London Borough of Croydon (202204220)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204220

London Borough of Croydon

27 September 2023

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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about his toilet and drains.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos in his property.
3. The resident’s request to move.
4. The Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The resident’s request to move.
This is because paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) which gives the Ombudsman his investigatory powers, states as follows:
1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
The allocation and suitability of the property and the housing register is a matter for the local authority’s duties in relation to the provisions of housing and not housing management, such as repairs. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) Memorandum of Understanding – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) set out that the LGSCO investigates complaints regarding housing allocations under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 including rehousing under the housing register.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupies his home, a semi-detached, 3-bedroom house under a secure tenancy, together with his carer. The landlord had vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord had an obligation to carry out any repairs and maintenance to the property, as required by law, including keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises and any installations provided for sanitation and supply for services, including the drains and toilets. It “aimed“ to carry out repairs within a reasonable time. Emergency repairs, such as making a property safe following a flood, would normally be carried out within 2-24 hours. The resident was responsible for blocked internal waste pipes.
Under the landlord’s asbestos management policy, it would:
1. Ensure that suitable arrangements were in place to enable staff, who may during the course of their work encounter asbestos, to attend asbestos awareness training appropriate to their area of work and level of responsibility/duty.
2. Manage the risks from all known or suspected asbestos containing materials (ACMs) in communal areas and where reasonably practicable take steps to manage the risk from ACMs within domestic premises.
3. Provide an asbestos register, detailing the location of all known ACMs within all its maintained properties.
4. Undertake periodic re-inspections and when required, commission further surveys, in order to ensure that all ACMs have been identified and addressed prior to commissioning/undertaking any form of refurbishment work.
5. Undertake to assess the risks from ACMs and implement procedures to manage them by undertaking on-going monitoring.
6. It advised staff to state the following: ‘There may be asbestos in your home, asbestos is still very common. However, if the asbestos is in good condition and you so not disturb it, then it would not cause any problems. Most of the time it does not have to be removed. I will send a leaflet in the post to you which explains where asbestos may be and contains further advice’.
7. A home should be inspected prior to works being carried out.
8. Bonded materials (vinyl floor tiles, bitumen products, textured coating, toilet cisterns etc.) was marked as “rare or low disturbance activities, low or very low risk”.

Asbestos Guidance

According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the UK, asbestos is not dangerous for the occupants if the building material is in good condition. In summary, if existing asbestos-containing materials (ACM) are in good condition and are not likely to be damaged, they may be left in place, their condition monitored and managed to ensure they are not disturbed.
In addition to the landlord’s duty under Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord had an obligation to keep the property fit for habitation in relation to hazards, including asbestos.
The presence of asbestos itself does not constitute disrepair. However, if it is damaged or has deteriorated and there is the risk of asbestos dust, then the landlord should act to prevent disrepair arising. In summary, there is no duty on the landlord to remove asbestos unless it had been damaged or it has deteriorated and presents a health risk to the occupier.
The duty of a landlord also extends to carrying out risk assessments before work at the property is carried out.
Under the complaints policy, complaints should be made to the landlord within 12 months of when a resident felt “that something has gone wrong”. If longer, the landlord could ask residents to explain why they could not complain sooner.
The timescales for responding at Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaint was, and is, 20 working days. Its self-assessment on its website (08 Appendix 1 – Self Assessment.xlsx (croydon.gov.uk). stated that it did not have the capabilities to shorten the timescale for its stage 1 response.

Scope

The resident’s complaint stated that the property issues had been ongoing for several years. The Ombudsman consider it reasonable and proportionate to investigate the repairs records going back to 2020. This is because it is difficult for an independent body, such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the earlier actions taken by the landlord. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that that the resident made a complaint prior to 2021.
While the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to exercise its discretion as to the time period a complaint covers, paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within six months of the matters arising. This is reflected in the landlord’s own complaints policy which cites 12 months, an approach that the Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable. In the circumstances, while the Ombudsman will bear in mind the resident’s comments that the issues had been ongoing for years for context but the scope of this investigation will cover 2020 onwards.

