Dover District Council (202306500)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306500

Dover District Council

30 August 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about threats of eviction.
2. The landlord’s response and handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about property condition.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs.
5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and its handling of associated repairs.
6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about asbestos.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. For the purposes of this report, this property will be referred to as property A.
The tenancy began in April 2022. Prior to this, the resident held 5-year flexible fixed term tenancies at 2 previous properties. During the complaint process, the resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of various matters associated with these properties. For clarity, these properties will be referred to as property B and property C. The tenancy at property B began in October 2017 and ended in April 2022. The tenancy at property C began in October 2014 and ended in October 2017.
It is understood that property B and C were managed by an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO) on behalf of the landlord until October 2020, when the ALMO stopped operating. Following this, the properties were maintained and managed by the landlord.
The landlord has stated that it considers the resident to be vulnerable, although the resident has not provided it with a formal diagnosis. The resident told the Ombudsman that he has mental and physical health conditions.
It is understood that the resident raised a stage 1 complaint in January 2021, while living at property B about a transfer application, repairs, property condition, fire safety, pest control, and ASB. It is noted that the resident sought advice from the Ombudsman around this time in respect of that complaint. The landlord issued its final stage 2 response to this complaint in May 2021. The landlord’s view is that the resident’s complaint was resolved when he accepted an offer of alternative accommodation at property A. It is noted that the Ombudsman closed the case in May 2021, as the resident did not escalate the matter further.
The resident raised a new complaint on 27 June 2023, with assistance from the Ombudsman. The resident’s complaint concerned the landlord’s handling of ASB and property conditions at properties A, B, and C. The resident was also dissatisfied about outstanding repairs at property A and threats of eviction by the landlord. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 17 July 2023. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaints.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response on 24 July 2023, with his observations. The resident raised various new issues, asked supplementary questions, and made multiple statements in relation to his complaint. The resident asked the landlord to review the stage 1 decision and escalate the complaint to stage 2.
The landlord issued the final complaint response on 18 September 2023. In summary, the landlord:
1. Commented on the resident’s concerns about the local authority’s decision to offer him the tenancy at property C.
2. Said it was satisfied that the resident’s reports about ASB at property C had been handled correctly, which had resulted in the resident accepting a management move to property B.
3. Said it was satisfied that it had responded to issues raised by the resident about ASB at property B, which had resulted in the resident accepting a management move to property A.
4. Said it had no record of the resident reporting any ASB at property A.
5. Stated that it had reviewed photographic evidence of property A prior to the resident moving in. The property was of a decent standard when it was let. It said the current state and condition of the property had not been caused by the landlord nor its contractors. Its repairs team was satisfied that there were no major structural issues with the property or rising damp. It did not agree that there was any mould or damp in the property at the time it was let.
6. Commented on the resident’s concerns about the living conditions of other resident’s living at other properties. It also commented on the resident’s concerns about incidents of ASB happening to other residents.
7. Responded to the resident’s concerns about its repair’s contractor. It said that it would be happy to consider using alternative contractors where possible, although this may increase the length of time taken to carry out repairs. It suggested that in future, all repairs should be reported through the landlord rather than directly to its repair’s contractor.
8. Said it would arrange to inspect the exterior and internal communal parts of the building, given the resident’s concerns about disrepair. It committed to completing any identified repairs thereafter.
9. Said it had no record of any reports of leaks causing damage to the resident’s personal belongings, in the outside asbestos storage cupboard. It committed to inspecting the cupboard.
10. Reminded the resident that it had already agreed to carry out works in the kitchen and the bathroom. The resident should arrange access with his housing officer, so an inspection could be arranged.
11. Suggested that it could not offer another management move, but the resident might wish to consider looking for a mutual exchange once repairs had been completed.
12. Confirmed that it had made an urgent referral to adult social care, as it wanted to ensure that the resident had all the support he needed.
The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation on 27 September 2023, because he believed the landlord had not been truthful. He said he had had enough of continued ASB from neighbours. He felt the landlord had not fulfilled its repairing obligations but was blaming him for the condition of the property. The resident said the landlord should move him to a property that had no issues and pay him compensation.
The landlord told the Ombudsman on 29 April 2024, that it had made the resident a direct offer of alternative accommodation in February 2024, which the resident had declined. The landlord said it “will continue to work with the resident, tailoring our approach to meet his needs, and will continue to do so until a suitable property is found”.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme).
The resident raised multiple complaint points, which were addressed by the landlord during the landlord’s internal complaint process. However, some of the issues raised by the resident crossed the boundaries of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Some matters raised by the resident were historical in nature and related to previous addresses occupied by the resident. However, paragraph 42.c of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising. While slightly beyond 12 months, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to consider the landlord’s actions from the beginning of the tenancy at property A, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between April 2022 and September 2023. For issues that occurred before then and where appropriate, the Ombudsman will consider the general reasonableness of the landlord’s most recent complaint responses.
Some matters related to the living conditions and experiences of other resident’s occupying other addresses, not directly related to the resident. However, paragraph 42.n of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, do not cause significant adverse effect to the resident. Therefore, this investigation will not consider any matter which related to the living conditions of any other resident, where this did not have a direct impact on the resident. Nor will it consider any matter which related to the landlord’s handling of ASB experienced by any other resident, where there was no direct impact upon the resident.
The resident was particularly concerned about contractual and performance related matters, in relation to the landlord’s main repair’s contractor. However, paragraph 42.g of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the terms and operation of commercial or contractual relationships not connected with the complainant’s application for, or occupation of, a property for residential purposes. Therefore, this investigation will not consider the resident’s specific concerns about contractual or performance related matters.
In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident referenced some events that happened while he was living in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation, provided by the local authority under its duties as a Local Housing Authority. In his complaint to the landlord, the resident suggested that the local authority’s offer of accommodation to property C was ill considered. However, these matters also fall outside of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and will not be investigated. This is in accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England, which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

