Canterbury City Council (202204212)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204212

Canterbury City Council

26 February 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bathroom.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the asbestos tiles under the lounge flooring.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the kitchen replacement.
    4. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy which started on 21 June 2010. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette on the second floor.
  2. Following a kitchen replacement, the resident made a complaint to the landlord on 30 May 2022. He said that the landlord had scheduled an inspection of the kitchen replacement on 7 January 2022, but it did not attend the appointment. He said that the works had exposed asbestos tiles under the lounge laminate flooring after the landlord installed a door bar where the kitchen flooring met the lounge flooring. He said that both he and his child had a GP appointment because of chest complaints. He also said that his bathroom had mould and it did not have an extractor fan.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 June 2022. It said that it had inspected the kitchen works after the resident’s complaint, in May 2022, and it apologised for the delay. It said that the asbestos tiles under the lounge flooring were sealed, and the inspection confirmed that there were no exposed tiles showing. It said that it arranged an air test which confirmed that there were no dangerous levels of asbestos fibres in the property. It said that the bathroom had been inspected and it apologised for not inspecting this sooner when he first contacted the landlord’s contractor. The landlord outlined that works were raised to fit an extractor fan and complete a mould wash in the bathroom, and to fit an external grill to the kitchen extractor fan.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 22 June 2022. He said that when he moved into the property, in 2010, he complained to the landlord about broken tiles being left in the property but that it did not take any action at the time. He added that when the kitchen works were being completed, the operatives spilt a large patch of glue onto the lounge flooring. He said that he was told to raise his concerns during the kitchen inspection scheduled for January 2022 which did not happen. He asked for the landlord to replace the lounge flooring because of this.
  5. On 8 November 2022, the landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in providing the response. It said that the external grill still needed to be fitted to the kitchen extractor fan because it had erected the scaffolding in the wrong area; it apologised for this delay. It said that its advice given about the asbestos tiles being sealed in the lounge remained correct and reassured him that there was no reason to suggest there was a health risk. It said that during the inspection in May 2022, it had told him to scrape off the glue on the lounge flooring. It said it would not replace the flooring because he had been given advice on how to remedy this himself. It confirmed that the extractor fan had been fitted in the bathroom but that it had failed to complete the mould wash because of a failed access attempt. It encouraged him to contact the contractor to arrange a date for this to be completed as soon as possible.
  6. The resident asked this Service to investigate his complaint as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response. He said that he wanted the asbestos tiles to be removed as he believed these were unsafe. He also noted other concerns which had occurred since the landlord’s final complaint response. The complaint became one that we could investigate on 6 April 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said that when he moved into the property in 2010, there were tiles left in the lounge which he believed contained asbestos. He said that he complained to the landlord, but it did not take any action at the time. This Service cannot consider complaints which relate to historical events because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme.
  2. It is evident that the resident is currently experiencing issues which have occurred after the landlord’s final complaint response. These relate to his kitchen sink, damp and mould in the kitchen and communal repairs. This Service cannot investigate matters that did not go through the landlord’s internal complaint process. The resident may wish to log a new complaint for the landlord to investigate his concerns and have the opportunity to put things right. He may then bring that complaint to the Ombudsman as a new case to be investigated were he to be unhappy with the landlord’s response. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.
  3. The resident stated in his complaint that both his and his child’s health had been affected by the issue related to the asbestos tiles under the lounge flooring. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about their health, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. This Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bathroom

  1. Following the resident’s complaint on 30 May 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging an inspection the following day. Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it acknowledged that the works should have been identified sooner when the resident contacted its contractor about the damp and mould. The landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service regarding the resident’s contact to the contractor, but it has not disputed that the contact was made. It apologised that this did not happen and confirmed that the works were being arranged.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that two jobs were raised on 8 June 2022 for the mould wash and the installation of the extractor fan in the bathroom. However, while this work was completed by the time of landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 8 November 2022, it ultimately remains unclear, from the evidence provided, whether this was completed within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord has poor record keeping relating to its repair logs, specifically with reference to its completion dates and any contact attempts or visits made regarding the repairs. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to assess whether the landlord acted in accordance with its routine repair timeframes which require it to complete repairs within 16 days of them being reported.
  3. In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it had been unable to gain access to the property for a mould wash to be completed. However, the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to confirm when it had attempted to access the property. It asked the resident to contact its contractor directly to arrange a date as soon as possible for this to be completed. It is unclear whether this remains unfulfilled under this job reference.
  4. In view of the above, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bathroom. This is because the resident has been impacted by its poor record keeping by not having sufficient methods of recording reports that he made to its contractors. The landlord should be able to clearly show the Ombudsman its repairs evidence and information. The landlord is therefore ordered to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report to provide support in improving its record keeping.
  5. By the landlord not having appropriate record keeping, the resident was left in a property with damp and mould without a plan for repairs to address the concerns. The landlord is ordered to pay £350 compensation. This can be broken down to £250 for its failure to keep adequate records and £100 for its handling of the overall reports of damp and mould in the bathroom.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the asbestos tiles under the lounge flooring

