Birmingham City Council (202214804)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214804

Birmingham City Council

20 October 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of repairs to the roof.
2. complaint handling and record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant since 2004.
The property is a house. Attached to the side of the house is a brick-built outbuilding, with a flat roof made of corrugated roofing sheets. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of repairs to this flat roof, which from hereon will be referenced as the ‘roof’. The outbuilding is described interchangeably by the landlord and resident as the “shed”; “outhouse”; “alleyway”; and “side elevation”.
The landlord was unable to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement. However, under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has a contractual obligation to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord has a 3 stage complaints procedure. Stage 1 complaints are those that can be resolved immediately. However, if this is not possible, the case will go straight to stage 2. Stage 2 complaints are investigated and responded to within 15 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the stage 2 response, the resident can seek a review of the landlord’s decision at stage 3. Stage 3 complaints are responded to within 20 working days. The policy states that if the resident remains dissatisfied after its stage 3 response, the resident may wish to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
The landlord has a self-contained process for dealing with compensation. The process has its own appeal and re-appeal stages which, once completed, concludes an applicant’s opportunity to pursue compensation. The landlord will only pay compensation where the landlord considers it has a legal liability. No ‘discretionary’, ‘goodwill’ or payments for inconvenience or distress are permitted.
The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy reiterates that the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property, including the roof. The landlord’s repair priorities and response times are as follows:
1. Emergency repairs as those where there is a danger of injury or damage to the property. These will be completed within 2 hours of the instruction being raised.
2. Urgent repairs are those that pose a risk to health or the security of the property. These will be completed within 1, 3 or 7 working days depending on the circumstances.
3. Routine repairs will be completed within 30 working days of a repair being reported. This includes larger repairs that need special materials or arrangements to complete them. The resident will be advised of expected timescales.
The landlord does not have an asbestos policy. Its repairs policy states that its surveyors should be aware of the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) and understand the basic principles. The repairs policy refers to potential exposure to asbestos fibres in properties.
The HHSRS encourages landlords to take preventative measures to minimise risk of harm from: structural collapse and falling elements; electrical hazards, and asbestos.
The landlord produces an ‘asbestos in the home’ leaflet, which is available to residents. The leaflet states that asbestos may be commonly found in corrugated roofing sheets.
The landlord has told this Service that its repairs contractor is licenced to survey and report on asbestos. All its engineers dealing with responsive repairs have received asbestos awareness training. If any suspected asbestos containing materials are identified, a sample or survey is requested prior to any work being conducted. If there is an emergency outbreak, the material is treated as though it contains asbestos, and a contractor is instructed to encapsulate or remove it. A different licenced contractor will remove asbestos if this is necessary.

Scope of investigation

We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider and resolve the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states, “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the [landlord] as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. This investigation therefore focuses on events from 26 January 2022 until 21 September 2022. This being 6 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. Any reference to historical events, which arose before 26 January 2022, are included to provide context to the complaint.
While this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or inaction had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Summary of events

The resident states that he first reported repairs to the roof in January 2009. The landlord has provided evidence of a works order dated 13 January 2009, to complete an asbestos check on the roof. The landlord has said that it was unable to confirm whether an asbestos sample was taken from the roof in 2009.
The resident has provided evidence to this Service, which he states was provided to him by the landlord as part of a data subject access request (DSAR). Records from the DSAR indicate that on 13 January 2009, asbestos was “confirmed as being within the curtilage of the building”. The resident has said that no follow-on works were arranged to the roof. This Service has seen no evidence of any follow-on works being arranged around this time. The resident has said that he tried to seal the roof himself, but the roof continued to deteriorate over the years.
The landlord has provided evidence of repairs logs and several work orders raised between 1 February 2022 and 20 July 2022, which relate to the roof:
1. A routine works order was raised on 1 February 2022, for its contractor to conduct a structural inspection. The landlord’s records indicate that the landlord inspected the“asbestos roof on the outhouse and slabbing to the rear” on 7 February 2022. The outcome of the roof inspection is unclear from the landlord’s records. However, the works order indicates that the job was completed on 2 March 2022.
