Birmingham City Council (202200705)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200705

Birmingham City Council

10 May 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to remove the asbestos from his meter cupboard.
   2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to install an electric isolation switch in his property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a one-bedroom flat.
3. In 2021, the resident advised the landlord that he had requested his energy supplier to change his existing meter to a smart meter, however, the supplier had informed him that since his existing meter was housed on an asbestos backboard it would not replace the meter until the backboard had been removed. The supplier notified him that it would be the landlord’s obligation to remove the asbestos. The resident also advised the landlord that he wanted it to install an electric isolation switch at his property.
4. The landlord informed the resident that it was not responsible for any works associated with replacing energy meters. Therefore, it was not responsible for removing the asbestos board that housed his electric meter. It also informed him that it would not be installing an electric isolation switch. This was because there were no schemes under which it could do this for its tenants that were not homeowners.
5. The resident objected to the landlord’s response and raised a formal complaint to that effect on 6 August 2021. He also explained that the reason why he wanted an electric isolation switch was because his neighbour had allegedly displayed antisocial behaviour (ASB) against him. This had allegedly included turning off the resident’s water supply. He advised that the landlord had at that time allegedly removed the stop tap for his water supply from his neighbour’s property.  He wanted the landlord to investigate whose responsibility it was to remove the asbestos backboard.
6. In its first stage complaints response issued on 13 September 2021, the landlord advised that it stood by its previous advice that it was not its policy to install isolation switches for its tenants. It informed him that it did not have any repairs raised to remove asbestos from his property, and that if he was concerned about the asbestos then he should contact it. In relation to the resident informing it about alleged ASB by his neighbour, the landlord gave him details about the best way to report ASB. It also apologised for the delay in its response.
7. The resident then escalated his complaint on 5 October 2021, as he disagreed with the landlord’s response. He believed that an exception could be made in relation to his request for an isolation switch due to the circumstances that he had mentioned and he believed that there was precedence for that. He wanted to know if the landlord could ask its contractor directly to remove the asbestos. He advised that he would appreciate a better engagement with the issues that he had raised.
8. The landlord issued its final stage complaints response on 5 November 2021. It confirmed that it would not remove asbestos from the resident’s meter cupboard, and that he would need to ask his energy supplier to remove it.
9. The landlord then issued a revised final stage complaints response on 24 June 2022, after intervention by this Service, because it had failed to address the resident’s request for an isolation switch. In its response, the landlord stated that it would only respond to this type of work when a meter was faulty, damaged or due to other exceptional circumstances. It did not provide additional support for fitting smart meters as this was also considered the responsibility of the service provider supplying the smart meter. It advised that its policy on smart meter fitting was applied throughout all of its tenancies as it did not have the additional funding to meet the costs.
10. The landlord also informed the resident that with regard to the asbestos located in his meter cupboard, unless it had identified disrepair inside his home it would not attempt to disturb the asbestos. The asbestos backboard behind his meter was not considered to pose any hazard while it remained undisturbed. Therefore, should he decide to upgrade the meter, all the costs involved would have to be met by him and his service provider as the landlord had not commissioned the work. It would remain the practice of the landlord to refer residents back to their energy suppliers in relation to this matter.
11. The resident then contacted this Service as he was still not happy with the landlord’s response. The outcome that he wanted was for the landlord to remove the asbestos from his meter cupboard and for it to install an isolation switch in his property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. Although the resident has stated that part of the outcome that he is seeking, is for the landlord to remove the asbestos from his meter cupboard, determining whose responsibility it is to remove the asbestos is outside the scope of this investigation. This is because under paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek an answer from the National Grid, who can inform all parties about whose responsibility it is to remove the asbestos board. Additionally, it is recommended below that the landlord also seek legal advice about whose responsibility it is to remove the asbestos board.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to remove the asbestos from his meter cupboard

13. The tenant’s handbook, under section 6 of the repairs guide states that any asbestos found in a resident’s home will be safe as long as it is not disturbed, but that if the landlord finds asbestos at the property it will inspect and monitor it at appropriate intervals. The same section of the repairs guide also says that the landlord will only remove asbestos if it has already been disturbed or damaged and is assessed as being a potential risk to health.
14. The landlord advised the resident in its revised final stage complaints response, that the asbestos backboard behind his meter was not considered to pose any hazard if left undisturbed. It advised that this was based on an assessment that had been carried out under a 2019 programme, and that its finding would be valid until 2024. Consequently, there was no obligation upon the landlord to remove the asbestos.
15. Therefore, the landlord advised the resident that the cost of all works involved in replacing his meter, would have to be met by him and his service provider, as it had not commissioned the work. It advised him that it would remain its practice to refer residents back to their energy suppliers in relation to this matter.
16. This was a reasonable response by the landlord, as it clearly set out when it would be obligated to remove asbestos from the resident’s property, based on its  asbestos policy in the tenant’s handbook. However, it would have been helpful if the landlord had contacted the National Grid or obtained legal advice to clarify the situation about who was responsible, instead of the matter going back and forth between it and the resident’s energy supplier, that being said, there were no failings by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to install an electric isolation switch in his property

17. The resident’s request for an isolation switch to be installed was based on alleged ASB by his neighbour who had allegedly previously turned off his water supply. He advised that the matter had been investigated by the landlord, who had then removed the stop tap from his neighbour’s property. Therefore, he believed that the landlord should have been able to install an isolation switch in order to prevent his electricity supply being potentially disrupted by his neighbour, just as it had removed the stop tap.
18. In response, the landlord had advised the resident that it could not install an isolation switch for him because there were no policies under which it could do so for tenants. The landlord also stated that it would only respond to this type of work when a meter was faulty, damaged or under other exceptional circumstances. It did not provide additional support for fitting smart meters as this was also considered the responsibility of the service provider supplying the smart meter.  It also stated that installing an isolation switch was not a requirement under BS7671 electrical regulations. This was an appropriate response by the landlord as it set out its position and therefore managed the resident’s expectation.
19. While this Service appreciates that the resident has concerns that his neighbour could potentially stop his electricity supply, this is not enough by itself to obligate the landlord into installing an isolation switch. When the resident informed the landlord about the alleged ASB by his neighbour, it did advise him about how to progress his allegations further. This was an appropriate response by the landlord because until it had an actual report of alleged tampering with the resident’s electricity supply by his neighbour, it could not have acted. It could not have been expected to respond to something about which it had no knowledge or which the resident believed could potentially happen in future.

Determination

20. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord:
    1. in its response to the resident’s request for it to remove the asbestos from his meter cupboard.
    2. in its response to the resident’s request for it to install an isolation switch in his property.

Recommendations

21. It is recommended that the landlord contact the National Grid and its legal team to seek advice about whose responsibility it would be to remove the asbestos backboard from the resident’s meter cupboard.