The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Home Group Limited (202006473)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006473

Home Group Limited

7 September 2021


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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. reports about maintenance issues at her property, including:
      1. mould;
      2. electrical safety;
    2. concerns about the investigation and removal of asbestos at her property.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

  1. Following the landlord’s stage two response under its internal complaints procedure, the resident reported a number of repair issues to the landlord including mould at her property and concerns about the safety of the electrical installations. It is evident that the landlord has been in contact with the resident about these issues, however, it is not evident that the resident has raised a formal complaint in relation to the landlord’s response to her reports, nor that the landlord has provided any formal complaint responses under its internal complaints procedure in relation to this element of the complaint.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the maintenance issues at her property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. If the resident makes a formal complaint, progresses it through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and is dissatisfied with the outcome, she may then be able to refer the complaint to this service.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 20 January 2012. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The landlord uses a contractor to arrange for repair works, who in turn use specialist subcontractors to carry out boiler maintenance and asbestos investigations. For the purpose of this investigation, the maintenance contractors and subcontractors will be referred to as the ‘landlord’ unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish them.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy does not give specific timeframes for responses but notes it will respond in a timely manner. The policy also notes the landlord may award discretionary compensation as a goodwill gesture.
  4. The landlord operates a health and safety policy which notes it will assess its work activities to identify and evaluate any risks and implement appropriate controls to manage these risks.

Summary of events

  1. It is evident that in or around the beginning of August 2020, the landlord advised the resident of its intention to replace all the boilers in the building in which her property was located. The landlord has provided this service with copies of its internal correspondence from throughout the period of the complaint, which note that the resident called the landlord on or around 4 August 2020 expressing concerns about the proposed works and requested a call back. The landlord has also provided us with its call log notes which show it attempted to call the resident back on 4 August 2020 but did not get through.
  2. The resident sent a query on 5 August 2020 as to why her property was required to be surveyed for asbestos, when the landlord could just rely on the surveys of the other properties as she considered them to be based on the same plans. Based on the landlord’s records, she also called again requesting further information on 6 August 2020. It is not evident that the landlord attempted to return this call or answered her earlier query.
  3. On or around 12 August 2020, the landlord sent a letter to all residents in the building advising of its intention to carry out the boiler replacements and that an asbestos survey would initially be carried out.
  4. Based on the asbestos survey report provided to this service, the survey took place on 28 August 2020. In its later responses detailed below, the landlord noted that its subcontractor verbally explained to the resident what works would be carried out prior to commencing the survey. It is not disputed that the survey was initially intended to carry out an inspection of the fireplace soffit, however, this required the presence of a gas subcontractor, who did not attend the property on this day. Subsequently, this part of the survey was not undertaken.
  5. Based on the boiler installation work report, the boiler installation, along with the asbestos removal works, took place on 14 September 2020. Again, from the landlord’s later formal responses detailed below, the landlord advised that its subcontractor had assessed the plans for the fireplace soffits used in the building and noted they were all metal. It subsequently carried out an onsite test prior to its removal and confirmed this to be the case. It is not disputed that the landlord also removed plaster from the kitchen ceiling on the basis that it contained asbestos, and also removed the now redundant water tank from the loft space.
  6. On or around 24 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord requesting it call her regarding her concerns about the works, in particular that she considered there to have been asbestos dust left on her carpet. On 26 September 2020, the resident detailed her complaint, noting she considered there to have been poor communication from the landlord regarding the works, that the staff members of the landlord were not taking ownership of the issues, and that the landlord had broken health and safety rules. On 27 September 2020, she advised she wished for her complaint to be considered a formal complaint under the landlord’s internal complaint procedure.
  7. The landlord’s internal communications show it contacted its contractor to investigate the resident’s concerns on 28 September 2020. The contractor subsequently advised that the debris on the resident’s carpet was likely the fibreglass insulation from the tank removal, not asbestos. They also advised that all asbestos had been safely removed from the kitchen ceiling in accordance with the correct practices and procedures and provided the relevant removal certification.
  8. On 1 October 2020, the landlord provided the resident with a copy of the asbestos removal certificate and confirmed it considered the works to have been carried out correctly. It further advised it was happy to discuss this further with the resident. The landlord provided its stage one response on 14 October 2020. It reiterated it considered that the works were carried out correctly and advised that the fireplace soffit did not contain any asbestos. The response also attached information about the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, but the response did not specifically mention it was a stage one response, nor did it specifically advise how the resident could escalate her complaint.
  9. On 27 October 2020, the resident reiterated her complaint and noted concerns that there was fibreglass on the carpet of her property following the tank removal. She also provided photographic evidence depicting the same. On the same date, the landlord advised it had escalated her complaint to stage two and that it would provide a response by 24 November 2020.
  10. On 16 November 2020, the landlord sent the resident a detailed reply about her complaint. Regarding its communication, it advised it had initially attempted to return her call on 4 August 2020 but had been unable to get through. It noted that she had made a further query on 6 August 2020 and advised that this had been incorrectly assigned within its organisation leading to no one replying. It subsequently apologised for this error. It noted, however, that its contractors had given her a detailed explanation of the works that would be carried out prior to commencing with both the asbestos survey and the boiler works. Regarding her concerns about the debris on her carpet, it advised these were likely to have been small pieces of roof insulation, and that it was happy to arrange an inspection in order to comment further. Regarding the works, it reiterated that it considered they had been completed in accordance with correct procedure, and that while it had been unable to inspect the fireplace soffit initially, this had been inspected on the day prior to removal.
  11. The landlord provided its stage two response on 24 November 2020. It provided a copy of its comments from its communication on 16 November 2020 (as noted above) and also offered £75 discretionary compensation for its failure to respond to the resident’s query from 6 August 2020. On 26 November 2020, the resident advised she did not accept the landlord’s offer of compensation. She also advised that while she did want the landlord to inspect her property, she was currently isolating in accordance with COVID-19 restrictions as a vulnerable person. The landlord replied on 30 November 2020 and advised if she remained dissatisfied with its response, she could refer her complaint to this service. It also advised it was happy to carry out a further inspection of her property when she felt comfortable.
  12. In or around April 2021, the resident referred her concerns to her local authority, which concluded she should contact the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Having then done so, on 4 May 2021, HSE advised the resident it would not be investigating her concerns.
  13. The resident has advised this service that, since her complaint, the landlord has carried out a further asbestos survey of the property on or around 16 July 2021. It is not evident if the results of this survey have been provided to the resident.