The tenancy agreement set out the contractual obligations of the landlord and the resident. Of particular note, the landlord agreed:
1. To carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale, giving priority to urgent repairs.
2. To maintain the structure of the property and keep all installations for the supply of water, gas, and electricity, sanitation, and for space and water heating, in repair and in proper working order.
3. To take reasonable steps to keep shared areas in a reasonable state of repair.
The resident agreed:
1. Not to harass, intimidate, abuse or cause a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to neighbours, employees, agents or contractors of the landlord, or any other person living in, visiting or engaging in a lawful activity in the locality of the resident’s property.
2. Not to remove or damage the fabric of the building or any fixture or fittings from either the property or the communal areas.
3. To maintain the internal decoration of the property to a reasonable standard.
The landlord had an ASB policy which set out its approach to responding to and tackling ASB. The policy stated that in some cases, ASB will be resolved using early warnings and interventions, such as written warnings. It will be clear with complainants if another agency would be better placed to investigate an issue. The landlord expects complainants to co-operate with reasonable requests to assist the landlord in progressing reports of ASB, for example by keeping records of incidents. The landlord may not be able to take further action to resolve ASB without reasonable cooperation from a complainant.
The landlord introduced a new damp and mould process in January 2023. Under this process, the landlord was required to carry out an inspection at the earliest opportunity following a report of damp and mould.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about threats of eviction

The landlord issued the resident with a tenancy warning on 14 March 2023, following reports that he had used intimidating and abusive language towards staff, and had uploaded “misleading / edited” video recordings to social media.
The landlord issued another tenancy warning to the resident on 28 June 2023, after receiving evidence of noise nuisance coming from the resident’s property.
The landlord issued a further tenancy warning in the stage 1 response, following concern that the resident may have caused damage to the property.
Written tenancy warnings are an informal way for a landlord to remind a resident of expected behaviours and to set out possible consequences where behaviours do not improve. Importantly, written tenancy warnings give a resident the opportunity to modify their behaviour at an early stage or challenge the facts that led the warning to being issued. The landlord was acting in accordance with its ASB policy when it issued the tenancy warnings to the resident.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident may have felt a sense of injustice after receiving tenancy warnings from the landlord. However, prior to the landlord’s complaint process being exhausted, there is no evidence to support the resident’s account that the landlord threatened to evict him.
The landlord appropriately set out its reasons for issuing the tenancy warnings in the stage 1 response and clarified that it had not threatened to evict the resident.
The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about threats of eviction.

The landlord’s response and handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB).

