Clarion Housing Association Limited (202206490)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206490

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 May 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
2. response to the presence of asbestos in the property.
3. response to the resident’s request to be moved to another property.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

During the period of the complaint, the resident was an assured tenant at the property of the landlord and had been since December 2020. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The property is a one-bedroom, second-floor flat. The resident occupied the property with her partner and their baby. Their baby was born in September 2021.
A copy of the resident’s tenancy terms has not been provided to this Service, however it is an implied term in a tenancy agreement that the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of a property. This includes windows, walls, and doors and extends to internal and external plaster work.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities meet their legal obligations under the Housing Act 2004 to identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in homes. Under the rating system, a landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including damp and mould growth. This means taking preventative measures that could have a significant effect on harmful outcomes relating to moisture production and ventilation.
The landlord’s repairs policy provides that emergency repairs that present an immediate danger to the resident should be attended to within 24 hours. For all other repairs, an appointment is offered within 28 days of the repair being reported.
The landlord has a policy outlining the approach it will take in relation to leaks, condensation, damp, and mould. Where condensation is identified as the cause of damp and mould in a property, the landlord will work with residents to take appropriate measures to resolve this. A property inspection will be undertaken to identify the cause of the issues, and where a case is not straightforward, further investigations may be required to diagnose the problem. Where a contactor cannot gain access to a home to carry out inspections or works, the policy states that the landlord may pursue legal action to gain access to the home in order to undertake works. Where a home is overcrowded, humidity will tend to be higher increasing the likelihood of condensation, the policy therefore provides that the landlord will work with residents to explore solutions, which may include moving to a more suitable home if this is available.
The landlord’s Asbestos Management Policy outlines the landlord’s duty under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 to manage properties appropriately to ensure that residents can use buildings and facilities safely and without risk. This extends to taking all reasonable steps and measures to mitigate risks associated with asbestos and exposure during the occupation of domestic properties. The landlord will seek to manage the risk by undertaking a survey into the presence of asbestos and an assessment of the risk of that material causing harm.
The landlord’s Decant Policy provides that residents should be decanted into alternative accommodation where they cannot remain in their permanent home while major repairs works are undertaken. When considering whether a decant is necessary, the landlord will take into account the household composition, whether any occupiers have vulnerabilities, their needs and preferences, the likely time periods involved, the suitability of alternative accommodation, and the level of disruption. Where a resident refuses to move and repairs are necessary, the landlord will consider legal action against the resident. Where the decant will last for less than four weeks, the landlord will arrange bed and breakfast, hotel, or hostel accommodation. In some circumstances, the landlord will consider that a permanent decant is necessary. In this instance, a resident may be entitled to a statutory Home Loss Payment.
The landlord has a two-stage complaint procedure. The landlord aims to resolve stage one complaints within 10 working days. If a resident is dissatisfied with the stage one response, they can request that it be escalated to stage two. A stage two complaint should be resolved within 20 working days.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy details that awards of £50 to £250 in compensation can be made in instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. Awards of between £250 and £700 can be made in cases where considerable failure has been identified but where there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Awards of £700 and above will be made in recognition of failure that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant.