Assessment and findings

  1. Landlords have a legal duty to manage asbestos in the common areas of their residential properties (under regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012). This requires landlords to identify any asbestos containing materials, to assess the risk, and to make a plan to manage that risk. There is, however, no ‘duty to manage’ or to maintain an asbestos register for domestic properties, and no legal obligation to inform residents of where the asbestos is in their homes. As per guidance by the HSE, a landlord is not obliged to remove asbestos from a domestic property if it is in a sound condition and can be left undisturbed. However, if it is damaged or deteriorates and there is the risk of asbestos dust, then the landlord is under a duty to repair or if necessary, remove the damaged asbestos. 
  2. The landlord has provided a copy of the asbestos management survey for the property carried out on 28 August 2020. This confirms that asbestos was found in the textured coating of the kitchen ceiling. The risk was assessed as low, and it was recommended that the textured coatings be removed on the same day as the boiler installation. The resident has noted to this service that the report also identified asbestos in the roof void. The report notes that the asbestos is within the “bitumen cistern to the side of the water tank.” While the report recommended the material should be removed, it did not specify that this should be at the same time as the boiler works and it described the material as ‘low risk’. The report also noted this assessment was based on the contractor’s assumption as the item could not be reached safely.
  3. The resident has expressed her concern to this service that the area containing asbestos in the roof void was disturbed during the removal of the water tank, and that the subsequent dust on her carpet may have contained asbestos. Given that this has not been tested, however, this cannot be confirmed, nor has this service been provided with any evidence to suggest the area containing the asbestos in the roof space, as described in the report, was disturbed.
  4. Following the resident’s complaint to the landlord surrounding this issue, the landlord appropriately investigated the issue by contacting its contractor who confirmed the work was carried out correctly in accordance with its policies and procedures and that the material described by the resident was likely loft insulation. Given that the contractor was licensed to carry out this work, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on their reports and assessment, which it informed the resident of in its responses. Additionally, while it was not obliged to provide the resident with its reports, it was appropriate that the landlord did so given her ongoing concerns. Further, it was also appropriate that the landlord offered to inspect the resident’s property further, which it reiterated following her advice she was self-isolating.
  5. Given that the report did not advise the landlord to remove the roof void asbestos during the works, it was reasonable that it relied upon the expert report’s recommendations and did not remove it at this time. It would have been helpful for the resident, however, given her ongoing concerns, had it addressed this part of the report and given advice about its intentions, which it did not do.
  6. Regarding the fireplace soffit, the landlord’s explanation that it had relied upon the plans for the fireplace to determine it was metal, followed up by an inspection on the day of the boiler works to confirm this, prior to commencing removal, was reasonable in the circumstances. Given, however, that the landlord had initially indicated its intention to test this area during the survey, which it was subsequently unable to do, it would have been helpful for the resident had it communicated to her earlier that it was planning to test it on the day. The resident was subsequently left unclear as to the safety of the works by the landlord’s failure to give her this advice.
  7. While the landlord made reasonable attempts to follow up the resident’s query on 4 August 2020, it is evident that the landlord failed to reasonably follow up her query from 6 August 2020 due to a complaints handling error. It was appropriate, therefore, that in its stage two response, it explained this error and apologised. It was also appropriate that it made an offer of compensation. Aside from the abovementioned issues with communication, the landlord’s communication was reasonable in that it sent all residents information about the boiler replacement and asbestos survey and explained face to face to the resident what the works involved prior to commencement on the day.
  8. The landlord’s failure to advise to the resident its intentions regarding the asbestos in the loft insulation, its failure to give timely advice about its plan to test the fireplace soffit, and its failure to respond to her query on 6 August 2020 amount to service failure and it is appropriate that an amount of compensation be offered. Given that the landlord was in continuous communication with the resident throughout this period, and that it provided a clear explanation regarding its actions with the fireplace once the resident raised her concerns, the detriment to the resident for these communication failures was low, and so in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount of compensation offered by the landlord amounts to reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about maintenance issues at her property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(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 response to the resident’s concerns about the investigation and removal of asbestos at her property.

Reasons

  1. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its expert’s report regarding what asbestos needed to be removed during the boiler repair works, and its expert’s advice that this removal took place in accordance with correct policy and procedures. It was also appropriate that it provided the resident with copies of the certification for the asbestos removal and that it repeatedly offered to visit the property to carry out a further inspection.
  2. Given that it failed to respond to the resident’s query on 6 August 2020, and that it also failed to communicate to the resident its plan to assess the fireplace soffit on the day of works, having previously advised it would do so on 28 August 2020, along with its failure to address the removal of the roof void asbestos as recommended by the report, it was appropriate that it apologised and offered compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following (if it has not already done so):
    1. the outcomes of its further asbestos surveys and details of any further actions it intends to take, specifically in relation to the asbestos in the roof void noted in the report dated 28 August 2020;
    2. reiterate its offer of £75 compensation.