During the complaint process, the resident expressed dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of ASB at properties A, B, and C. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
1. Set out its understanding of the resident’s concerns about ASB while he was living at property C. The landlord said it was satisfied that the ALMO had dealt with the resident’s reports about ASB correctly, which resulted in the resident moving to property B, by way of a management move.
2. Noted that the resident made several complaints about neighbours after he moved to property B. This including drug dealing, tampering with post, child neglect, rubbish dumping, and the throwing of dirty water. It said it had written to the resident explaining the action that it had taken in response and the action that the resident needed to take. But the resident was reluctant to complete any diary sheets or provide evidence, which restricted the landlord’s ability to address the resident’s reports.
3. Stated that it had received no reports about ASB from the resident after he moved to property A.
4. Did not uphold the resident’s complaint, as the resident’s historical reports about ASB had been dealt with and the resident had raised no reports about ASB while living at property A. The landlord reminded the resident how to raise new reports about ASB should he experience further problems.
The landlord’s records in relation to property C was limited. This was to be expected given that the property was managed by the ALMO at the time of the resident’s occupation, and the length of time that had since passed. However, from the evidence seen, the landlord’s assessment of the ALMO’s handling of the resident’s reports about ASB at property C was fair. Of particular note, the Ombudsman was able to verify that the resident was moved under a management move, after witnessing a fight and giving evidence to the police. The main focus for the management move presented by the ALMO, was on improving the resident’s living situation given his vulnerabilities.
The landlord records in relation to property B was limited prior to October 2020. Again, this is to be expected given that the property was managed by the ALMO prior to this and given the time that had since passed. However, the Ombudsman was able to verify the landlord’s account of the steps it had taken from October 2020 onwards. From the evidence seen, the landlord’s assessment of its handling of the resident’s reports about ASB at property B was in line with its ASB policy.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident reported any issues about ASB after he moved to property A and prior to him raising the stage 1 complaint. This is consistent with the landlord’s own findings.
It is noted that the resident did send an email to the landlord following issue of the stage 1 response, giving some examples of the sort of ASB he was experiencing. However, since this was new information, this would have fallen outside the scope of the landlord’s investigation.
The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response and handling of the resident’s reports about ASB.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about property condition

