Blackpool Council (202121118)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121118

Blackpool Council

13 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports that that his sofa, stored in a garage rented from the landlord, was damaged by a leak;
2. Handling of the resident’s request for the replacement of a communal washing line during the Covid lockdown;
3. Response to the resident’s reports of an infestation of squirrels in their loft-space;
4. Response to the resident’s concern regarding asbestos in his loft space;
5. Response to the resident’s concerns that there was insufficient insulation in the loft;
6. Handling of access to the resident’s property for gas servicing;
7. The amount of assistance given to the resident to try to find a ground floor flat to transfer to.
This investigation also considers the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and resides in a one-bedroom, first-floor flat. He moved to the property in February 2019 following a transfer from another one-bedroom, upper-floor flat owned by the landlord. The resident also has a tenancy of a single brick-built garage with a metal door rented from the landlord.
The resident was moved to his current flat following a decision to demolish the block of flats he previously occupied. The resident was offered a like-for-like transfer but he felt the flat he was moving to was smaller than his previous flat. The landlord therefore agreed to provide the resident with the use of a garage free of charge for a period of 12 months, after which time rent became payable.
This Service would not generally consider complaints regarding a garage unless its use forms part of the tenancy agreement. This is because paragraph 34 (a) of the Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider a complaint which “Relates to the actions or omissions of a member which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have adversely affected the complainant in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property”.
In this case, whilst the garage was let to the resident on a separate agreement and is not part of his tenancy agreement the garage was initially let to the resident free-of-charge due to the resident moving from a property which was being demolished to what he considered to be a smaller property. The garage can therefore reasonably be considered to be connected to the resident’s occupation of a property for residential purposes.
During the timeframe considered by this investigation the resident made two separate complaints to the landlord:
1. Complaint 1 – made in July 2021 was regarding damage caused to the resident’s sofa by a leak in his garage, delays to replacement of a communal washing line, and squirrels and asbestos in the resident’s loft.
2. Complaint 2 – made in November 2022 was regarding the level of insulation in the resident’s loft and its impact on the energy efficiency of the property.

Tenancy Agreement

The garage tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the building. The agreement states that the garage must not be used to store flammable or explosive substances “other than in vehicle storage tanks for the purpose of running a vehicle” or to run a business from. It does not specify whether the garage can be used to store any other items.
The landlord’s website states that “Garages can be used for the storage of vehicles…and/or personal/business possessions. It is your responsibility to ensure you take out appropriate contents insurance to insure any belongings stored within the garage.”

Landlord policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy that was in place at the time of the complaint provides the following timeframes for repairs:

Emergency repairs	“immediate danger to life or threat of major damage to the property eg flooding”	Four hours
Urgent repairs	Eg leaks from pipes	Three days
Routine repairs	Eg “minor leak”	21 days
Planned works		60 days

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and to stage two complaints will be heard by the review panel within 15 days and the written response provided within ten days of the panel hearing.

Asbestos

Asbestos is a building material which was banned in the UK in 1999. Many buildings constructed on or before this year may contain asbestos. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) states that asbestos is not dangerous or a health hazard if it is in good condition and if safely managed and contained. However if disturbed, fibres are released into the air and, if inhaled, this can cause serious diseases.
The landlord has provided an asbestos report dated January 2019 which shows that asbestos of ‘medium risk’ was found in the loft and it was advised this be removed or encapsulated. The landlord has also provided a photograph of the loft hatch from its void property inspection report taken in February 2019 which shows that the loft was sealed by applying padlocks.

Energy efficiency

The government’s 2018 Clean Growth Strategy set a target for social housing providers to attain the minimum rating of EPC band ‘C’ for rented properties by 2035.
The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government. It advises that properties should provide a “reasonable degree of thermal comfort” and that at least 50mm of loft insulation would be considered appropriate for a gas central heated property.
The landlord has also provided an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) for the property which is also dated January 2019. The EPC places the property in band ‘C’ for energy efficiency. The certificate states that increasing the loft insulation to 270mm could make typical savings of £37 per year and would cost between £100 and £350 to install. According to the certificate, installing the additional insulation would not change the energy efficiency banding of the property.