  1. The landlord has a ‘duty to manage’ asbestos, as specified by regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. It requires the landlord to take reasonable steps to identify, maintain records of, protect residents to exposure from, and execute a management plan for asbestos. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) warns ‘don’t remove asbestos unnecessarily – removing it can be more dangerous than leaving it in place and managing it’. It only recommends the removal of the asbestos if it is extensively damaged, and it is impossible to encapsulate it.
  2. The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 state that ‘if existing asbestos containing materials (ACMs) are in good condition and are not likely to be damaged, they may be left in place; their condition monitored and managed to ensure they are not disturbed.’ Therefore, so long as there is no damage, the landlord is acting appropriately by allowing the ACM to remain in place and monitor them.
  3. The landlord completed an asbestos survey on 24 April 2019, prior to the resident’s complaint. The report from the survey showed that all areas with ACMs, including the lounge, were concealed and no attention (or works) were required. It noted that the lounge floor specifically was completely sealed and in good condition, with very low risk.
  4. The resident had installed laminate flooring over the lounge tiles. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint, he said that the landlord had exposed the tiles under the lounge floor. He also said that both he and his child were visiting the GP for chest complaints. The landlord inspected this area the following day. It noted in an internal email that a door bar had been installed between the kitchen and lounge flooring. It said that it had reassured the resident that the lounge floor was sealed, and the door bar installation would not have disturbed the tiles beneath.
  5. In addition to the advice given to the resident, the landlord took practical and reasonable steps to confirm its position, and investigate the resident’s concerns, to confirm that the asbestos tiles were not posing a risk to the health of the household. It is unclear when a job was raised, but an asbestos air test was completed on 8 June 2022. The asbestos remedial completion document produced from this test showed that it had satisfactory air test readings.
  6. The landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s concerns about the asbestos tiles and in light of the reported chest complaints experienced by the household. The steps taken by the landlord with its timely inspection on the following day after the complaint was made, as well as arranging the air test, showed that it took the resident’s concerns seriously. The landlord had evidence from 2019 of the tiles being concealed with a low risk but it checked this again following the resident’s reports. The results were satisfactory and therefore the landlord was not obliged to remove the concealed tiles. Therefore, its advice about it having no legal obligation to remove the tiles, which remained concealed and free from damage, was correct.

The landlord’s handling of the kitchen replacement

  1. It is understood that the kitchen was replaced as part of the landlord’s routine works as it was 25 years old or more. The resident said in his stage 1 complaint that the kitchen works had not been post-inspected, after completing the replacement, as planned because the landlord did not attend the scheduled appointment on 7 January 2022. In response, the landlord inspected the property on 31 May 2022.
  2. In the landlord’s internal emails from 31 May 2022, it noted that the resident was happy with the kitchen replacement, and it identified no internal snags. It said that works were required to fit an external grill to the kitchen extractor fan. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response noted that it should have inspected the works sooner and apologised for the delay. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and identify its failure to follow through on its scheduled appointments. However, the response did not consider the impact of any inconvenience caused to the resident because of this failure and it did not consider any monetary redress which would have been appropriate.
  3. Furthermore, the resident’s complaint references the impact of a failed inspection appointment that was scheduled on 7 January 2022. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence by the landlord that relates to an inspection being arranged on that date. The repairs log provided by the landlord also does not make reference to an inspection on that date or the later inspection that took place on 31 May 2022.
  4. A job was raised on 8 June 2022 to erect scaffolding and fit an external grill to the extractor fan. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, on 8 November 2022, it said that it had erected scaffolding to the wrong area which meant that the external grill had not yet been fitted to the property. It said that it expected to complete the repair by 29 November 2022. The landlord’s repairs logs are unclear, relating to its poor record keeping for repairs evidence, and therefore the Ombudsman cannot establish when or if this has been completed. Regardless, although it apologised for the delays of having erected the scaffolding in the wrong area, the delays would have caused further detriment to the resident. The landlord did not consider appropriate redress in its response to his concerns.
  5. At the inspection, on 31 May 2022, the resident highlighted an area of the lounge laminate flooring which had a large patch of glue dried onto it. The resident told the landlord that the operatives spilled the glue during the kitchen replacement works and that it had told him to wait for it to dry and scrape it off. The landlord sent internal emails on 1 June 2022 to establish its responsibilities regarding the glue spillage. The landlord’s final position was that it would not remove and install new laminate flooring as this is the resident’s responsibility.
  6. While the resident did not raise the glue spillage on the lounge laminate flooring in the original complaint, he included this in his request to escalate his complaint to stage 2. In the escalation request, the resident said that the spillage was not inspected due to the failed appointment on 7 January 2022. As mentioned previously, the landlord’s record keeping remains an issue as there is no evidence to suggest that this had been scheduled.
  7. The landlord included this matter in its stage 2 complaint response, and it was good practice for it to do so. It said that it had inspected the glue on 31 May 2022 and that the advice it had previously given regarding the resident needing to scrape the glue off once it was dry was correct. It apologised that the spillage occurred during the kitchen replacement works but it said that it was satisfied that the correct advice had been given to the resident of how to remedy this. It said that it would not replace the flooring.
  8. In the landlord’s repairs handbook, it states that if accidental damage is caused by its operatives, the resident should contact it. It advises residents to take out home contents insurance but the handbook states that this is for ‘any other damage’ other than avoidable damage caused by the operatives. The spillage of the glue on the lounge laminate flooring was avoidable damage. The landlord’s code of behaviour service standards includes it having a responsibility to take care of residents’ belongings and protect them from damage. The glue spillage left behind after the kitchen replacement works is evidence that the service standards were not fulfilled.
  9. The landlord’s response was dismissive of the resident’s concerns. It put the responsibility on the resident to rectify a fault of the landlord and its contractors. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised a repair job for it to return and scrape off the glue as it had acknowledged that the spillage was a result of the kitchen replacement works. If the landlord found damage to the flooring when removing the glue, it would have been appropriate for it to refer the matter to its insurance department to investigate.
  10. The resident has confirmed that the glue on the lounge laminate floor remains. The landlord is ordered to raise a works order to attend the property and remove the glue. If there is any damage to the flooring, it should then decide whether to replace the laminate or whether it should refer a claim to its insurance department. In addition, the landlord is ordered to pay £150 compensation. This is for the resident having lived with damaged flooring caused by the glue spillage and in acknowledgement of the landlord’s failure to put things right for him. The landlord disregarded its own policies regarding its practice when damage has been caused by its operatives.