Chronology

Communication with the landlord

On 31 May 2022, the resident contacted this service, stating that he had been unable to contact the landlord on the phone to make a complaint. He was dyslexic and was not able to put the complaint in writing. The resident reported that he had had issues with his drains for over thirty years. He had reported blocked drains in his back garden. There was damage caused to his garden and personal items due to issues with the blocked drains. The landlord was to contact the resident to discuss the issues and a resolution.
This service wrote to the landlord on the following day that the resident was making a complaint about the landlord’s handling of his reports of blocked drains in the garden and that the blocked drains had “ruined” his possessions. It stated the landlord should raise and consider the resident’s complaint under the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. If it was unclear why the resident has contacted this Service, it should contact the resident for more information about their concerns. The landlord replied on the same day that no complaint had been recorded. It would contact the resident. It asked if this service could provide it with the resident’s email address.
On 19 July 2022, the resident informed this service that the landlord contacted him by telephone and sent out contractors to look into some of the issues but the matter was still not resolved. He had not received any acknowledgement or response to the complaint. He did not have an email address. On 21 July 2022, following contact by this Service on the same day, the landlord wrote to this service stating it had been awaiting the resident’s email address. On the same day, the landlord wrote to the resident asking for details of his complaint and that, once received, it would respond within 20 working days.
On 17 August 2022, the resident contacted this service again. He had not received the letter of 21 July 2022 from the landlord. A contractor had attended the day before and informed him they had located the issue and repaired it. He had been unable to use the toilet and was afraid to drink the drinking water. He had a number of health issues. His carpet had been damaged.
This service chased the landlord on the same day, setting out what the complaint was about and what the resident wanted as a resolution, as follows:
1. Outstanding repairs to the resident’s property, specifically the toilet getting blocked repeatedly.
2. Reports of blocked drains which has caused damage to the resident’s personal property and prevented him from using the garden for a long period.
3. Reports of asbestos in the property.
4. The resident wanted as an outcome for the landlord to replace his carpets, all outstanding repairs to be completed, and to consider moving him to a different property to aid his health conditions if the repairs could not be completed.
The landlord replied on the following day that it would not log the complaint until the resident replied to its letter of 21 July 2022.
Following further contact by the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord again on 16 September 2022. The letter added to the letter of 17 August 2022 that the resident explained that he and his family were reluctant to drink the water due to the issue with the drains. On one occasion a contractor carrying out works to the ceiling exclaimed “I’m not touching that, it’s asbestos”. The resident had recently been diagnosed with asbestos poisoning so he was increasingly concerned about there being potential asbestos in his home. The resident wanted the landlord to investigate his reports of asbestos and confirm whether there was asbestos in his property as he was concerned about his own and his family’s health.
The landlord replied on 26 September 2022 with its first stage response as follows.
1. Its records stated that on 26 June 2022, the resident had reported that his toilet was blocked. The blockage was cleared the same day and his toilet was left “free flowing”. On 14 September 2022, he reported that his toilet was not flushing correctly. Repairs were completed and a part was replaced, the soil stack was checked and no blockages were found. It was identified that further repairs were needed to his toilet flush and would be carried out on 3 October 2022.
2. Between May and June 2022, the drains were cleared on two occasions and it was found that the blockages were caused by paper. The problem continued and a CCTV survey of the drainage system was undertaken which identified that repairs and descaling works were required. The works were completed on 13 July 2022 and the system was left free flowing. On 2 September 2022, he reported that there was a drainage issue affecting the shower and there was a deceased rat in the pipework. No issues were found with the shower. There were no records of any further reports. Its pest control services was addressing the pest issue.