Summary of events

The resident has advised that she first reported problems with damp and mould in her property to the landlord in late 2021. The landlord attended on 11 November 2021, but could not detect the presence of damp and mould. Following further reports from the resident, an appointment was arranged for mould wash to be applied to the affected areas; however, the damp and mould returned.
On 11 January 2022, the landlord attended again to inspect for damp and mould, and an inspection report was prepared and sent to the landlord’s surveyor. The surveyor attended the property on 31 January 2022, and following the visit, a new job was raised to inspect the loft area above the flat.
On 8 February 2022, the resident reported that she raised an official complaint with the landlord but received no response.
On 21 February 2022, an inspection of the loft was arranged, but this had to be rebooked for 22 March 2022 due to an issue with the contractor.
On 3 March 2022, the resident made another formal complaint to the landlord. In her complaint, she stated that:
1. She lived in the property with her partner and her six-month old son.
2. The damp and mould was causing serious health issues for all of them, but particularly for her son, who has suffered from breathing difficulties since he was two months’ old. The resident also advised that she has chronic kidney disease, and that the damp conditions made her symptoms worse.
3. The damp had also damaged their furniture and clothing.
4. This had been raised with the landlord last year and again some weeks before, but the problem persisted. She had been advised that this had been a problem in the property since before she moved in.
On 16 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report further concerns about the mould spreading and requested that the landlord contact her to advise what it proposed to do.
On 22 March 2022, the loft area was inspected and the loft insulation was found to be dry and in good condition. The landlord’s internal correspondence records that the inspection identified “signs of mould mainly at high levels around the property.” A specialist damp report was sent to the landlord on 24 March 2022 which concluded that the mould in the property was caused by condensation due to the number of occupants in what was a small one-bed flat. The expert recommended that the existing extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom be replaced and that a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) system be installed to improve the air quality and circulation in the property.
On 25 March 2022, the landlord telephoned the resident to outline the steps it proposed to take to address the problem and to offer to apply another mould wash to the affected areas. The resident declined a mould wash on the basis that the last one was ineffective and she was concerned that exposure to the chemicals would harm her son’s health. She reported that the plaster was now blown and that a whole wall would need repairing. The carpet under her son’s cot was also damaged by the damp and mould.
On 29 March 2022, the contractors were contacted to install the units and replace the fans; however, they advised that they had no availability until 23 May 2022.
On 31 March 2022, the landlord provided its stage one response, which included the following:
1. The landlord advised that it had attended on 11 November 2021, and could not detect damp and mould in the property.
2. It attended again on 11 January 2022, and a detailed inspection report was sent to their surveyor.
3. The surveyor attended on 31 January 2022, and a job was raised to inspect the loft; however, the inspection did not reveal any issues with the loft insulation. A mould wash was booked but declined by the resident.
4. The specialist damp and mould contractor report was received on 24 March 2022. They advised that the damp and mould was due to condensation because of the number of occupants in the small flat. They recommended that the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans be replaced and a PIV system be installed, which would improve the air quality in the flat. An appointment had been booked for the 23 May 2022 for this to be installed.
5. It would not compensate the resident for damage to personal belongings caused by condensation. It stated that as the damp and mould had been caused by condensation and the living arrangements in the property, which had initially been offered and accepted for one person, it would not accept liability for the damage caused and would not accept a claim through its insurance.
6. It offered £300 compensation in recognition of the delays to the installation of extractor fans and the PIV system, the inconvenience suffered in consideration of the household vulnerabilities, and the resident’s time and trouble in following this up.
On 31 March 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss its stage one response. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome of her complaint. The stage two process was explained to her, and options for rehousing were also discussed with her.
On 4 April 2022, the resident telephoned the contact centre to report that her son had respiratory problems and that the mould in the property was making this worse. She wanted an update as to what would be happening going forward to address her housing problem.
On 7 April 2022, the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss the compensation payment. The resident declined the offer of compensation and requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two. The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 April and 26 April 2022 and requested an update on her complaint. On 28 April 2022, the landlord advised that her stage two complaint was currently being investigated by its complaints team and someone would contact her directly.
On 3 May 2022, the contractor reported to the landlord that the resident had refused to have the PIV system installed and had put the installation of extractor fans on hold. The contractor also noted that there was a crack across the ceiling in the kitchen, and they were unsure whether it contained any asbestos material that could be disturbed during any drilling work to install the kitchen fans. The contractor recorded that the crack was not significant, so there was a low risk of asbestos material becoming airborne.