Summary of events

On 23 April 2020, internal landlord emails show that the landlord had a telephone conversation with the resident during which he disputed the rental charge for the garage. On 29 April 2020 in internal landlord emails, a staff member made comments to the effect that they did not wish to speak to the resident and asked whether the disputed garage rental charge be credited to his account “to make the problem go away”.
On 18 November 2020 the resident sent the landlord a video of the inside of the garage which showed water puddling on the floor from a leak in the roof. He stated that the leak had damaged a sofa he was storing in the garage.
The landlord’s repairs records show that on 23 December 2020 works were completed to renew the board and felt on the garage roof.
The landlord’s repair records also show that on 22 June 2021 a repair order was raised to re-string the communal rotary drier. This was recorded as completed on 12 July 2021.
Internal landlord emails of 7 July 2021 state that the resident had requested compensation for damage caused to the sofa he had stored in the garage. This Service has not seen contemporaneous notes about communications between the resident and landlord regarding his request for compensation but it is clear from the landlord’s emails that a telephone conversation took place with him where he made the request.
On 9 July 2021 the landlord was contacted by an MP who advised that the resident had contacted them regarding issues in their property. The resident had stated that he had a squirrel infestation in the loft, there was asbestos in the property, the communal washing line required replacing, and he needed a move to a ground floor flat due to his health. The landlord replied and stated:
1. It had visited the property and found no evidence of squirrels but would raise a further order for its pest control contractor to visit.
2. There was asbestos in the loft but this was sealed, if the resident required the asbestos to be removed this would be arranged.
3. The resident had not applied for a transfer, it provided contact details for its housing options team.
4. The washing line had been replaced.
Internal landlord emails of 14 July 2021 said that the garage tenancy agreement stated that the garage should only be used to house a vehicle and that whilst the landlord may have assumed the resident was going to store items in the garage, it could not guarantee it was watertight or completely secure. The director of operations stated they were prepared to offer the resident £100 compensation “to make this go away”.
The landlord visited the resident on 15 July 2021 with its asbestos contractor. The landlord advised him that it could remove the asbestos but he would need to move out temporarily whilst the work was carried out. The resident said that he was unable to move out temporarily at that time due to his health issues but said he was hoping for a permanent transfer to a ground floor property and that the works could be done when he moved.
On 19 July 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord and asked to speak with the director of operations as he was looking to take legal action against the landlord. In internal landlord emails the director of operations made a comment to the effect that they would not contact the resident as their previous response to him was reasonable. They said they would “await legal proceedings”.
On 14 December 2021 the resident contacted this Service and said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his complaints regarding his damaged sofa, squirrel infestation, asbestos, and threats of enforcement action as he had not provided access for gas servicing. This Service wrote to the landlord and advised it to respond to the resident through its formal complaints process.
On 22 December 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. The letter was titled “Housing Ombudsman First Request for Action” and it stated:
1. The matters the resident had raised had not been through the landlord’s formal complaint process.
2. In July 2021 the landlord received and responded to an MP enquiry regarding the issues raised by the resident.
3. “Garages should only be used for the storage of vehicles; there is no written agreement on record for you to store a sofa in the garage”.
4. “As a garage tenant, it would be your responsibility to take out appropriate insurance”.
5. Work was carried out to resolve the garage roof leak on 23 December 2020.
6. Asbestos was found in the loft of the property during a routine survey in January 2019. It was not removed as the loft hatch was locked and not accessible to the resident.
7. Following the concerns raised during the MP enquiry in July 2021 the landlord visited the property with a specialist contractor. The landlord advised it could remove the asbestos but that the resident would need to temporarily move out of the property during the works. The resident declined the works and “it was agreed that as the loft has been sealed and there is no exposure risk”. The resident was reminded not to access the loft.
8. There was no evidence of squirrels in the loft at the time of this visit. A further inspection could not be arranged unless the asbestos was removed first.
9. The landlord had a legal duty to carry out an annual gas safety check. The landlord had attended the property on two occasions during April 2021 but had not been given access so left calling cards. The landlord made contact with the resident on 30 April 2021 and carried out the safety check. The callings cards left by the landlord “do not provide information on enforcement action” and no enforcement letters had been sent by the landlord to the resident.
The landlord’s internal emails show that it spoke to the resident by telephone on 22 December 2021 and that he stated:
1. It did not state within his garage tenancy agreement that it could not be used to store furniture. The garage had been let to him for free for 12 months to store excess furniture when he transferred to his current flat.
2. On 6 January 2021 he went to “check out” the loft due to hearing noises. He was “attacked by 4 squirrels and caused him to fall off his ladder” which led to him suffering a serious injury to his leg. He advised he had reported hearing noises from squirrels in the loft to the landlord’s repair team but was unable to provide dates when he did so.
On 5 January 2022 the landlord’s repair records show that a repair order was raised to renew the washing line. The records show this was completed on 26 January 2022.
On 7 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to provide further information requested by the resident during the telephone call on 22 December 2021. It confirmed that its letter of 22 December 2021 had not acknowledged that the landlord had provided the garage free of charge for a period of 12 months and “an agreement was made that furniture could be stored within this garage”. It remained the case however that it was the resident’s responsibility to ensure he had appropriate insurance for the contents. The landlord stated that it hoped that it had provided sufficient information in response to the resident’s “queries” and that if he wanted to raise a formal complaint, he should let it know.
The resident requested that the landlord escalate his complaint, it is not clear from the information provided to this Service when he made this request. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 January 2022 to confirm its understanding of why he wanted his complaint to be escalated. It stated that the resident’s reasons for wanting to escalate his complaint were:
1. He had taken on the garage for the purpose of storing furniture due to his relocation. He had not been told that he should take out insurance to cover his belongings in the garage. The garage was not fit for purpose as it had a leaking roof and so his belongings had been damaged.
2. He did not agree that there was no evidence of a squirrel infestation. He had provided photographs. More could have been done by the landlord which would have prevented him from trying to identify the problem himself and in doing so falling and injuring his leg.
3. He was told that due to Covid, the communal washing line could not be repaired. He did not agree that the delay was due to Covid as the washing line was outside.
Also on 17 January 2022 the landlord invited the resident to attend the panel hearing for his complaint on 21 January 2022. The resident responded to advise the landlord that he would not be attending the appeal panel hearing due to ill-health.