2. A routine works order was later raised on 26 April 2022, regarding the roof. The planner’s notes indicate that an appointment was booked for its contractor to attend the property on 16 May 2022. The notes also state that an asbestos check was required. At the time of the inspection, its contractor said it could see no evidence of any water leaks. The resident refused the asbestos check. The resident explained that its previous contractor claimed to have completed the work.
3. A routine works order was raised on 20 June 2022, in respect of the roof. The repairs log indicates that its contractor attended the property on 28 June 2022, however it was unable to look at the roof without an asbestos check. The job was later closed as it was felt that the resident wanted a new roof, but this was not required.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 20 July 2022, which was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day. It is unclear whether the landlord had tried to resolve the complaint immediately in accordance with stage 1 of its complaint policy. The resident said:
1. The roof was made of asbestos, which was severely cracked, and it leaked.
2. The resident understood that the landlord’s previous contractor claimed to have replaced the roof in the past and were paid accordingly, but the roof was never replaced. The resident had reported issues with the roof on numerous occasions since. The roof had been inspected by its new contractor, but no work had been completed. The resident believed that the roof should have been removed because it was asbestos.
3. He had tried to seal the roof himself with a sealant several times. He made the point that this was not his responsibility. Due to the hot weather, the sealant had failed. On 19 July 2022, large chunks of the roof fell in, and a piece hit him on the head. The roof was now dangerous and had large holes in it.
4. The landlord was negligent and had failed to comply with safety regulations. He was in fear and was anxious that his health had been affected by the asbestos. He was considering calling an ambulance, as he was unable to breathe, had chest pains, and pains in his throat.
5. The landlord should investigate its previous contractor, who had falsely claimed to replace the roof. The resident also wanted compensation.
The landlord raised an emergency repair of the roof on 21 July 2022. The landlord’s notes state that the roof looked to be asbestos, which had a hole in it. In addition, it noted the presence of an electrical point. It is unclear what action the landlord took in response; however, the works order is shown as completed on 21 July 2022. The works order does not detail what action its contractor took or was intending to take.
The resident raised 2 further stage 2 complaints on 22 July 2022, which were acknowledged by the landlord on the same day. The resident indicated that these complaints related to his previous complaint, but he wanted the complaints handled separately. In addition to the points already made:
1. In the second complaint the resident explained:
  1. Following the inhalation of asbestos fibres, dust and other contaminates after the roof collapse, he was admitted to hospital on 21 July 2022. The resident’s dog was also showing signs of being unwell.
  2. The landlord’s contractors arrived to look at the roof at the same time as the ambulance arrived. The matter with the roof remained unresolved and was urgent. There was risk of water ingress into the electrics.
  3. A qualified contractor was required to remove and take away the remains of the roof and replace it with suitable materials. The landlord was invited to check its systems, as this work should have been carried out when the repairs were first reported many years ago.
2. In the third complaint the resident said:
  1. The landlord had phoned that afternoon stating that a contractor would arrive in 2 hours. An operative phoned 2 hours later to explain that he was finishing work for the day, and another operative would attend at 8am on 25 July 2022 to cover the roof. The resident was unhappy that the electrics would be left exposed to weather conditions over this time.
  2. The landlord had failed to respond again to serious issues raised. The roof was dangerous, a hazard, and a potential risk to health and life.
  3. The landlord should look at its records and take responsibility.
The landlord raised a 1-day repair on 22 July 2022, in relation to “suspect asbestos” broken roof slates. The works order stated that its contractor was to call the resident before attending as the resident was hospitalised “due to the asbestos”. According to the works order, the job was completed on the same day. However, no outcome was recorded.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 24 July 2022. In addition to the points already made, the resident said:
1. The landlord had not attempted to send out an asbestos removal team or any other operatives to clear the debris and mess. It had made no attempt to check safety issues in relation to asbestos [fibres] entering the property. The resident had to clear the mess up himself. This was a challenge for an older person with disabilities, affected by the inhalation of materials from the roof.