3. It was sorry to hear of the diagnoses of asbestos poisoning. Asbestos was only dangerous when disturbed. HSE guidelines stated that if it is safely managed and if contained, it did not present a health hazard. When working in an environment where they suspected the presence of asbestos, all operatives were obliged to report and request a survey prior to undertaking work. There has been no requests to carry out an asbestos survey at his home. A specialist member of staff would contact the resident and discuss his concerns in more detail.
4. There had been a “process of elimination” to resolve the issues and it apologised for the delay and inconvenience that this had caused. It had checked the repairs history from 2020 and there had been no reports about the carpets or repairs. It was the resident’s responsibility to provide, maintain and repair floor coverings and carpets as stated. It invited the resident to provide it with further information and it would investigate the matter further. It was not responsible for insuring the resident’s belongings or possessions and therefore did not accept responsibility. It had advised residents to take out insurance. It offered a policy and provided contact details.
On 29 September 2022, the resident informed this service that the landlord had drilled into the kitchen ceiling and therefore had disturbed asbestos.
On 7 October 2022, the resident telephoned the landlord to request that his complaint was escalated to Stage 2 as none of the works that were outlined in the Stage 1 response had been completed.
On 18 October 2022, according to a telephone note, the landlord contacted the resident to ask what repairs he felt had not been completed. The resident reported as follows:
1. The issues had started many years ago but more recently he had concerns surrounding the toilet.
2. The toilet repair scheduled for 3 October 2022 had not been carried out. The wrong toilet and wrong flush system has been fitted. He said it was taking approximately six flushes to work. That and the earlier issue with the drains led on to other concerns such as damp.
3. An operative who had attended advised that there was damp on the walls.
4. He had great concerns surrounding the asbestos. No one had been in contact with him. He understood the advice. Operatives had recently worked on walls and light fittings, and they were concerned about the presence of asbestos. He felt that he has been exposed to the asbestos for a number of years and approximately four weeks previously, after having X-rays, he received a diagnosis from the hospital and his GP that he had asbestos in his lungs.
5. His garden fence was knocked down by operatives and had not been repaired. Following this, he advised that some of the operatives attending had a poor work ethic, arguing in front of him, “mucking around” in the garden and so on. No names or dates were provided.
6. He wanted a move pending a resolution. The landlord had said it would raise this request during the investigation of his complaint. He also wanted a permanent move.
The resident informed this service on 27 October 2022 that the damp course had not been actioned from outside the property. Asbestos tests had been carried out. The toilet had been replaced the day before but was not stable. The garden sewers were working, however.
On 4 November 2022, the landlord wrote with its second stage response as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay. Its conversation with the resident on 18 October 2022 had highlighted that the bathroom toilet was a particular area of concern. On 3 October 2022, the contractor had reported that an operative attended and inspected the toilet, and re-attended on 26 October 2022, when the toilet was replaced.
2. A work order for a damp survey had been raised.
3. On 24 October 2022, an operative inspected his fence and a follow-on appointment was to be arranged.
4. A job for an asbestos management survey had been raised. Should the survey produce confirmation of the presence of asbestos in the property and that works were required to remove it, the complaints team would liaise with the repairs team should a temporary move be required.
5. For a more permanent move, he would need to make an application to the local authority Housing Register which could include his medical history. His application would then be assessed.
6. It was sorry to hear about the behaviour of some of the operatives who had attended his property in the past, and the feedback had been passed on to its contractor. It also apologised for the poor impression he had but it was satisfied that the correct steps had been taken and that these outstanding areas of concern would be resolved as soon as possible.
On 30 November 2022, the resident informed this service that in mid-November someone came out to do repairs and had left a toilet in the front garden.