On 24 January 2022 the landlord sent the resident a letter titled “Stage 3 Complaint Appeal” following an appeal panel hearing on 21 January 2022. The letter stated:
1. A garage was “not living accommodation and as such is likely to be damp”. The landlord did not accept responsibility for the damage to the resident’s sofa as it should not have been stored there.
2. During the pandemic the landlord had moved to an “essential emergency only service” to minimise contact and stop the spread of the virus. This was in accordance with Government guidance at the time. The landlord appreciated that the washing line was outside however to complete the work, operatives would have been required to have unnecessary contact with suppliers. The landlord’s service was not set up to undertake non-essential repairs at that time.
3. The landlord had attended following the resident’s reports of a squirrel infestation and found the loft may contain asbestos. The resident’s loft was sealed before he moved into the property to stop unauthorised access. The asbestos in the loft was therefore encapsulated and so was safe. The resident should not have been trying to access the loft.
4. The landlord had offered to temporarily move the resident for a week to allow it to carry out works to remove the asbestos from the loft.
5. The resident had indicated that he wanted a permanent move to a ground floor flat due to the injury to his leg. If the resident confirmed this was the case, the landlord would arrange for its lettings team to contact him to discuss his re-housing options.
6. The resident’s appeal was not upheld. This was the final process in the complaint procedure.
The landlord received an enquiry from a local councillor on 20 June 2022. The resident had contacted the councillor to complain that he was “constantly hearing noises in his loft” which he believed were squirrels nesting, he was also concerned about asbestos in the loft. The landlord replied to the councillor the following day to advise that it had arranged for its pest control contractor to check the loft. It said that if there were signs of squirrels present the loft would be cleared of asbestos to allow access to the loft to treat the squirrel infestation. If there was no sign of squirrels the asbestos would be left in place as the loft was sealed to prevent access and it was “perfectly safe if not disturbed”.
On 28 June 2022 the landlord’s repairs logs show that its pest control contractor attended the resident’s property to carry out a site survey. The contractor advised the landlord that it had been unable to gain access to the loft as the resident did not want them to open it. The contractor stated that there was mortar missing and vents missing from the gable end of the property and a tree overhanging the front of the property required cutting back.
On 21 November 2022 the landlord telephoned the resident and discussed with him his concerns regarding asbestos in the loft and insufficient insulation in the loft. The resident stated that he had fallen from a ladder investigating noises in the loft in January 2021 and seriously injured his knee, he stated he was going to sue the landlord. The resident said he had seen the asbestos report and knew that the landlord had been aware of the asbestos in the loft before he moved into the property. He said he had COPD and asthma and would never have accepted the offer of the flat if he had known about the asbestos. The landlord’s notes from the call state that the resident was “clearly struggling with stairs…and uses a walker” and recommended that he be moved to a ground floor flat. It also ordered that operatives attend to ensure the loft was sealed.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 30 November 2022 regarding insufficient insulation and additional heating costs.
In internal landlord emails of 1 December 2022 the landlord describes “using the EPC data to address the complaint” as a “clever way of circumventing the main issue, which is the loft insulation being below recommended thickness”. The landlord said that this response would suffice but that as soon as the resident moved out of the property, the asbestos should be removed and the insulation topped up. The landlord also said that in future the assets and voids teams should be “targeting loft top-ups going forward” and that there was a budget to cover energy efficiency measures.
The resident contacted this Service on 6 December 2022 and said that he wanted us to investigate his complaint. He stated he had been unable to confirm this sooner due to being physically unwell. The resident advised he disagreed with the landlord’s final complaint response because:
1. The landlord was “disingenuous” – it had known what he was using the garage for and therefore could not now say he shouldn’t have stored his sofa in it.
2. Outdoor work could have been completed during lockdown.
3. The fact the loft was sealed shut made the pest control situation worse. The way the landlord secured the hatch prevented operatives from accessing the loft to seal the vents the squirrels were accessing through.
4. The landlord had advised it would assist him in moving to a ground floor flat, no help had been provided.
On 8 December 2022 the landlord provided a stage one response to the resident’s complaint that his property had insufficient loft insulation. The letter stated that the EPC showed that the property assessed the property was in band C which met the required standard for energy efficiency. It therefore did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
On 12 December 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had escalated his complaint regarding insufficient loft insulation to a stage two complaint panel hearing which would take place on 15 December 2022 via Teams call. The resident was invited to attend.
The landlord’s contact notes show that it telephoned the resident on 13 December 2022 and the resident stated that he no longer wanted to move. He said that instead he wanted the landlord to put him in a hotel until the asbestos was removed from the loft.
On 16 December 2022 the landlord provided its stage two response to the resident’s complaint about the asbestos in his loft and insufficient insulation. The letter stated:
1. The asbestos in the loft was encapsulated by applying locks to the hatch to prevent anyone entering the loft and disturbing the asbestos. It therefore had not posed a hazard to the resident.
2. The landlord had offered to temporarily decant the resident whilst it removed the asbestos but the resident had refused and instead asked that he be permanently transferred to a ground floor property due to his health needs.
3. Prior to the resident moving into the property, an energy performance assessment was carried out by a trained professional. The property was assessed as a ‘C rating’ which met the requirement for social housing providers. Additional insulation would “have very marginal impacts on energy usage in any case”.
4. The complaint was not upheld.
On 15 March 2023 the resident contacted this Service to advise that he had been in hospital with sepsis as a result of the injury he suffered to his leg when he fell investigating the loft hatch. He said he had been unable to contact the landlord regarding a request for a management move.
On 17 March 2023 this Service wrote to the landlord and asked that it contact him. The landlord responded on the same day and advised that it had in fact been in frequent contact with the resident whilst he was in hospital but would contact him again as requested.
On 20 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident following a telephone conversation and advised:
1. As he had stated he was unable to remember telephone conversations with the landlord during his hospital stay it was agreed that discussions would be confirmed in writing.
2. It was looking for a property to meet his medical needs via a direct transfer.
3. The resident’s complaint had completed the landlord’s internal complaint process and therefore wouldn’t be re-investigated.
On 24 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said he no longer wanted to move and wanted to stay where he was.
The landlord has stated, in response to a request for information from this Service, that it is looking to move the resident to a ground floor property through a ‘direct let’ and this is therefore outside the normal allocations process. The landlord states that it has offered the resident two properties, one in January 2023 and another in March 2023, the resident had refused both offers without viewing the properties.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s reports that that his sofa, stored in a garage rented from the landlord, was damaged by a leak.