2. He had been woken by contractors who attended on Saturday 23 July 2022 without prior appointment. A temporary cover was placed over the roof, but he was confused as to when the job would be completed.
3. He wanted to know why the landlord did not know if the roof was made of asbestos, when samples had been taken from it on at least 4 occasions.
4. He had been caused considerable stress, discomfort, and had incurred damages.
The resident raised a fourth stage 2 complaint on 26 July 2022, which the landlord acknowledged on the same date. In addition to the matters already raised, the resident said that although the landlord had attempted to cover the roof, it had not used a suitable material. Consequently, water had entered the electrics and a laptop had been made wet. There was still a risk of water entering the electrics and dust entering the house. The resident said the landlord should replace the roof, and clear up the mess and the dust, which he believed to be asbestos.
This Service has seen a certificate of analysis from a laboratory. The certificate indicates that a sample was taken from the roof on 22 July 2022, it was analysed on 26 July 2022 and issued to the landlord on the same date. No asbestos was detected. The resident has expressed concern to this Service, that the landlord’s contractor may not have taken appropriate safety precautions when taking the roof sample.
The landlord raised a further routine works order in respect of the roof on 26 July 2022. Its contractor planned to attend the property on 1 August 2022.
The resident raised a fifth stage 2 complaint on 28 July 2022. The landlord sent an acknowledgement on the same day. The resident said he wanted the complaint to be treated as standalone complaint, separate to the complaints already made. In addition to the matters already raised:
1. The resident said that landlord knew there was asbestos in the property since 2009, but it had failed to take appropriate action. It had failed to take legal, health and safety, and housing regulations into account. The resident said he could prove this from information provided by the landlord through a SDAR.
2. The resident understood that its contractor planned to attend the property again on 1 August 2022. However, he was unhappy that his complaints were being ignored. He felt that the landlord had not considered his age or disabilities.
3. The resident wanted the landlord to replace the roof and to investigate false claims made by its previous contractor. The resident also wanted the landlord to pay financial compensation in recognition of the mess, stress, and anxiety caused by the landlord’s failings.
On 1 August 2022, the landlord’s contractor determined that scaffold was required to complete the job. The landlord arranged for the roof to be repaired on 5 September 2022.
The landlord sent a further complaint acknowledgement to the resident on 4 August 2022, which indicated that it would provide its complaint response in 15 working days. The landlord gave its stage 2 response later that day. It said it had spoken to its contractor. Scaffold was required for the roof repair and an appointment had been scheduled for 5 September 2022. An asbestos test had been carried out, but no asbestos had been found. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience caused.
The landlord has clarified to this Service, that its investigation at stage 2, incorporated all complaints raised by the resident. The landlord’s case notes indicate that the landlord viewed the complaint as partially justified, as there had been some delay. This decision was not communicated to the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 August 2022, stating that the landlord had not considered his complaint, which remained unresolved.
After installing the scaffold, the landlord fully replaced the roof on 6 September 2022. The resident also raised another complaint. In addition to his previous complaints, he repeated that his complaints were not investigated properly and were often rejected by complaint handlers without adequate consideration. The resident indicated that a specialist company had attended the property earlier that day to remove asbestos, despite the landlord previously stating there was no asbestos. The resident said he had been caused considerable stress, anxiety, and worry. The resident asked for compensation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 September 2022, stating that he wished to escalate the complaint to stage 3, on the grounds that:
1. The landlord had not fully considered the complaint.
2. The roof was unsafe, which was evidenced by parts of the roof falling down.
3. The roof needed repairs in 2009, but works were never completed.
4. The landlord had been aware of asbestos in the property for many years but had taken no action.
5. The landlord had covered the roof with boards after the roof fell in, however this was not adequate to keep the building watertight.