During the complaint process, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the property condition at property A, B, and C. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about this.
The landlord said it had reviewed the repairs records passed to it by the ALMO in respect of property C. The only repair reported was a blocked toilet in 2017. But according to records provided to the Ombudsman for this investigation, there were 19 works orders raised in respect of property C over the lifetime of the tenancy. While this is a concern, the Ombudsman has been unable to verify that there were any significant issues with the condition of the property, based on the available evidence.
The landlord said it had already addressed the resident’s dissatisfaction with the condition of property B in May 2021, at stage 2 of its internal complaint process. Since it had heard nothing from the resident following this and he did not escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman, it had assumed the resident was satisfied with the way the matters had been dealt with. Since the landlord explained in the stage 2 response how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s position was fair.
The landlord provided the resident with comprehensive stage 1 and stage 2 responses in regard to the resident’s concerns about the condition of property A, which was encouraging. Ultimately, the landlord did not uphold the complaint because it was satisfied that “it had responded to the resident’s requests for repairs at property”.
Photographs and reports seen by the Ombudsman of property A prior to and during the resident’s occupation, indicate there was a decline in property condition over time, which was troubling. To explore the reason for this, the Ombudsman has narrowed the focus of the investigation to consider the circumstances which led to the deterioration in the condition in the wet room / bathroom.
When the property was void, the landlord noted that the bathroom met the required standards for letting. However, soon after the resident moved in, he reported various issues with the property, including concerns about the bathroom tiles, which he said were not properly fixed. In response, the landlord appropriately arranged to inspect the wet room. Photographs taken at this inspection show some of the safety flooring in the wet room had lifted. There was a small area of tiles missing near the shower. It is unclear what follow-on works were arranged, although it is noted that the landlord may have carried out some painting works in the bathroom on 25 May 2022.
The landlord inspected the property in September 2022, after the resident requested another inspection. During the inspection, the landlord agreed to renew the bathroom flooring, renew the toilet, renew 1 course of tiles, scrape the ceiling above the shower, fill holes around the radiator, and service the shower. This suggests that conditions in the wet room had changed since the last inspection. It is understood from the stage 1 response, that the shower was replaced in October 2022, but the remaining works were not completed. This is because the resident told the landlord that he did not want its usual contractor to carry out the work. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord ought to have contacted the resident to understand his reasons and agreed how the work could be progressed. There is no evidence that this happened, which left the repairs unresolved.
The landlord inspected the property again on 15 December 2022, following another request from the resident. The landlord identified that the bathroom ceiling needed to stripped back and redecorated. It noted there was a leak from the pipes to the new shower, but it is unclear how severe the leak was. It agreed to fit a bathroom fan and fill a hole above the bathroom window (external wall). A works order was arranged the same day, to complete these works. This was appropriate. But the job was cancelled again by the resident on 5 January 2023, because he did not want the landlord’s usual contractor to complete the work. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this might have been avoided, had the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about its contractor at an earlier stage.
It was positive that the landlord attended the property on 11 January 2023, to discuss how the works could be completed. The landlord showed that it was treating the resident’s concerns with the attention they deserved, by agreeing to arrange for a new contractor to quote for the works.
After securing a new contractor, the landlord and its contractor attended the property 6 weeks later, to go through the works required with the resident. While it would have been better for this to have been progressed in a timelier manner, it is accepted that it would have taken time for the landlord to source a new contractor and agree a mutually convenient date for the inspection.
It was unhelpful that the resident uploaded videos of the landlord and its contractor carrying out the inspection to social media. This was not appreciated by the landlord’s new contractor, which prompted the landlord to write to the resident in March 2023, setting some boundaries prior to the works starting. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s letter did not expressly require the resident to respond. However, there appeared to be an expectation that the resident should give an undertaking not to film its contractor while it was carrying out works. If this continued to be a barrier, the landlord ought to have progressed this sooner than 24 July 2023.
The landlord attended the property on 2 August 2023, to discuss the issue of filming and to reinspect the property. Although the resident verbally agreed not to film the landlord’s new contractors, the landlord’s surveyor said they would not give consent for the contractor to start the job until they had a written undertaking from the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, if this was a requirement, the landlord ought to have obtained this written undertaking when it attended on 2 August 2023. It was unreasonable to delay the works again and risk further deterioration in the conditions of the wet room.
Photographs taken of the wet room on 2 August 2023, show that the resident had removed more wall tiles and had pulled up parts of the flooring. It is understood that this was carried out without the landlord’s consent. It is possible that this may have happened in March 2023, as the landlord found broken tiles outside the property around this time, which were of similar appearance. The resident’s actions were unhelpful and were likely to have contributed to the deteriorating conditions within the wet room.
When the landlord later endeavoured to secure the written undertaking from the resident, the resident refused to turn off his closed-circuit television cameras. This led to its contractor refusing to carry on with the job, adding more delay.
Following the stage 2 response, the landlord showed that it was still committed to completing the repairs. It arranged for another contractor to quote for the works. However, works were later placed on hold, after agreeing that it was in the best interests of the resident if it was to assist the resident with a transfer to alternative permanent accommodation. It is unclear to the Ombudsman if any interim works were carried out to prevent further deterioration in the condition of the wet room.
It is accepted that this was a challenging case for the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s view, the resident’s own actions were a contributory factor in the overall deterioration of the property. The evidence shows that the landlord did respond to the resident’s requests for repairs at property as it suggested. However, it is evident that it did not always take timely and decisive action to ensure the property was brought back into an acceptable condition, when the resident presented barriers.
On balance, the Ombudsman does not find failing in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of property B and C. However, the Ombudsman does find failing in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of property A. This is because the landlord did not take into consideration, how failures in its handling of repairs may have contributed to the overall deterioration in the conditions within the property. This led to the landlord providing inadequate redress.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about property condition. As a remedy, the landlord is ordered to apologise for the disappointment caused to the resident by the landlord’s decision in this matter, given the Ombudsman’s findings.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs.

During the complaint process, the resident expressed dissatisfaction about multiple outstanding repairs in respect of property A. This investigation focuses on those repairs that were brought to the landlord’s attention and were referenced in the stage 2 final response. The Ombudsman will assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s responses to each repair issue, which will be considered under separate sub-headings. The resident’s complaint about damp and mould will be assessed under a separate complaint point.

Painting and decorating in the bedroom

The landlord provided the resident with photographs of the property while it was empty before it was let, as evidence that the decorations were decent at the start of the tenancy. The landlord referenced the resident’s contractual responsibilities in relation to decorating. The landlord said that the resident was free to decorate the bedroom to his own taste.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response was reasonable and was in line with the tenancy agreement.