As previously mentioned, this Service would not usually consider complaints linked to the garage as this was let to the resident on a separate agreement and is not part of the tenancy.
This case however is more complex, the garage was initially let to the resident free-of-charge and this agreement was made due to the resident moving from one property which was being demolished to what he considered to be a smaller property. This Service therefore considers that the garage can reasonably be considered to be connected to the resident’s occupation of the property for residential purposes and the complaint has consequently been investigated.
This Service does not determine liability for damages or award damages in the way that a court might and therefore we are unable to determine liability for the damage to the resident’s sofa or order compensation for this. The Ombudsman will however consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation and whether this was handled reasonably and in line with its own policy and procedures.
The garage tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to maintain the structure of the building, this includes the roof.
The resident reported a leak from the roof on 18 November 2020 and advised the landlord that the leak was causing damage to his belongings. The landlord fixed the roof 35 days later on 23 December 2020. This is outside of the timeframe given by the landlord for completion of routine repairs. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s report of a leak, which was clearly causing damage to his belongings, within a reasonable timeframe and this was a failing.
The tenancy agreement for the garage contains no mention of what must and must not be stored in the building. This is contrary to the information provided to the resident by the landlord in its letter of 22 December 2021 when it stated, “Garages should only be used for the storage of vehicles, there is no written agreement on record for you to store a sofa in the garage”.
Indeed, the landlord acknowledged approximately two weeks later in its letter to the resident that “an agreement was made that furniture could be stored within this garage”. The landlord however maintained that it was the resident’s responsibility to ensure he had appropriate insurance for the contents of the garage. There is no mention within the garage tenancy agreement that the resident was required or advised to take out insurance for his belongings stored in the garage.
The landlord’s website states that it is the resident’s responsibility for taking out “appropriate contents insurance” for belongings stored in the garage however this Service has not seen evidence that the resident was signposted to this advice when he signed the garage agreement.
This Service considers that it would have been sensible of the landlord to include in its garage tenancy agreement a clause stating that it was not liable for damage or loss to goods stored within the garage. A recommendation has been made regarding this.
The landlord, in its final response letter, stated that a garage was “not living accommodation and as such is likely to be damp”. Whilst this Service agrees that a garage is not living accommodation, it does not accept that it is commonly accepted that a garage will be damp. The landlord was obliged under the terms of the tenancy to keep the structure in good condition and it is considered that this would include keeping the property reasonably watertight.
It is disappointing to this Service that some of the language used within internal landlord emails does not reflect a positive complaint handling culture. In one such email on 29 April 2020, a staff member stated that they didn’t wish to speak to the resident and suggested that disputed charges be credited to “make the problem go away”.
The above unprofessional comment was not a one-off. The director of operations, a senior leader within the landlord, stated in internal emails of 14 July 2021, that they were prepared to offer the resident £100 compensation “to make this go away”. On 19 July 2021 in an internal email in response to a request from the resident to contact him, they made a comment to the effect that they would not be contacting him. Such comments from senior leadership could reasonable be seen as a waterline for the culture of the organisation. This is explored further in the assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Overall, the landlord failed to resolve the leaking garage roof within the timeframe set out in its repairs policy, this delay would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord made contradictory and incorrect comments to the resident regarding what he was allowed to use the garage for, this clearly caused the resident frustration and for him to feel that he was being intentionally mislead. This Service saw concerning examples of unprofessionalism in internal landlord emails from staff at various levels which were not suggestive of a positive complaint handling culture. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports his sofa stored in the garage was damaged by a leak.