On 4 May 2022, an acknowledgment email was sent to the resident by the landlord which confirmed that her complaint had been escalated to stage two and that it aimed to provide a formal response within 20 working days.
On 12 May 2022, the landlord submitted a works request to have the kitchen ceiling Artex removed due to its asbestos content. The works were to renew the ceiling and decorate it to allow the PIV system to be installed. Due to resource constraints and multiple contractors involvement, works were delayed for four weeks.
On 13 May 2022, the asbestos contractors made contact with the resident, who advised that she was on holiday and would make contact to arrange an appointment when she returned. An appointment that was scheduled for 23 May 2022 to fit the extractor fans did not go ahead at the resident’s request.
On 18 May 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident again to advise that it continued to investigate her complaint and would respond as soon as the required information had been provided.
In June 2022, the resident approached this Service as she had not received a response to her stage two complaint request.
On 30 June 2022, this Service contacted the landlord and advised that it was outside of the timescale of 20 days to respond to a stage two complaint. The landlord was invited to acknowledge the resident’s complaint within five calendar days and to respond to her complaint by 29 July 2022. The landlord responded that day to advise that it was aware of the resident’s stage two complaint request, but due to a cyber-security incident, it had been experiencing problems with its IT system and had been unable to progress the request. It also advised that an update would be provided in due course.
On 8 July 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response to the resident, which included the following:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing a response to her complaint and said that it had been experiencing issues with its IT systems.
2. It provided a copy of the damp and asbestos reports for the property.
3. It confirmed that a works order has been issued for the installation of extractor fans and that the resident had agreed for the appointment to be arranged upon her return from holiday. The landlord requested that she contact it on her return, and it would arrange the appointment.
4. Regarding the resident’s request to be moved to another property, the landlord noted that the relevant department had contacted her to advise her on the options available to her, which included mutual exchange and re-registering with the local authority due to over-occupation.
5. The landlord also advised that it would not compensate the resident for damage to her possessions, as this would normally go through the resident’s home contents insurers. In some circumstances, a claim could be made through the landlord’s insurers, and details were given to the resident about how to pursue a claim with the proviso that her claim may not be successful.
6. It offered £400 compensation for the time taken to resolve the complaint, the resident’s time and trouble in chasing this issue, the inconvenience to the resident’s household, and in recognition of their vulnerabilities. A further £50 was offered because the complaint response was provided outside of the response times in the landlord’s policy.
On 8 August 2022, the resident sent an email to the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction with its stage two complaint response. She was unhappy with the delays in responding to her complaint and said that she did not want works to install the fans to go ahead due to the asbestos content in the kitchen ceiling. The resident then referred her complaint to this Service.
On 29 September 2022, the landlord’s internal communication advised that further works be undertaken to the property. It is unclear from the records provided what these additional works were. In October 2022, it made enquiries with contractors for potential dates.
On 13 October 2022, the landlord issued a further formal response. It stated in the letter that the purpose of the review was to determine whether the response it provided at the second stage of the complaints procedure was accurate, reasonable and in line with policies and procedures, and if there was anything else it could do. The review concluded that the landlord’s actions had been appropriate and no further steps would be taken; however, an additional award of £100 compensation was made because the complaint response was not provided within its complaint policy timescales.
Between July 2022 and October 2022, the landlord’s contractors made several unsuccessful attempts to arrange access for the works to be completed with the resident. On 24 October 2022, a temporary decant was offered to the resident for four weeks while works were undertaken; however, it was declined by the resident as she did not wish to move into a hotel. On 26 October 2022, the landlord’s internal correspondence records that it was agreed that the resident would be permanently decanted and that the resident had been informed of this.
On 24 November 2022, the resident accepted a permanent decant and she moved into the property on 10 December 2022.
The landlord has advised that it wrote to the resident on 12 October 2022 to offer an additional amount of £1,600 in compensation. This service has not been provided with a copy of this letter therefore it is unclear what this compensation had been awarded for and how it had been calculated.
On 16 December 2022, the landlord offered further compensation of £2,500 to cover the damage to her belongings and possessions and the additional inconvenience she had detailed after accepting her new property. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 January 2023 confirming the above and advising that the total amount of compensation offered to the resident was £4,450.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