6. The landlord had not considered the resident’s welfare, “breathing in the suspect dust”. No attempts were made to take samples of the dust.
7. The resident had experienced stress, anxiety, and shock. Notwithstanding the inconvenience, mess, delays, and time spent in medical care. In addition, the landlord had failed to maintain the property. It had not taken health and safety concerns into consideration.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 15 September 2022. The landlord said that a response would be provided by 14 October 2022, but did not confirm the stage at which the complaint was being considered. The landlord consulted with its repairs team on the same day, who in turn sought a response from its contractor.
The landlord’s contractor told the landlord on 20 September 2022, that the roof was not in a dangerous condition on inspection, however the roof sheets had 2 holes in them. It remarked that this was strange, as the cement sheets were extremely strong. The roof was not at risk of falling down, however had it been, it would have been made safe. The inspector was fairly sure at the time that the roof sheets were not made of asbestos and reassured the resident of this. To be compliant, an asbestos test was carried out, which did not detect the presence of asbestos. On the same day, the landlord established that there was no works order for the roof dating back to 2009. It commented, as the repairs contract at that time was with a different contractor, it was struggling to obtain further information.
The landlord gave its stage 3 response on 21 September 2022. The case notes record the outcome of the review as “not justified”. No formal decision was communicated to the resident in its stage 3 response, which said:
1. It had spoken to its contractor who had confirmed that the roof was not in a dangerous condition and was not at risk of falling down. However, if it had been, it would have been made safe.
2. Its contractor was sure the roof was not asbestos but to be compliant an asbestos test was carried out. It attached a copy of the asbestos test certificate confirming there was no asbestos.
3. The roof was safe.
4. If the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, the resident could ask the LGSCO to review the complaint.

Actions to note following completion of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 3 response on 6 October 2022. The resident felt that the landlord had not adequately considered the complaint.
The resident and landlord exchanged several emails between 11 October 2022 and 19 October 2022. Of note, the landlord said:
1. It could find little information from the previous contractor about the repairs conducted to the roof [in 2009].
2. The asbestos test was carried out in July 2022. The sample was taken by a qualified person in accordance with the certificate of analysis.
3. Its roofing team was instructed to renew the roof, after asbestos sampling confirmed there was no asbestos. However, on attendance, its engineers noticed a ‘nuralite’ flashing. While this was undamaged, it was necessary to stop work and employ a specialist team to remove and dispose of any contaminated substances.
4. While ‘nuralite’ will contain small amounts of asbestos, its presence did not present any risk of harm to the resident, as it was undamaged. Since the substance was stuck to the roof sheets and could not be scraped off, it was necessary to remove and dispose of the whole roof.
The resident told this Service on 10 October 2023, that to resolve the complaint, he wanted the landlord to acknowledge and learn from its failings. To put things right, the resident wanted financial compensation.

Assessment and findings

It is not in dispute that the landlord was alerted to issues with the roof, prior to the resident reporting holes in it on 19 July 2022. Although the landlord had inspected the roof in February 2022, the landlord has been unable to provide a copy of its inspection report showing its findings and actions arising. This is inappropriate and suggests an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
While the landlord raised another works order on 26 April 2022 regarding the roof, it is unclear from the records seen, whether this was follow-on work, or the resident had logged a new repair request. The evidence indicates that in May 2022, the resident prevented its contractor from completing an asbestos check and fully inspecting the roof. This was unhelpful. However, as its contractor could see no evidence of water leaks or any obvious signs of disrepair, it was understandable that the works order was subsequently closed. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its contractor to make that assessment.
It is unclear what prompted a further inspection of the roof in June 2022. The repairs notes indicate that the landlord was still unable to get onto the roof to inspect it without an asbestos check. The resident has provided evidence from a DSAR, which suggests that the roof was tested for asbestos in 2009 and was confirmed to be constructed of an asbestos containing material. It is noted that this later turned out not to be the case. However, it is of concern that neither its contractor, nor its complaint handlers (who investigated the complaint and who later provided evidence to this Service), were aware of this information. This points to an issue with the landlord’s information management. From the evidence seen, the landlord does not keep a complete register showing the location of asbestos in its domestic properties. While the landlord is under no legal obligation to do this, this is good practice and is consistent with guidance set out in the HHSRS. A recommendation is made later in this regard.
