Broadacres Housing Association Limited (202113583)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113583

Broadacres Housing Association Limited

12 May 2023

 

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of asbestos in their former property.

Jurisdictional Determination

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident held an assured tenancy for a three bedroom house with the landlord from July 2001 until July 2019.
  2. Although the complainant is a former resident, she will be referred to as ‘the resident’ in the report.
  3. As part of the landlord’s voids process, it completed an asbestos survey on 4 October 2019 at the property. The resident was informed by a former neighbour that asbestos had been identified within the property following the survey and it had been sealed off.
  4. The information provided to this Service indicates that the resident contacted the landlord in October 2019 to complain about the presence of asbestos in the property for the period they resided there. However, this Service has not seen evidence of the original complaint being logged with the landlord.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord to express dissatisfaction about the following:
    1. The family had been informed in 2001 by a housing officer that asbestos was not present in the property in response to the resident raising concerns.The recent survey now confirms that asbestos was present in the property.
    2. The resident carried out works to the property whilst residing there, including drilling and stripping wallpaper which she felt put the family at risk due to exposure of asbestos.
  6. The landlord advised in its responses that it is unable to comment on events which took place prior to 2009 and therefore is unable to comment on a conversation held in 2001, or previous details of asbestos surveys carried out before 2009. The landlord confirmed that asbestos was identified in 14 locations throughout the property which were all considered low risk. It advised that some asbestos materials had been removed from the property in line with its policies around removal during voids but explained that it is common for asbestos containing material to be found in property constructed before the Asbestos Regulations (1999) came into force. The above was reiterated in a solicitor’s letter to the resident on 5 February 2021.
  7. The landlord’s final complaint response acknowledged that the original complaint had not been logged at stage one due to a potential liability claim. The response had therefore been issued by a senior solicitor. The landlord confirmed that previous records dating to 2001 were not available and apologised for this. It also apologised for the landlord not being clear in previous correspondences that the asbestos found in the property was low risk and activities carried out in the property wouldn’t have posed a risk to the family.
  8. The resident referred the complaint to this Service. The resident is dissatisfied that asbestos records for the property have not been retained and has concerns about health risks as a result of the works that took place in the property whilst the family resided there. As a resolution, the resident requests a letter from the landlord confirming the exposure to asbestos for all family members who resided in the property in case they experience any future asbestos related illnesses.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42 of the Scheme states that:

‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

(d) concerns policies which have been properly decided by the member in accordance with relevant and appropriate best practice, unless the policy may give rise or contribute to a systemic service failure.

(p) concerns matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.’

  1. The resident’s primary concerns relate to the impact on the family’s health whilst residing in their previous property. As such, the resident requested a letter from the landlord for liability purposes as a resolution to the complaint. This Ombudsman is unable to order liability for any potential future impact. Similarly, this Service is unable to determine whether asbestos has caused an adverse health impact to the resident.This Service is therefore unable to provide an outcome which the resident is seeking in relation to their complaint.
  2. If the resident remains concerned and feels there has been an adverse impact on the family’s health, she may wish to seek independent legal advice about the matter.
  3. This Service is unable to determine what was said in 2001 by a housing officer in relation to the presence of asbestos. This is because with the lapse in time, documents are no longer held, and a reliable determination cannot be made on historical events.
  4. In accordance with paragraphs 42(d) and (p) of The Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of asbestos in their former property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and will not be investigated.