Handling of the resident’s request for the replacement of a communal washing line during the Covid lockdown.

In respect of Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, the Ombudsman will consider what was reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances of the complaint along with the law and government guidance in place at the time. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to have acted within the law and guidance, unless there was a clear justification to do otherwise and this achieved a fair outcome for the resident. Landlords are responsible for keeping proper audit trails of their decision making in relation to the provision of housing services and operations during any local lockdown.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown from 26 March 2020. A number of periods of lifting of restrictions and further lockdowns followed during 2020 and 2021 and most legal restrictions were lifted in July 2021.
On 18 May 2020 the government issued a letter to all social housing residents regarding the easing of lockdown measures. The letter detailed that landlords could resume routine repairs and planned works.
It is acknowledged that, as the landlord pointed out, carrying out any repair would necessitate its operatives having contact with suppliers and colleagues which could potentially expose them to contracting Covid and such a risk should be balanced against the urgency of a repair. This being said – this would only be the case if this was during the period of Covid lockdown restrictions.
The landlord, in its final response letter regarding the garage, stated that it had been operating an “essential emergency only service”. It said that this was in accordance with government guidance at the time.
The time period during which the resident first complained about the landlord neglecting to replace the washing line, July 2021, was after the government lifted most restrictions. It was also more than a year after the government had written to social housing residents to advise that landlords could resume routine repairs. It was therefore reasonable that the resident understood that the landlord could carry out the washing line repair, particularly as it was outside. It is the view of this Service that the landlord’s explanation that the delay was due to government Covid guidelines was not compelling.
This Service considers that replacement of a communal washing line would be a routine repair and therefore should have been completed within 21 days. The landlord did not order the repair until 5 January 2022 and it was completed 21 days later on 26 January 2022. It took the landlord 201 days from the date the MP contacted the landlord to complete the repair. This was an unreasonable delay.
It is acknowledged that the delay to the repair itself would have had limited detriment to the resident, particularly as the communal outdoor areas had rotary driers which he had access to. However, the landlord’s handling of his enquiries and unreasonable and unconvincing explanation of the delay would have caused him real dissatisfaction.
It is noted that, whilst the landlord advised the MP on 9 July 2021 that the washing line had been replaced, its own repairs log and complaint responses state that the washing line was not replaced until 26 January 2022. It is of concern that the landlord therefore provided incorrect information to the MP in response to their enquiry and it is unclear why this occurred. It is possible that the landlord made this error as the communal rotary drier had been re-strung in July 2021 and that they thought the rotary drier and washing line referred to the same item.
Overall, the landlord’s explanation that the delay to replacing the washing line was due to government Covid restrictions was not reasonable as the delay took place after most restrictions were lifted. Therefore, there was undue delay of approximately six months. It is also of concern that the landlord incorrectly advised the MP that the work had been completed. Consequently, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a repair to a communal washing line.

Response to the resident’s reports of an infestation of squirrels in their loft-space.