Disrepair of the kitchen cupboards, flooring, and wall tiles

The landlord’s stage 1 response, indicated that the landlord had intended to overhaul the kitchen units, renew the sink or taps, and renew the kitchen flooring, after the resident moved in. However, the resident had told the landlord that he intended to replace the kitchen himself. The stage 2 response stated that the landlord had since agreed to complete works to the kitchen, after the resident decided not to replace the kitchen himself. The landlord encouraged the resident to engage with his housing officer, so these works could be progressed. It confirmed that these works would not be carried out by its usual contractor.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response was reasonable. It set out the situation that had led to repairs being agreed by the landlord. It explained the steps that needed to be taken to progress the works. By agreeing to appoint a different contractor, the landlord showed that it was committed to bringing the condition of the kitchen up to an acceptable standard of repair.

Exterior of the building and internal communal areas

The resident raised multiple issues with the exterior of the building and internal communal areas. The landlord said that it had arranged an inspection in view of the resident’s reports. Thereafter it would complete any identified repairs. The landlord said it had already raised works orders to repair the front and rear communal doors. When it carried out the inspection, it would check if further works were required.
It was encouraging that the landlord arranged a further inspection of the exterior of the building and internal communal areas, and committed to completing any identified repairs. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord responded appropriately.

Overall

The landlord finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and its handling of associated repairs

The resident first contacted the landlord on 26 April 2022, about damp and mould in the property and rising damp on the outside walls of the building. The landlord attended promptly on 6 May 2022, which was encouraging. During the inspection, the landlord identified various issues but no comments were made about damp and mould. It is reasonable to assume that no issues with damp and mould were identified.
It is noted that the landlord inspected the property again on 13 December 2022, at the resident’s request. While various works were identified, the landlord did not find any evidence of damp or mould.
Following a new report about damp and mould in the bedroom on 9 January 2023, the landlord promptly carried out a damp and mould inspection on 11 January 2023. Again, the landlord identified no damp or mould in the bathroom or the kitchen. It was not able to fully inspect the bedroom due to a large number of cardboard boxes stacked against the wall. The landlord checked that the resident’s radiators and windows were in full working order. The landlord asked the resident to arrange to remove the boxes to facilitate a full inspection.
The landlord arranged to inspect the property with an “independent contractor” on 22 February 2023, in an attempt to progress outstanding repairs to the property. The landlord has confirmed that during this inspection no damp or mould was identified. However, it was still unable to complete a full inspection because the resident had not removed the boxes from the bedroom wall. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify the landlord’s account from the evidence seen.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord said that it had found no evidence of damp and mould in the kitchen or the bathroom. In the stage 2 final response, the landlord told the resident that its repairs team was of the opinion that there were no major structural issues with the property or rising damp. The Ombudsman is concerned that the landlord may have based its complaint responses on old inspections.
While it is accepted that the landlord had attended several times and never identified any issue with damp or mould. Given the time that had passed, an in accordance with its damp and mould procedure, the landlord ought to have arranged a timely damp and mould inspection after the resident raised the stage 1 complaint. Better still, in view of the resident’s insistence that there was “black toxic mould” throughout the property and his evident worry about damp and mould, the landlord might have considered appointing a damp and mould specialist to assess the property. This may have offered the resident some reassurance. There is no evidence that the landlord inspected the property or took any damp meter readings prior to the stage 2 response being issued, which is troubling.
On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and its handling of associated repairs. This is because the landlord did not satisfy itself that there were no new issues with damp and mould in the property after it received the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman has been unable to determine the impact of the landlord’s failing on the resident, based on the available evidence.
As a remedy, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation. If the resident has not already been moved, the landlord should carry out a damp and mould inspection.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about asbestos