The repair records:

The landlord provided the repair records for the property from 2000 to June 2022. The Ombudsman notes the following in the historical repair records:
1. There were two reports in relation to the drains in 2017, and in August 2018, works were carried out to the drains, following reports of backing up into the property, lining was installed and the drain sealed. There was a single cancelled job in June 2020. There were no further reports until May 2022.
The landlord’s repair records from 2020 onwards in relation to the issues complained about stated as follows:
1. In April 2020, the resident reported an “uncontainable leak” which was dealt with the following day.
2. On 11 October 2021, the resident reported noisy pipes, which was addressed 24 November 2021.
3. On 30 May 2022, the resident reported a blocked drain in the back garden was overflowing and was starting to back into the property. The landlord cleared blockage to the manhole. It was noted that it was blocked with tissue. It was tested and left free flowing.
4. In the evening of 20 June 2022, a similar report was made. The landlord attended the following day and cleared the blocked drain located at the rear, removed a build-up of rag and the flow was restored.
5. The report of 21 June 2022 noted that raw sewage spill backing up to property. The specialist contractor noted it used a high-pressure water jet equipment to unblock the drain. It was tested. The block was caused by paper.
6. The resident made a further report recorded at 8pm the evening of 26 June 2022. It was noted that the resident was disabled and his illness required him to need to the toilet. The resident made a request to urgently remove a dead rat from the drains as the smell was coming back into the house. The foxes were digging up the ground trying to get to the dead rat. The contractor attended and used high pressure water jetting equipment to the drain, followed by a CCTV survey. All areas were left clean and tidy upon completion of works.
7. On 28 June 2022, the landlord called the contractor for an update, who reported that the CCTV was completed that day. The internal WC was “now fine”. The note added “Report to advised fow (sic) for tanker, 2 patch lines and descale – await report 30 June 2022”.
The drainage survey of 27 June 2022 stated as follows:
1. The resident had reported that he had ongoing issues with rats coming up the toilet.
2. A closed-circuit television survey was carried out to assess the condition of the pipework. The survey had revealed extensive structural defects to the drainage system, including a defective section, all of which could be leaking into the surrounding areas and affecting the working flow of the system. Parts of the system would need repairing and some lining would be needed. It recommended sealing the drain line.
The repairs records continued as follows:
1. On 30 June 2022, a job raised was raised following the result of the CCTV survey. On 8 July 2023, the resident chased the job and was told they would be carried out on 2 August 2022.
2. The contractors attended on 13 July 2022 for a whole day. It carried out de-scaling works, structural patch lining, and ensured an open joint was covered to ensure pipework is watertight.
3. On 17 July 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the job was not completed. The landlord would contact the contractor to establish if there were to be any follow-on works. As a result an appointment was booked on the 2 August 2022. (It is not clear what works were done on that date).
4. On 15 August 2022, it was noted that the local authority’s pest control team was unable to complete its job until the drains were resolved.
5. On 18 August 2022, the drains contractor re-attended and according to the contractor, rectified “the issue”, and no further CCTV survey was required.
6. On 2 September 2022, the resident reported a blocked drain. It was affecting the shower. The landlord asked that the landlord arrange to remove a dead rat in a particular pipe. A call was scheduled on the same day for 5 September 2022. “She” (sic) reported it kept “flooding out”. It was noted that there was no problem with the shower.
7. On 14 September 2022, the resident reported that the toilet was not flushing correctly. A call was scheduled for 11 October 2022. It was brought forward to 22 September 2022 when the contractor overhauled the fill valve. A job was raised on the same day to unblock the soil stack affecting both toilets. The drain contractor stated it was not a blockage and a plumber needed to attend to look at the flush. This was booked for 3 October 2022. The plumber recommended that the toilet be replaced which job was booked for 26 October 2022.
8. On 26 September 2022, following a report of a blocked drain, the contractor attended and carried out high-pressure water jetting to clear the blocked manhole. It tested all flowing in the correct manner.
9. On 21 October 2022, the landlord commissioned a damp survey and an asbestos survey, at the request of the complaints team.
10. Also on 21 October 2022, a contractor carried out an inspection of fencing possibly damaged by an operative.
The damp survey dated 29 October 2022 set out as follows:
1. Condensation control measures have been implemented in the form of thermal boarding. However, the symptoms continue to persist. The extraction systems are not being fully utilised or may need upgrading.
2. To assist in the management of condensation it was imperative that mechanical extraction systems was adequate and fully functional at all times.
3. The resident should be advised on introducing a more balanced regime of heating and ventilation to assist in the control of condensation and mould.
4. There was no mould noted within the property. It understood that a recent mould wash and redecoration had recently been carried out.
5. Whilst moisture meter readings were recorded above the prescribed limit in the kitchen area, these were not fully conclusive of rising damp due to other potential sources of moisture being present. Condensation was evident to the wall surfaces.
6. It recommended that the existing kitchen extractor fan be upgraded to a low energy moisture tracker fan and also the installation of a specific ventilation unit to assist in the control of condensation.
The repair records noted on 29 October 2022 that the damp was high up the kitchen wall and the ceiling was damaged.
The asbestos survey of 27 October 2022 showed all areas of the property was inspected but no asbestos was identified. It however recommended that the landlord treat all textured coatings and bitumen adhesive as if they were asbestos-containing materials, and implement the relevant management of such materials.
The repairs records continued as follows:
1. A mould wash took place on 7 November 2022.
2. There were no further reports until 14 March 2023 when a job was carried out to unblock the drains on the same day. The contractor reported that the blockage was caused by “paper”.
3. The reports ended in June 2023 when the documents were provided to this service.
The landlord informed this service on 8 September 2023 that while the survey was on the contractor’s system, there was no indication that works to the kitchen fan were carried out. The contractor was no longer contracted to the landlord so it could not identify the reasons why that was the case. A specific damp and mould team was now in place.