It is regrettable that the landlord did not take prompt action to address the mould and damp, given that the resident had reported that her baby had respiratory difficulties which, even if it is not established that this had been caused by the damp conditions in the property, would no doubt have been aggravated by them. Further, it is not evident that the resident was offered a temporary move at this early stage and this is addressed later in this report.
Despite these delays, the landlord did make arrangements to investigate the damp and mould issue and when a mould wash was not successful, further inspections were undertaken in order to identify the cause of the problem. In doing so, it acted in accordance with its policy, which specifies that when an issue is not straightforward, further investigations will be necessary. While the initial loft inspection in February 2022 was cancelled by the contractor, this was then rescheduled without delay.
The damp survey concluded that the damp and mould was caused by condensation and made recommendations for a PIV system to be installed and for extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen to be renewed. While the fans in the bathroom and kitchen were not in disrepair, the report stated that replacement fans would be more effective in reducing the moisture levels in the property. A landlord has a legal responsibility to undertake repairs, however the installation of new fans and a PIV system would constitute an improvement rather than a repair. Regardless of this, the landlord did not delay in exercising its discretion to approve the works recommended in the report. This was a reasonable course of action and demonstrates that the landlord had taken measures to improve ventilation and reduce potential hazards in line with the HHSRS. The works were delayed due to the contractor not having availability to complete the works until May 2022.
While it is evident that the resident did not agree that the damp and mould was caused by condensation, the landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of an independent expert in this field and to follow their recommendations about how to address the issue.
The works were then put on hold again when a contractor identified a potential risk with the works due to a crack in the kitchen ceiling that could contain asbestos. In doing so, the landlord acted in accordance with both its policy and its legal obligations, given the need to identify the risk and take the necessary action to mitigate it. Works were raised a week later to have the kitchen ceiling taken down and removed due to the asbestos risk, prior to other works commencing. The landlord later arranged for the resident to be permanently decanted to another property.
The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that there were delays in the works being undertaken and has offered the resident £450 in recognition of these delays. This Service considers that action could have been taken by the landlord at an earlier stage and there were other options the landlord could have considered at this stage such as a decant, in view of the deteriorating health of the occupiers, including a young baby, when they became aware that works would be delayed. However, the landlord’s offer of redress is within this Service’s remedies guidance and consequently, in the Ombudsman’s view, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s response to the presence of asbestos in the property