In the stage 1 complaint, the resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his reports about asbestos in property A. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about this, because the resident had not previously raised any specific reports about asbestos at the property. However, the landlord showed that it was willing to investigate the matter further, if the resident could clarify his concerns. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances.
When the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2, he explained that the “asbestos storage cupboard outside” had a serious leak, which was damaging his belongings.
It is understood that the resident had use of an external storage cupboard next to the front door of the property. An asbestos survey carried out in February 2022, indicated that this cupboard had an asbestos ceiling. While no asbestos removal was necessary, the landlord was required to manage the asbestos while in situ. Asbestos was also identified in the floor tiles within the property itself, which the landlord removed prior to the resident accepting the tenancy.
However, there was another external store which was remote from the building. It is noted that asbestos testing carried out on the remote store in July 2022, did not identify any asbestos containing materials. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it believed the resident was referring to the remote external store in his complaint. It is troubling that the landlord was unable to confirm this with certainty.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord said it had no record of the resident reporting any leaks in relation to the “outside asbestos storage cupboard”, or of any damage being caused to the resident’s belongings. However, it committed to carrying out an inspection of the cupboard, which was an appropriate response.
The landlord has clarified that it did not inspect the external store during subsequent inspections, because the issue of alternative accommodation became the main point of concern for the resident. It commented that the resident did not raise any concerns about the external cupboard with its surveyors during those inspections and it not been given the opportunity to inspect the resident’s belongings.
The Ombudsman recognises that it would have been helpful for the resident to have reminded the landlord to inspect the external store when it was carrying out the inspection of property. But ultimately, it was the landlord’s responsibility to clarify which cupboard the resident was referring to and to follow through on its commitment to inspect it. This would have enabled the landlord to identify if there were any defects, to satisfy itself that there were no issues with asbestos, and to have acted accordingly upon its findings. The Ombudsman suggests that the landlord could have asked the resident to allow it to inspect his belongings, if it felt this was necessary. While it has not been possible for the Ombudsman to verify the resident’s losses, it is reasonable to assume the resident was not keeping items of high value in an external storage cupboard.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of the substantive matter fell short following issue of the stage 2 response, which left the substantive matter of complaint unresolved. The landlord has identified itself that it needed to improve its processes for tracking and monitoring agreed actions through to completion. While this is encouraging, the landlord has not confirmed what steps it will now take, if any, to provide a resolution and redress for the resident.
On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about asbestos. It is likely that landlord’s failings caused the resident inconvenience and resulted in a loss of confidence.
As a remedy, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation, which has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The level of compensation ordered recognises that the landlord acknowledged its failings but failed to fully put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It is understood that the landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. The landlord aimed to issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in operation at the time of the complaint, stated that “a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. A complaints policy must clearly set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered…for example, the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over 6 months ago and matters which have previously been considered under the complaints policy”.
While the landlord provided the Ombudsman with a weblink to its complaint policy, this could not be accessed at the time of the investigation from the landlord’s website. Therefore, the Ombudsman has been unable to verify whether any complaint exclusions might have applied in this case.
However, in the Ombudsman’s view, it was unhelpful that the landlord did not exclude the resident’s complaints relating to property B and C. This is because, as the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Furthermore, in this case, the landlord had already considered a similar complaint from the resident in 2021, which had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process.
It was also unhelpful that the landlord did not open a new complaint, to address any new issues raised by the resident after issue of the stage 1 response, which is accepted practice under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Choosing to incorporate new matters into the stage 2 investigation was likely to have made the landlord’s investigation less manageable and made it less able to deliver the stage 2 response within expected timescales.
The Ombudsman makes a final observation about the landlord’s decision to include a tenancy warning in the stage 1 response. It is understood that the landlord had new evidence which indicated that the resident may have caused damage to the property. However, in the Ombudsman’s view, the complaint process was not the appropriate mechanism to issue such a warning. This is because the complaint process should be a means of encouraging resolution, rather than apportioning blame.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, despite the Ombudsman’s observations, there was likely to be minimal detriment caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s approach to complaint handling.
The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. However, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord consider the comments made in this case concerning its complaint handling. The landlord should apply any learnings within its handling of future complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about property condition.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and its handling of associated repairs.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about asbestos.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns aboutthreats of eviction.
2. The landlord’s response and handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord must pay £50 compensation directly to the resident, in recognition of the loss of confidence and inconvenience caused to the resident, by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about asbestos. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
If the resident has not already transferred to a new property, and the landlord has not already done so, the landlord must arrange to inspect the property to assess the current property condition and establish if there is any damp and mould. The landlord must act accordingly depending upon its findings and keep the property under regular review until such time as the resident is transferred. The landlord should consider if there are any interim measures that the landlord ought to take in the meantime.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider the comments made by the Ombudsman in this case concerning its complaint handling. The landlord should apply any learnings within its handling of future complaints.