The associated complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure is not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord has not provided a copy of its complaints policy and it is unclear whether it has a policy as it is not published on its website. The landlord’s procedure allows for a response within 14 days to stage 1 complaints but does not have a specified timeframe for responses to stage 2 complaints. The Code in place at the time of the resident’s complaint allowed for 10 working days for a response to stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for a response to stage 2 complaints. The timeframes set out in the Code start from the date that the landlord acknowledges the complaint, which must be within 5 working days of it being received.
  2. A new version of the Complaint Handling Code is effective from 1 April 2024. This will make it mandatory for landlords to self-assess against the Code annually and provide its self-assessment to the Ombudsman. Rather than an order to self-assess against the Code currently in use, which will soon be outdated, the landlord is ordered to confirm to this Service when it plans to self-assess against the new Code. It should provide a date of when it aims to complete its self-assessment and provide this to the Ombudsman.
  3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 30 May 2022 and the landlord provided the stage 1 complaint response on 9 June 2022. The landlord’s response was provided within 6 working days which was appropriate. The resident’s stage 2 escalation request was made on 22 June 2022; it acknowledged this on the same day and said that it would respond to the complaint within 28 calendar days. The landlord provided the stage 2 complaint response on 8 November 2022. The landlord’s response was provided 98 working days after the complaint was escalated and acknowledged, and 78 working days after the date that it said it would provide its response by, which was not appropriate.
  4. The extensive delay in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response being provided meant that the resident experienced time and trouble in trying to pursue the complaint. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 September 2022 and said that he had waited over 3 months and had not received a response to his complaint escalation. While the landlord responded on the same day, acknowledging the email, and said that it had forwarded his email to the investigating officer, it did not provide the stage 2 complaint response in a timely manner. The resident contacted this Service for assistance in receiving a response. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 24 October 2022 and asked for it to provide the stage 2 complaint response within 10 working days, by 7 November 2022. It provided the response the day after this timeframe.
  5. The resident should not have to contact the landlord or this Service to receive a response to his complaint escalation. It was not appropriate for the landlord to delay the response being provided. During this time, the resident was inconvenienced by the time and trouble in chasing the response while thinking the landlord was not taking his complaint and concerns seriously. While the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response apologised for the delay in its response, it did not offer appropriate redress by considering compensation to reflect the time and trouble that the resident experienced.
  6. The landlord is ordered to pay £225 compensation in respect of the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response. This amount reflects the impact that the landlord’s complaint handling had on the resident, including having to contact this Service to receive a response from the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the asbestos tiles under the lounge flooring.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen replacement.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £725, made up as follows:
      1. £350 for the failures in its handling of the damp and mould issues. This includes £250 for its failure to keep adequate records and £100 for its handling of the overall reports of damp and mould in the bathroom.
      2. £150 for its handling of the kitchen replacement, specifically regarding its response to the glue spillage on the lounge laminate flooring.
      3. £225 for its associated complaint handling and delays in providing its response.
    2. Self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report in regard to improving its record keeping.
    3. Raise a works order and attend the property and remove the glue. If there is any damage to the flooring, it should then decide whether to replace the laminate or whether it should refer a claim to its insurance department.
    4. Confirm to this Service when it plans to self-assess against the new Code. It should provide a date of when it aims to complete its self-assessment and provide the subsequent report to the Ombudsman.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider completing an inspection of the property and produce an action plan, including what works are required and the date it intends to complete any repairs. This is in relation to the current issues that the resident has stated he is experiencing, which are not investigated in this report.