It is acknowledged that the resident states that he severely injured his leg when he fell from the loft ladder trying to investigate a squirrel infestation in the loft. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or calculate and award damages, this would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.
Records seen by this Service demonstrate that the resident reported his concerns regarding noises from his loft to his MP who contacted the landlord in July 2021. The resident has stated that he made earlier reports but this Service has not seen evidence of this.
The resident also made reference to photographs sent to the landlord that evidenced the squirrel infestation. This Service has seen photographs that show squirrels outside the property and on neighbouring roofs but has not seen evidence of squirrels inside the loft.
Following receipt of the MP enquiry in July 2021 the landlord visited the property again with its pest control contractor. It stated that it could see no evidence of squirrels, this Service has not seen evidence to dispute this.
As the resident was not satisfied that there were no squirrels in the loft the landlord stated that further investigations could be carried out but that it would need to remove the asbestos in the loft in order to facilitate this. This was reasonable response and consistent with the landlord’s health and safety duties towards its operatives.
The resident did not want the asbestos removing at that time because he was unable to move out temporarily due to his poor health. It was therefore not possible for the landlord to carry out further internal investigations.
The resident has stated in communications with this Service that the fact the loft was sealed shut made the pest control situation worse. As there was asbestos in the loft, it was reasonable of the landlord to seal it shut. The landlord offered to remove the asbestos in order that it could fully inspect the loft but the resident declined this. Therefore there was nothing more the landlord could have done internally to resolve the issue.
The resident again reported hearing noises from his loft in June 2022 and the landlord’s pest control contractor visited the property again and recommended that the landlord fix broken vents and missing mortar on the gable end of the property and cut back an overhanging tree to prevent squirrels from accessing. The landlord has advised this Service, in response to a request for information, that it cut back the tree in May 2023. It is positive that the landlord has taken this step, however that it took 11 months to carry out the work was unreasonable.
The landlord has stated however that it has not carried out works to the broken vents and missing mortar because “due to the minor nature of the mortar defects and excessive cost due to requirement of scaffolding, it was deemed that the works were unfeasible”.
Overall, the landlord was unable to complete inspections or works inside the loft due to asbestos. However, the landlord delayed in acting on the advice of its pest control contractor to cut back the tree and has failed to carry out further recommended external works. Therefore, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an infestation of squirrels in his loft.

Response to the resident’s concern regarding asbestos in his loft space.

The landlord carried out an asbestos survey on the property when it was empty in January 2019. The survey identified the asbestos in the loft and advised removing or encapsulating it.
The landlord’s actions in leaving the asbestos in the loft and sealing the loft with padlocks was reasonable. HSE advice states that removing asbestos can be more dangerous than leaving it in place and that, if sealed it is not a hazard.
The resident has stated that he would not have moved into the property if he had been aware that there was asbestos in the loft due to pre-existing health issues. The landlord did not provide the resident with a copy of the asbestos report at the beginning of the tenancy but there is no legal requirement for it to do so. Nevertheless, provision of the report would be good practice and easy for the landlord to implement. Therefore, a recommendation has been made to this effect.
The landlord offered to remove the asbestos from the loft when it visited the property in July 2021 following the MP enquiry regarding the issue. It was explained to the resident that for safety reasons he would need to be temporarily relocated for the duration of these works, this advice was reasonable. The resident stated at that time that due to his ill-health he did not want to move out temporarily and instead said that he required a move to a ground floor flat.
It was reasonable of the landlord to conclude that the asbestos was safely sealed and did not pose a hazard and that it could be removed from the property when the resident moved into a suitable property. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property.

Response to the resident’s concerns that there was insufficient insulation in the loft

Prior to the resident moving into the property in February 2019 an emergency performance assessment was carried out and an EPC issued. The property was assessed as band ‘C’, which is above average for homes in the UK.
The EPC did recommend that increasing the amount of insulation in the loft to 270mm may increase energy efficiency and reduce costs. The landlord’s decision not to increase the insulation was however one it was entitled to make and did not breach its obligations in relation to energy efficiency.
The landlord’s decision was communicated clearly and reasonably to the resident on 16 December 2022. The landlord explained that the property met the energy efficiency standards for social housing providers and that additional insulation would only marginally reduce energy usage.
It is noted that the landlord, in internal emails, made some concerning comments which are explored in the assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling. Within this email the landlord stated that the loft insulation was “below recommended thickness” and that as soon as the resident moved out of the property, the asbestos should be removed and the insulation topped up.
However, there is no requirement for the landlord to increase the insulation as the property meets the minimum standards set by the Decent Homes Standard as it has more than 50mm loft insulation and meets the target of achieving at least band ‘C’ for energy efficiency.
It was therefore reasonable of the landlord not to install more insulation in the loft of the property. Particularly as it was working towards transferring the resident to a property that would better suit his medical needs.

Handling of access to the resident’s property for gas servicing.

