Great Places Housing Association (202108239)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108239

Great Places Housing Association

14 July 2022

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. Handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy with landlord that started in 2011. The property is a three-bedroom house. The landlord has recorded that over the years the resident had stated that she struggled with anxiety and stress. The tenancy ended in August 2021.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy in place at the time of the complaint said a responsive repair addressed works to maintain the property, or a component in it, until the next cycle of planned works. So, for example, it would be a repair to a kitchen drawer (responsive) rather than the replacement of a whole kitchen (planned). The policy said that it aimed to maintain its properties until they were scheduled for upgrade within the component replacement cycle.
The policy went on to say that, if the landlord decided that it would be more economical to replace, rather than repair, then sometimes it would do so straight away. However, as it also maintained some major works annually, the works might be carried out at a later date, that year or next, as part of a programmed repairs approach. If that was the case, this would be communicated to the resident with timescales for expected completions.
Asbestos guidance on the landlord’s website says that asbestos-containing materials, if maintained in a good condition, are not dangerous. However, when it is damaged, sanded, scrubbed, drilled or sawn it can become dangerous. It could release fibres into the air if damaged, and if breathed in these can be harmful. The guidance also said that residents should contact the landlord before embarking on major home improvements as it had an asbestos register. It added that in keeping with set Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidelines and government policy, it would leave any asbestos that is in good condition and is unlikely to be damaged, as it is safer to leave it where it is. Where there is a high risk, and the asbestos has to be removed, it would use a specialist asbestos removal contractor.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond within 15 working days at both stages one and two.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020. While restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, there was a new national lockdown from 6 January 2021. While schools re-opened on 8 March 2021, the “stay at home” order remained in place until 29 March 2021. On 19 July 2021 most legal limits on social contact were removed in England and the final closed sectors of the economy reopened. During lockdown the landlord operated an essential repair service only inside properties.

Summary of events

The landlord’s contact log notes that the resident was in touch with it in 2015 about broken kitchen unit doors, which were raised as a repair.
The evidence does not show any further contact from the resident about the kitchen until June 2019 when she reported a repair required to a kitchen door; the landlord raised a repair. The resident also told the landlord that the kitchen had not been replaced in twenty years and was “falling apart”. The landlord noted that there was nothing showing for investment works at the property but noted it had sent a task to the investment team at the resident’s request.
On 10 October 2019 the landlord visited the resident to inspect the kitchen. It noted that it was in a “poor condition and very dated”. It said it would seek advice to see if the kitchen could be surveyed.
On 17 February 2020 the landlord advised the resident to send in pictures of the kitchen and it would arrange a joint visit with the repairs manger. The contact log notes these photos were received on 17 March 2020.
On 31 March 2020 the landlord noted that a visit to inspect the kitchen was on hold due to the pandemic.
On 26 August 2020 the landlord noted that a surveyor had assessed the kitchen; the outcome was that the damaged kitchen worktop should be repaired or replaced. The following day the resident expressed her disappointment to the landlord that the kitchen would not be replaced.
The evidence suggests a further survey took place in September 2020. The following month, the landlord completed a job repairs specification sheet for the replacement of the resident’s kitchen which included:
1. Plaster ceiling and walls.
2. Replace like for like kitchen floor/wall units.
3. Resident has asked the breakfast bar to be fitted on top of the washing machine/dryer instead of above the radiator.
4. Install two double wall units above the breakfast bar.
The landlord also noted that it would supply a full asbestos report before the start of works in kitchen as there was Artex on the ceiling.
On 14 December 2020 the asbestos contactor carried out a survey of the property. They found textured coatings on the ceilings of the kitchen, landing and stairs, entrance lobby and dining room and on the walls of the dining room which contained, or were likely to contain, a lower-risk asbestos. The report found these were all low risk apart from the kitchen ceiling which was high risk due to “low damage”. The asbestos contractor noted that this should be “managed and monitored if left in situ”. They stated there was a very low material risk.
On 8 February 2021 the kitchen contractor (the contractors) submitted a quote which was accepted by the landlord. The landlord noted on 17 February 2021 that the kitchen should be replaced.
The works log noted on 9 March 2021 that the kitchen renewal was postponed for a week due to other urgent work taking priority.
On 19 March 2021 the landlord noted it had spoken to the resident about the query she had about the asbestos. We have not seen evidence of the note of that call.
On 23 March 2021 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy at learning there was asbestos in the property and asked when that would be rectified. She also asked when the kitchen renewal would take place.
The works log noted the following:

24 March 2021 – an appointment was made with the resident for a pre-start meeting on 30 March 2021 to run through the works and discuss potential start dates.

30 March 2021 – no start date was agreed as the resident said that the specification had changed as the landlord had agreed to fit additional base units in the utility room and to rehouse the washer/dryer in the garage. It noted this was not allowed within its costings and it was awaiting feedback from the landlord.

On 7 April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord asking if she had to move out before the kitchen was replaced. She expressed unhappiness with the contractors who she said did not know about the extra two base units; with the asbestos; and also the start date of 19 April 2021, as she needed more time to clear the kitchen. The landlord noted that someone from repairs should contact her to reassure her about the asbestos and give her an update about the works.
On the same day, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord as she said the contractors had told her that the additional works would not be carried out. She said no-one had contacted her about that.
On 8 April 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it aimed to respond within 15 working days.
The works log noted the following:

12 April 2021 – specification not agreed; waiting feedback from landlord before booking in.

14 April 2021 – landlord had advised the specification was correct and resident had said she did not want the washer/dryer moving anyway. To move things forward, it would contact the resident to make an appointment to scrape back the textured ceiling. It noted further that the kitchen replacement had missed its slot for starting on 19 April 2021.