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advises that asbestos is not dangerous for occupants if the building material is in good condition. If existing asbestos-containing materials (ACM) are in good condition and are not likely to be damaged, they may be left in place, with their condition monitored and managed to ensure they are not disturbed.
The presence of asbestos itself does not constitute disrepair. However, if it is damaged or has deteriorated and there is a risk of asbestos dust, then the landlord should act to prevent disrepair from arising.
Once the crack in the ceiling was made known to the landlord, it acted in accordance with its policy by pausing works in order to undertake further risk assessments. This Service has not been provided with an explanation as to why this had not been picked up by the landlord in earlier inspections; however, it was reasonable that the landlord raised a job to remove the ceiling once this was raised. The landlord had provided this Service with a copy of an asbestos report dated 2009 in respect of the property, which identified that the kitchen and lounge ceiling contained asbestos and which identified the level of risk of fibres being released if disturbed. The report concluded that this was ‘very low risk’ during normal occupant activity. However, as the crack was now evident, despite the contractor identifying that there was a ‘low risk’ of asbestos becoming airborne, the landlord took prompt and appropriate action to raise works to remove the ceiling.
In addressing the asbestos, the landlord acted in accordance with its legal obligations and policy. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided to this Service that the landlord offered the resident any reassurance about the presence of asbestos in the property and the low risk that it presented to the health of her household in an undisturbed state. The resident had been provided with a copy of the asbestos survey with the stage two complaint response but no additional information was included with the response. This is unfortunate as the resident was understandably worried about asbestos in the property, in addition to the damp and mould, and a reasonable explanation of the risk may have gone some way to alleviating some of her concerns.
The works were subsequently delayed as they could not proceed while the resident and her family remained in occupation, and there were some delays in identifying a suitable decant for the household. Overall, this Service has not identified a service failure by the landlord with regards to this aspect of the complaint as it took prompt action to raise works for the kitchen ceiling to be removed. However, a recommendation has been made regarding how the risk regarding the presence of asbestos in a property is communicated to residents in affected properties.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved to another property.