Nevertheless, as its contractor was not aware of the 2009 asbestos test, it should have acted accordingly. No asbestos sampling was arranged. The job was closed because the landlord felt the resident wanted a new roof, which was not required. It is the opinion of this Service, that the landlord should have taken appropriate steps to satisfy itself that the roof was in an adequate state of repair. The landlord’s decision to close the works order without further investigation was unreasonable. It is noted that the resident reported holes in the roof 3 weeks later.
It is not possible to determine based on fact why parts of the roof fell down. The landlord’s contractor remarked that there were 2 holes in the roofing sheets. Its contractor thought this was strange, as cement sheets were extremely strong. The resident has stated that he had previously tried to seal the roof himself. He believed the hot weather had caused the sealant to melt, causing the roof to fall in. Regardless of the circumstances in which the roof came to be in disrepair, the landlord had a statutory and contractual obligation to keep the structure of the property in repair. It was also obliged to keep the property decent and free of any serious hazards.
The landlord acted appropriately by promptly arranging an inspection, after being alerted that the roof had fallen in on 21 July 2022. On arrival, the resident was receiving medical treatment. Nevertheless, its contractor was able to conduct a visual inspection of the roof before the resident was taken to hospital. It remarked that the roof was probably constructed of an asbestos containing material. It also noticed an electrical point in the outbuilding, which this Service presumes was relevant as far as the roof was no longer watertight.
The landlord acted appropriately by treating the roof as if it were asbestos and arranging to conduct an asbestos test the following day. However, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not take immediate steps to restrict access to the outbuilding, and any area that had been contaminated by debris or dust, pending those test results. This Service also suggests that without a thorough inspection, the landlord could not be certain that the roof was safe from further collapse. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord had been able to isolate and make the electrical socket safe from water ingress. As a minimum, the landlord should have made the resident aware not to enter the outbuilding and any areas covered by dust before it was able to secure them. While it is appreciated that the landlord had limited time before the resident was taken to hospital, its immediate response was inadequate.
While the landlord attempted a temporary repair by covering the roof with boarding on 23 July 2022, this would not have prevented more dust or debris falling from the underside of the roof. Although the landlord later indicated that it was reasonably confident that the roof did not contain asbestos, it could not be certain about this until the laboratory results were received on 26 July 2022. Up until this date, the resident continued to use the outbuilding and endeavoured to clear up the debris and dust himself. The landlord’s continued failure to restrict access to the building and contaminated areas was unreasonable and placed the resident at potential risk.
While the landlord does not dispute that there was some delay completing repairs to the roof, the landlord ordered follow-on works expediently, on confirmation that the roof was not made of asbestos. After scaffold was installed and its contractor was able to thoroughly inspect the roof, the landlord noted the presence of materials in the flashing which it believed might contain asbestos. The landlord appropriately halted work, it reevaluated its approach, and employed a specialist company to remove the whole roof and replace it with a suitable alternative. This works order was completed within a timeframe consistent with its repairs policy, which was appropriate.
The landlord has told this Service that its repairs contractor is licenced to survey and report on asbestos. However, the resident remains concerned that the landlord’s contractor may not have taken appropriate safety precautions when taking samples of the roof. The landlord should seek further clarification on this from the resident and thereafter act accordingly.
When considered cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof. The resident was caused significant distress and inconvenience.

Complaint handling and record keeping

Issues with the landlord’s complaint handling, record keeping, and its approach to compensation, were highlighted in the Ombudsman’s January 2023 special report and the Regulator of Social Housing’s May 2023 regulatory notice. While this case predates these reports, similar issues with complaint handling, record keeping and its approach to compensation have been noted in this case.