15 April 2021 – no further action to be taken as resident was refusing the works due to her mental health at that time. It noted the resident’s unhappiness at being told two years previously that the kitchen replacement was not due for 15 years; that there was asbestos in the property and said she “would not have allowed the children to draw on the walls had she known”. The landlord reassured the resident that textured coatings to ceilings were low risk and, if undisturbed, were no risk.

On 29 April 2021 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident under its formal complaints procedures. The main points were:
1. It had advised during a visit to the property that it would complete repairs to the window handle and, in addition to the kitchen works, it would add an additional worktop with two cupboards. These works were requested with the contractors; however, they were not aware of them due to a breakdown in communication. It assured the resident that these works had been added onto the kitchen replacement schedule.
1. It said it had reassured the resident that the textured coatings to ceilings were low risk and, if undisturbed, were no risk.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 11 May 2021 the landlord acknowledged the escalation request and aimed to respond within ten working days.
On 20 May 2021 the landlord issues its final complaint response under its final complaint procedures. It gave the background to the events complained about; the main points were:
1. It had to put on hold a visit to inspect the kitchen in March 2020 due to the pandemic restrictions.
1. It had subsequently visited the property on 4 October 2020 where it advised it would replace the kitchen.
2. It apologised for the breakdown in communication as the kitchen contractors were not aware of the additional worktop and cupboards that had been previously agreed. It confirmed that these works had been added onto the kitchen replacement schedule and it apologised for the miscommunication and any inconvenience that had caused.
3. The asbestos regulations state that when asbestos was in good condition and likely not to be disturbed it was safe left in situ. The asbestos in the property was very low risk and in good condition. It said it would only remove if it was to be disturbed during any work.
4. The resident had raised concerns regarding her recent decoration when she removed Artex on the living room walls; the landlord said that permission for such work must be sought as set out in its repair policy. It added that any safety checks would be done at that point to ensure it was safe.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 20 May 2021 the resident asked the landlord to cancel the kitchen renewal as she “was not able to deal with it”; she said she felt unsafe with asbestos in the property. In an internal email the landlord noted its concerns that this would lead to a disrepair claim. It noted someone should visit the resident to discuss the works.
On 22 August 2021 the resident ended her tenancy with the landlord.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said the issues began in 2019 when the kitchen was falling apart. She said she had made the landlord aware of this and had sent in photos, but no-one came out to look until September 2020 when it agreed the kitchen was old and falling apart. She added it would not have been possible to have moved out for a day or so while the kitchen renewal took place. Turning to the issue of asbestos, she said the results of the test had made her ill as she had been living in a property with her children with asbestos in the walls. She said they chose to move out as she “didn’t feel safe”. The resident said she wanted compensation, in particular, the £2,000 she had paid for a new rear fence in January 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen

The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s request for a new kitchen was reasonable by carrying out an initial inspection of its condition and deciding a survey was appropriate. However, it took ten months for that survey to take place; that was not reasonable. While some of that delay was due to the restrictions imposed on what the landlord could do during the pandemic lockdown, had the landlord taken prompt action it is reasonable to presume that a survey could have taken place before those restrictions were introduced. That delay was a service failure.
The initial survey in August 2020 deemed the repair issues in the kitchen to be repairable; however, as a result of another survey the next month the landlord decided to replace it. No reasons have been seen for that shift of view in the evidence this Service has seen; however, that decision was reasonable given the earlier view that the kitchen was in a poor condition.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a breakdown in communication with the contractors and apologised for that. That apology was proportionate remedy because we cannot say with any certainty that, had there not been that breakdown in communication, the kitchen renewal would have taken place as planned. This is because of the resident’s concerns about the asbestos (see below) and the start date of the kitchen installation.
The landlord also acted reasonably in trying to address the resident’s concerns about the kitchen on 15 April 2021; in that call the resident said she did not want the kitchen replacement to go ahead.
There was service failure by the landlord in delaying arranging a survey in October 2019. It is evident that delay caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and financial compensation of £150 is appropriate for the resident’s time and trouble pursuing this issue.
The resident has asked for reimbursement of the fence she had installed at the property in early 2021. While we acknowledge her views on this, we cannot say that there is a link between the service failing identified above and the resident’s decision to leave the property. Accordingly, we cannot order such compensation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos

The landlord acted appropriately by carrying out an asbestos survey in advance of any kitchen renewal.
It was also appropriate for the landlord to rely on the views of experts such as its asbestos contractor. In their report, the asbestos contractor’s view was that there was a very low material risk. This view aligned with the landlord’s asbestos guidance which was that undamaged asbestos in good condition should be left in situ. The landlord’s decision to leave the textured coatings in place was appropriate; it was also appropriate for it to decide to remove the damaged textured coating in the kitchen.
The resident sought further information about the asbestos in the property on 23 March 2021; the landlord responded on 15 April 2021. Given the nature of the enquiry, the resident’s understandable concern and its awareness of her mental health at that time (her partner was acting as her advocate at this time due to these issues), it would have been good customer service for the landlord to have prioritised responding to her. However, that the delay was not so significant to amount to a service failure.
In its complaint responses which followed, the landlord repeated the contractor’s view that the asbestos in the property was low or no risk. Overall, the landlord’s responses to the resident about the asbestos were reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.

Reasons

There was delay by the landlord in arranging an initial survey of the kitchen; the landlord had also acknowledged a breakdown in communication with the contractors, for which it has apologised.
It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of the asbestos contractor that the textured coatings were low or no risk. Overall, its communication with the resident about the asbestos was also reasonable.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of its compliance:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £150 for the impact caused by the failings identified in this report relating to the kitchen renewal.