Assessment and findings

While the resident was evidently frustrated with a history of issues relating to his toilet and drains, the Ombudsman does not consider it proportionate or fair to consider repairs predating two years, and 18 months prior to the resident’s complaint. That is because the landlord did not have the opportunity to consider the complaint at that time.
The evidence showed that when the resident made a report, the landlord responded promptly and undertook repairs. Initially, it was reasonable of the landlord to unblock the drain. It was then reasonable of the landlord, after a second or third report by the resident, to arrange for a CCTV survey, then to follow this up by an enquiry the following day and by raising the recommended works. The survey identified a structural issue. Given the scope of the job, the Ombudsman considers that two weeks (to 13 July 2022) was a reasonable timescale within which to carry out the works. It was not clear why the further works were apparently postponed from 2 August to 18 August 2022, however, given that the issue was rectified, the timescale was not unreasonable.
Despite the works, there were further reports of issues with the drains. On the first occasion, the landlord identified that the shower was not, in fact, malfunctioning. On the second occasion, the drain required unblocking. The Ombudsman does not attribute blame to the landlord that the initial repair to the drains did not have resolve the issue, as it is reasonable that more than one approach may be required. The Ombudsman, however, would expect the landlord to investigate further, which it did. The Ombudsman does not find service failure as there were no subsequent reports of blocked drains but will make a recommendation in that regard.
It was not clear what or when pest control services works were carried out. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have liaised with the pest control service and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
Again, the evidence showed that the landlord responded to the reports of a blocked toilet. The contractor considered both the functioning of the toilet and the drains. While it took 6 weeks from the date the resident reported the toilet not flushing correctly to replace it, given the landlord would have needed to inspect the toilet, diagnose the issue and order the parts, the Ombudsman does not consider the timescale to be unreasonable overall.
The landlord reasonably sought a damp report. The report showed that there was an issue of damp in the kitchen and made recommendations. It is noted that that those recommendations were not implemented. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not follow this up and demonstrates a lack of monitoring by the landlord. That was inappropriate. Again, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
The evidence indicated that from 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in reasonable time. It is appreciated that the resident will feel there has been lengthy history. The Ombudsman has noted the context. While it has not investigated historical events, the Ombudsman has noted the previous reports regarding the drains were in 2018. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s repair records and appreciates that it can take several attempts to diagnose a problem and rectify it. The landlord raised works and attended promptly, it carried out repairs and investigated further, given the resident’s multiple reports and acted on those investigations, in relation to both the drains and the toilet. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman does not find service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about his drains and toilet.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos in his property.

It was reasonable of the landlord to arrange an asbestos survey in the light of the resident’s concerns. The resident reported that it was an operative who raised concerns. There was no evidence whether it was this report that instigated that report. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation. The landlord’s advice was in line with advice of the HSE that there was no risk unless the materials were disturbed. The survey did not show any evidence of asbestos which conclusion would have addressed the resident’s concerns about the works to the light fittings. The landlord reasonably stated that it would consider a temporary move if the situation warranted it. The survey noted that the landlord keep the matter under review, in relation to which the Ombudsman will make a recommendation that it does so, that it retains the information on its central records and repair records, if it does not do so already, and confirms this to the resident.

The landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

There was an initial delay to the landlord’s Stage 1 complaint response, from 1 June 2022 to 26 September 2022. The landlord’s initial stance that it required further information about the complaint as reasonable. However, it relied on this Service having the resident’s email address. It was open to the landlord to contact the resident by phone or by post, given that the resident was making reports in relation to his drains at that time and the parties were in contact with each other by telephone. It was a matter of the landlord checking its records and/or making enquiries internally as to his contact details. It took two further contacts by this Service for the landlord to address the complaint, despite the further details and information this service provided. However, it is noted that, while there was a further small delay to its Stage 2 response, there was improved communication during Stage 2. While fault is not attributed to the landlord for the entire delay, and the landlord did respond promptly to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman finds that, given the passage of time, and the vulnerability of the resident, the landlord was reactive rather than pro-active at Stage 1 of the complaints process and therefore finds service failure in this regard.
In terms of the response itself, the evidence showed that the complaints process resulted in a damp report and an asbestos report, and an inspection of the fence. It also raised the resident’s comments regarding the contractor’s operatives with the contractor. The landlord appropriately provided the full repair records to this Service to review. There was no evidence of the outcome of the fence inspection and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard. The Stage 2 response did not refer to the outcome of the damp and asbestos report and, as noted, it did not follow it up which would have been good practice as part of its complaint resolution.
In terms of the resident requesting compensation for the damage to his carpet, there was no evidence as to when the damage took place. There was also no evidence that the flood, while very distressing to the resident, was due to the landlord’s fault. Works had been carried out in 2018 and the next report was in 2022. In the circumstances, it was not unreasonable of the landlord to refuse compensation for the resident’s possessions. It is open to the resident to seek legal advice in this regard. However, while the landlord invited the resident to provide further information, the landlord’s response did not demonstrate empathy for the resident and his unpleasant experience. It could have for example, considered signposting the resident for assistance and grants to replace the carpet.
While there were beneficial elements of the complaints procedure, there were also instances where the landlord should have been more proactive, in particular in the light of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the response to the resident’s reports about his toilet and drains.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos in his property.
In the opinion of the Ombudsman, in accordance with Paragraph 42 (k), the complaint about the resident’s request to move is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The evidence showed that, during the period of the complaint, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports promptly and carried out reasonable investigations and repairs.
The landlord reasonably arranged for an asbestos survey which did not show any evidence of asbestos but recommended the property be kept under review.
There were beneficial aspects of the complaint handling such as the raising of the damp and asbestos survey but it lacked proactiveness, in particular given the resident’s vulnerability.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £150 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling within 4 weeks.
2. The landlord should monitor, as part of its complaint monitoring and resolution, that the works identified in the damp report and following the inspection of the fence are carried out within 4 weeks of this report, in line with the recommendation below.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should carry out an inspection of the drains, given the repetition of similar issues in 2018 and 2022 and the impact on the resident.
2. The landlord should ensure that pest control carries out an inspection of the resident’s property and has completed any outstanding works.
3. The landlord should carry out the recommendations of the damp report and upgrade the kitchen extractor fan to a low-energy moisture tracker fan and install the specific ventilation unit or provide evidence that these works have been carried out.
4. The landlord should ensure that any concern by an operative about asbestos in a property is recorded and acted upon.
5. The landlord should provide conformation to the resident and the Ombudsman that the recommendations in the asbestos report has been recorded in its central register so that the repairs teams are aware of the need to retest, should relevant works be carried out.
6. The landlord should ensure that its complaints team keeps a complaint open until the assurances given in its complaint response are met to ensure that the complaint has properly resolved the issues.
7. The landlord should consider and keep under review its policy timescale for responding to complaints at Stage 1.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.