According to the information provided by the parties, the resident first requested a move to another property in March 2022. This was raised as a complaint by the resident in her stage two escalation request. This Service has not been provided with evidence that the landlord considered or offered the resident a temporary decant in March 2022 when it was notified that the contractors works would be delayed until the end of May 2022. This was a missed opportunity, particularly given the health conditions of the occupants including a very young baby, as the family were then left in a damp property for an additional two months.
The landlord contacted the resident in May 2022 to discuss housing options; however, the resident advised that the two options proposed, an application to the local authority’s housing register and a mutual exchange, were both rejected by the resident as being unlikely to resolve her situation. She considered that she would not have been awarded priority on the local authority’s scheme for being overcrowded due to her son’s age, and that a mutual exchange would be unlikely to be taken up given the condition of the property. The landlord confirmed that these options had been discussed with the resident in its stage two response letter in July 2022. While the landlord did comply with its policy in presenting housing options to the resident, as neither of the proposed options presented the resident with any realistic prospect of being rehoused in the near future then the landlord’s approach was not helpful. The resident could have been provided with advice about transferring to another of the landlord’s properties. In addition, a request could have been made for a senior manager to consider whether it would be appropriate to approve a discretionary move at an earlier stage given the household’s vulnerabilities.
It is unclear from the records provided what had been discussed with the resident following the asbestos issue being flagged in May 2022 and the subsequent decision to remove the ceiling. The contractor continued to make contact with the resident to arrange the works between July and October 2022. The records provided to this Service do not show that a temporary decant was offered to the resident between May and October 2022, which if this is indeed the case would have been another missed opportunity. A temporary decant to a hotel was arranged with the resident in October 2022 in anticipation of works commencing in November 2022 but this was refused by the resident as she did not wish to move into temporary hotel accommodation while the works were undertaken. It was within the landlord’s policy to offer hotel accommodation for works that were not likely to take in excess of four weeks, so this proposal was reasonable in the circumstances. It appears from the resident’s correspondence that a permanent decant was being discussed with her in August 2022.
When the resident declined the temporary hotel decant in October 2022, the landlord advised her that it would consider legal action against her to compel her to move so that works to remove the ceiling and to install the fans and PIV system could be completed. While the landlord has a responsibility to undertake repairs once they are raised, and one of the options available to the landlord would be to take enforcement action through legal proceedings, this proposed course of action seemed disproportionate and heavy-handed given that the resident was already in discussion with the landlord about a permanent decant. A permanent decant was agreed to by the landlord some days later.
While it is unfortunate that the resident was given conflicting information about a move at this time, with the threat of legal action no doubt causing her distress, the landlord subsequently took the reasonable and sensible decision to arrange a permanent decant to another property. This was a good use of its discretion given that it had no legal obligation to offer a permanent decant. In doing so, it acted in accordance with its ‘damp, mould and condensation’ policy which provides that the landlord will work with the resident to identify other housing solutions in cases where overcrowding may be contributing to damp conditions in a property. It also paid £1600 in compensation, an amount of which was in respect of the permanent decant. Therefore while service failures have been identified, the decision to move the resident permanently and the offer of compensation, in the Ombudsman’s view, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The resident states that she first made a complaint on 8 February 2022, but the landlord did not respond to this request. A copy of this complaint has not been provided to this Service however the resident makes reference to this in contact with the landlord around the time of her complaint in March 2022.
The resident’s complaint was dated 3 March 2022. The landlord responded on 31 March 2022, which was 10 days outside of its complaint timescales and this delay would not have caused significant detriment to the resident. The resident asked to escalate her request on 7 April 2022; however, the landlord’s stage two response was issued on 8 June 2022, which was 46 days outside of its complaint timescales. The landlord has advised that the delay was due to a cyber-attack that affected its computer systems. While this may account for some of the delay, the cyber incident occurred in June 2022, and the landlord’s response should have been sent to the resident by the 5 May 2022. Taking the cyber incident into account, this was still an unreasonable delay.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage two response on 8 August 2022, and the landlord issued a revised response entitled “Final Response to your Peer Review Amendment Request” on 13 October 2022, upholding its stage two decision but offering an additional £100 for the delay in its complaint response.
The landlord advised that it sent a letter to the resident dated 12 October 2022, offering an additional £1,600 for delays in responding to her and a payment for her permanent decant. It is unclear from the information provided to this Service how this amount had been calculated.
The resident had requested compensation for damage to her belongings. She was informed at stage one of the landlord’s complaint procedure that she would not be eligible for compensation for damage to her belongings and that this matter would not be dealt with by its insurers as this would not be covered given her circumstances. At stage two, she was informed that she could approach the landlord’s insurers to make a claim and she was signposted to its insurance team. On 16 December 2022, the landlord made an additional offer of a compensation payment of £2,500 because of the damage to her belongings and possessions and the inconvenience that the resident had detailed after accepting her new property. The landlord wrote again to the resident on 3 January 2023 advising that the total amount of compensation awarded in respect of this complaint totalled £4,450. Conflicting and contradictory information had been provided to the resident throughout the complaints process regarding compensation and the landlord’s complaint response was unnecessarily delayed which would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. A complaints procedure should be clear, transparent and applied consistently so that residents can be confident that that their complaints will be dealt with fairly.
While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and increased the offer of compensation, it is not clear why the landlord did not offer this amount when considering the complaint within its own complaint procedure, but appears to have been prompted to reconsider its position following the complaint being referred to the Ombudsman. This was a missed opportunity to potentially resolve the complaint at an earlier point, and it is of concern that the landlord did not use its complaints procedure to address these matters. The amount in compensation awarded by the landlord is beyond what this Service would normally order for the service failings identified and the landlord has not provided an adequate explanation of why the compensation award was changed, twice, so significantly. This leads this Service to conclude that, had the complaint not been referred to this Service, the revised offer of compensation may not have been awarded. Further, it is not evident that the landlord has sought to learn from its service failings by making changes to its service delivery, nor has it explained how it would avoid its complaints process repeating these failings in the future. For these reasons, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the presence of asbestos in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its:
1. response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property;
2. response to the resident’s request to be moved to another property;

Reasons

The landlord failed to take prompt action to address the damp and mould in the resident’s property, particularly given the vulnerabilities of the occupants, however inspections were undertaken and the recommendations for works following a specialist damp survey were approved. The landlord had offered compensation which, in the Ombudsman’s view, was reasonable and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. The landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with its policy in arranging for the resident’s ceiling to be removed when it was determined that the asbestos in the ceiling could be disturbed during any works to install fans in the kitchen.
The landlord could have discussed a move with the resident at an earlier stage, and the information provided to the resident about rehousing was at times unhelpful and contradictory, however the landlord exercised its discretion to arrange a permanent decant and offered the resident compensation which she had accepted.
The landlord departed from its procedure in its complaints handling, there were delays with its complaint responses and it provided the resident with conflicting information about whether she could be compensated for damage to her belongings. While the landlord has made an increased offer of compensation in December 2022, no explanation has been provided for the increase. Further, it has failed to identify lessons learned to avoid repeated service failures of this nature.

Order

The landlord is ordered to provide confirmation to this Service, within four weeks of the date of this report, that the amount of £4,450 in compensation has been paid to the resident.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews how information is communicated to residents about the level of risk presented by asbestos in their property in order to manage any concerns residents may have.