It is acknowledged that the resident stated that he felt that the landlord was threatening towards him when requesting access to his property to carry out gas safety testing during the Covid pandemic. The resident stated that the landlord said it would take tenancy enforcement action against him.
The landlord has a legal obligation to carry out annual gas safety checks in its properties. These checks are for the benefit of residents as they ensure the gas installations are safe.
This Service acknowledges that the resident, along with many others, was apprehensive during the Covid pandemic and was reluctant to grant access to his property. Advise issued by the Health and Safety executive (HSE) said that, during the pandemic, landlords had to balance ensuring people, including the vulnerable, were protected from potentially fatal risks associated with gas safety (such as carbon monoxide exposure or gas explosion) whilst also protecting residents and staff from Covid.
It was advised by the HSE that where a landlord could not carry out gas safety testing due to the pandemic, it demonstrated that it had taken reasonable steps to attempt to do so. Such reasonable steps would include knocking on resident’s doors, leaving calling cards where there was no answer, and writing to residents.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord issued any warning letters or other ‘threats’ of enforcement action to the resident as he has stated. It did leave two calling cards when it attended and the resident did not answer the door but such action is reasonable and necessary in order to encourage residents to make contact.
In the absence of evidence to suggest that the landlord threatened to take enforcement action, this Service cannot determine that the landlord did so. The landlord acted reasonably to engage with the resident to encourage him to provide access to his property so that gas safety testing could be carried out. This was in line with its legal obligations and its responsibility to provide a safe home for the resident. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requesting access to carry out gas safety testing.

The amount of assistance given to the resident to try to find a ground floor flat to transfer to.

The landlord has demonstrated that it is handling of the resident’s transfer request as a direct let rather than requiring him to bid for properties against other applicants on the social housing register. Doing so will certainly have reduced any burden on the resident as he is able to wait for the landlord to contact him when suitable properties become available.
The landlord has provided evidence that it had, in January 2023 and March 2023 offered the resident two ground floor properties that would meet his mobility needs.
The resident refused these properties, as is his right, as he said they were unsuitable for him for various reasons. The properties offered to the resident appear to this Service to meet his mobility needs though we are not in a position to comment on whether they are otherwise suitable to the resident.
The landlord has demonstrated that it continues to look for a suitable property for the resident. This Service has seen evidence that the landlord has continued to communicate regularly with the resident by email, telephone and letter, regarding offers of accommodation and his housing needs.
Overall, the landlord has provided reasonable assistance to the resident to find a property suitable for his medical needs without requiring him to bid via the social housing register. Therefore, there was no maladministration in relation to this complaint.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) described a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. This Service considers that it was clear to the landlord in July 2021, when the resident requested compensation for his sofa and contacted his MP, that the resident was dissatisfied with the service he had received. The landlord should have initiated its formal complaints process at this time and this was a missed opportunity to deal with the complaint promptly.
When this Service contacted the landlord on 14 December 2021, we advised the landlord to provide the resident with a written complaint response via its formal complaint process. The letter sent to the resident by the landlord on 22 December 2021 was entitled “first request for action” and was not clearly intended to be a formal stage one complaint response.
The Code states that when a landlord responds to a complaint, it should make clear the following:
1. the complaint stage;
2. the complaint definition;
3. the decision on the complaint;
4. the reasons for any decisions made;
5. the details of any remedy offered to put things right;
6. details of any outstanding actions;
7. details of how to escalate the matter to stage two if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
The landlord’s letter did not fulfil any of these requirements and this was a failing.
The landlord then provided a second letter on 7 January 2022 entitled “response to additional comments/queries raised”. This letter advised the resident that, if he wanted to raise a formal complaint, it should contact the landlord to provide clarification. Clearly then, the landlord had not intended its letters to be a formal complaint response despite the request from this Service to handle it as such. This was a serious failing.
The Code states that “The Ombudsman does not consider it appropriate for complaints to be handled ‘informally’, at ‘stage 0’, ‘pre-complaint stage’ or in any other way that keeps the complaint outside of the complaints process, even for a short time. When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure within five working days of receipt.”
The landlord on 17 January 2022 said it was ‘escalating’ the resident’s complaint. This Service regards this statement as puzzling given that the landlord had not dealt with or responded to the complaint formally at stage one.
On 24 January 2022 the landlord sent a “stage 3” complaint response. Again, this is puzzling as the landlord’s complaints procedure does not mention a third stage and no stage one or stage two response had been issued.
The landlord’s handling of this complaint has been confusing for this Service, with sight of all the information, and was even more so to the resident. This caused him distress and inconvenience as well as time and trouble and was a significant failing.
The purpose of a second or appeal complaint stage is to provide the landlord with an opportunity to re-consider the details of the complaint and ensure that its initial response was correct. In this case the landlord’s stage final response reiterated the following flawed arguments from its earlier ‘responses’:
1. The resident should not have stored his sofa in the garage and therefore he was responsible for its damage.
2. The delay to the replacement of the washing line was due to government guidelines during the Covid pandemic.
Paragraph 52 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may find maladministration where a landlord has “treated the complainant personally in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner.” In this case the Ombudsman has noted inappropriate remarks in the landlord’s records.
It is concerning to this Service that the landlord has expressed, in its internal emails, a less than positive approach to complaint management. By referring to “making this go away” and being reluctant to speak to the resident, the landlord has not displayed openness and a genuine attempt to resolve the issues reported by the resident.
Whilst the landlord’s handling of the resident’s second complaint regarding insufficient insulation was clearer and was in line with its procedure, it was not without issue. On 1 December 2022, in an internal email, the landlord described its draft response as a “clever way of circumventing the main issue”.
That the landlord attempted to “circumvent” the issues of the case and avoid acknowledging that the insulation in the loft was below the recommended level was disingenuous. The landlord clearly intended to make the issue ‘go away’ rather than address it and provide resolution for the resident. This is disappointing and indicates serious issues in the complaint handling culture of the organisation.
The primary purpose of a complaints process is, as outlined in the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, “put things right”. The culture of an organisation should ensure that complaints are seen as an opportunity rather than a threat and should demonstrate an organisation that focuses on its customers and uses learning to improve services.
As the landlord failed to identify and acknowledge its failings, it also failed to offer any redress. Orders have been made to pay the resident compensation in relation to its disordered complaint handling.
It was unacceptable to observe unprofessional comments within the landlord’s internal communications regarding the complaints. Such remarks do not demonstrate a positive landlord complaint handling culture. The landlord disregarded its own complaint procedure and the advice of this Service in its handling of the resident’s first complaint which resulted in a confusing series of communications. The poor complaint handling exacerbated the situation and caused the resident a significant amount of distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. Therefore, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that that his sofa, stored in a garage rented from the landlord, was damaged by a leak.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the replacement of a communal washing line during the Covid lockdown.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an infestation of squirrels in their loft-space.
5. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern regarding asbestos in his loft space.
6. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that there was insufficient insulation in the loft;
7. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of access to the resident’s property for gas servicing.
8. No maladministration in the assistance given to the resident to try to find a ground floor flat to transfer to.