While this Service was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. For example, the landlord was unable to provide this Service copies of the resident’s tenancy agreement or copies of its inspection reports. It was not always clear why works orders had been raised or their outcomes. The landlord was unable to confirm if an asbestos sample was taken from the roof in 2009.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. The landlord’s record keeping, and information management was inadequate.
The resident raised 5 stage 2 complaints between 22 July 2022 and 28 July 2022. The resident emailed the landlord a further 3 times between 9 August 2022 and 15 September 2022, expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 2 response. It is appreciated that the resident’s use of complaint forms during the internal complaint process, made it more challenging for the landlord to manage the complaint. The resident believed his complaints were being rejected by complaint handlers. In fact, the landlord was investigating several complaints together and delivering a single complaint response, within expected timescales under its complaint policy. In view of similarities between the resident’s complaints, the landlord’s approach was reasonable. Since the resident had expressly asked the landlord to investigate each complaint separately, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not communicate its intended approach to the resident. The landlord did not effectively manage the resident’s complaints, which caused the resident frustration and uncertainty.
The landlord’s stage 2 and stage 3 responses do not demonstrate that it carried out any significant investigation of the complaints raised. Its responses were unsatisfactorily short given the issues raised and will have provided limited reassurance to the resident. The landlord did not respond to all of the issues raised by the resident and did not explain if the complaint was being upheld. Again, this was not appropriate. It is further noted that the landlord’s stage 3 response did not provide the correct escalation details to this Service. This would have caused unnecessary confusion for the resident, who remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
Landlords should consider compensation when responding to a complaint, including for distress and inconvenience, which was highlighted in the Ombudsman’s special report. Although the resident requested compensation for distress and inconvenience on several occasions, the landlord did not address this. This was inappropriate.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. An effective complaints procedure uses complaints to investigate issues with Service and to take steps to improve this where necessary. An effective complaints procedure should also consider appropriate remedies for delays, the issues a resident has experienced with repairs, and the complaint itself. The landlord’s complaint handling will have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord, creating additional distress. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Following the January 2023 special report, the landlord has confirmed it is taking steps in respect to its complaint handling and compensation approach. In view of this, no orders or recommendation are made to address identified inconsistencies with the Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord had a statutory and contractual obligation to keep the roof in repair and free from serious hazards. The landlord missed opportunities to thoroughly inspect the roof and take asbestos samples, prior to parts of the roof breaking away. The landlord did not put appropriate safety measures in place, pending asbestos sampling. The resident was left at potential risk of harm from several hazards. There was some avoidable delay in the landlord completing repairs to the roof. The resident was caused distress and inconvenience.
There were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records. The landlord did not effectively manage the resident’s complaints, which caused the resident frustration and uncertainty. The landlord did not demonstrate that it carried out any significant investigation of the complaints raised. The landlord did not address all the issues raised by the resident. The landlord did not consider the resident’s requests for compensation. The landlord’s complaint handling was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay compensation of £600 to the resident, which has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £300 in compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the roof repair.
2. £300 compensation, in recognition of the resident’s distress, time and trouble, caused by failures in complaint handling and record keeping.
The landlord must provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must initiate and complete a review into the issues identified in this case concerning asbestos. The landlord should endeavour to bring any identified improvements into operation within 3 months of it completing its review. As a minimum the landlord must consider:
1. Its approach to recording and managing asbestos information held in relation to its domestic properties. The landlord should satisfy itself that there are adequate processes in place to ensure the accuracy of asbestos information held about a domestic property.
2. How accessible its asbestos records are to its staff, including to its complaint handlers. The landlord may wish to remind staff how to access this information and consider additional staff training.
The landlord must provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order, within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should investigate the resident’s claim that appropriate safety precautions were not observed when a sample of the roof was taken for testing, and then act accordingly.
The landlord should consider keeping a register showing the location of asbestos in its domestic properties.
The landlord should write to this service to confirm its intention in relation to these recommendations within 6 weeks of the date of this report.