress and inconvenience caused in its response to reports of water leaking into the bedroom through the ceiling and the subsequent repairs.
  4. £500 for asbestos contamination.
  5. £200 for service quality and communication.
  6. £200 for the costs associated with heating.
  7. £200 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Offer to support the resident in making a claim against its liability insurance for the damage to her property caused by the leak.
Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Conduct case reviews as set out below by a director independent of the service area and findings shared with the governing body:
  1. Conduct a review of its asbestos survey commissioning process. It should undertake a dip sample of 20 previous asbestos reports and/or complaints within its stock in the last two years and consider the decisions it has made base on the HSE’s guidance: Asbestos: The survey guide.
  2. Conduct a review into its response to the gas leak in the property. It should decide whether it would be appropriate to refer itself to the HSE. The outcome of the landlord’s decision, with reasons, must also be provided to this Service.
2. It should consider whether previous actions (such as the approach to complex cases) are sufficient to prevent similar failings in future.
3. A copy of these reviews to be shared with the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide the outcome of its inspection on 12 March 2024 to the resident and the Ombudsman. This to include an action plan on how it plans to resolve the problems with damp and mould in the property.