Reasons

This Service noted unprofessional comments within the landlord’s internal communications regarding the complaints which demonstrated a negative complaint handling culture. The landlord disregarded its own complaint procedure and the advice of this Service and this resulted in a confusing series of communications. The landlord’s poor complaint handling exacerbated the situation and caused the resident significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
The landlord failed to resolve the leaking garage roof within the timeframe set out in its repairs policy, causing distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord also made inaccurate comments to the resident that he should not have stored furniture in the garage and this caused the resident frustration and to feel that he was being intentionally mislead. Concerningly, there were examples of unprofessional comments within internal landlord emails which do not indicate a positive complaint handling culture.
The landlord’s account that the delay to replace the washing line was due to government Covid restrictions was not reasonable as the delay took place after most restrictions were lifted. There was undue delay of approximately six months however the impact of this delay was likely to be very low as the resident had access to other means to dry his washing.
The landlord inspected the property with its pest control contractor following the resident’s reports of squirrels. No evidence of squirrels was seen and, due to asbestos in the loft further investigations could not be carried out at that time. The landlord offered to remove the asbestos to carry out further investigations but due to his poor health the resident declined. The landlord has not evidenced that it carried out the works identified by the pest control contractor and therefore did not complete all reasonable actions to resolve the issue.
It was reasonable of the landlord to conclude that the asbestos was safely sealed and did not pose a hazard to the resident. The landlord nevertheless offered to remove the asbestos and temporarily decant the resident but he declined this due to his health.
The amount of loft insulation in the property meets the Decent Homes Standard and the property meets the government standard for social housing of band ‘C’ for energy efficiency. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not increase the insulation in the loft.
The landlord acted reasonably in its attempts to carry out gas safety testing at the resident’s property in line with its legal obligations and its responsibility to provide a safe home for the resident. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord was threatening towards the resident.
The landlord has provided reasonable assistance to the resident to find a ground floor property suitable for his medical needs. It was fair that the landlord sought to do this by a direct let as this did not require him to bid via the social housing register. The landlord has made the resident two offers of suitable transfer accommodation to this point.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord’s Chief Executive to apologise to the resident in person.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1,050 which comprises:
1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failing to repair the leaking garage roof within a reasonable timeframe;
2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays to replacing the washing line;
3. £500 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to provide this Service with confirmation that it has:
1. Repaired the missing mortar to the gable end of the property;
2. Replaced the missing vents to the gable end of the property.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord’s senior leadership to carry out a case review of this case and report back to this Service outlining what actions it intends to take. The review should specifically consider:
1. The ways in which it displayed a negative complaint handling culture;
2. The impacts of failing to follow its complaint procedure on the resident;
3. The confusion caused by failing to clearly identifying complaint responses as such;
4. How the landlord’s complaint handling compared the values expressed in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code;
5. The language and tone used when discussing residents in internal communications.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider reviewing its garage tenancy agreement to include:
1. Details of what can/cannot be stored in the garage
2. a clause outlining whether it accepts liability for loss or damage caused to good stored in the garage
3. a recommendation for tenants to take out insurance for valued possessions.
The landlord to consider reviewing its asbestos management and void management policies and procedures to include the provision of the asbestos report for the property at the start of a tenancy.