London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202012566)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012566

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

31 March 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:
1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord in relation to the toilet repairs.
2. The landlord’s handling of multiple repairs (including windows, front and rear doors, subsidence concerns and external cracks in the property).
3. The landlord’s communication and handling of asbestos concerns.
4. The landlord’s communication about the kitchen and bathroom upgrade scheme.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a three bedroom house which is managed by the landlord. The tenancy began on16 June 2003.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord’s 2021 complaints policy sets out its two stage complaints process. Where a stage one complaints would be responded to within 10 working days. A stage two complaint would be responded to within 20 working days. The complaints policy explains if the landlord can’t meet this timeframe, it would explain why and write again within a further 10 working days.

Repair

The tenancy agreement defines the following as emergency and urgent repairs:
1. Toilet not flushing (where there is no other working toilet in the house).
2. Insecure external window, door or lock.
The tenancy agreement explains the approach the landlord should adopt if a qualifying repair is not conducted within a specified period by the landlord; 24 hours for an emergency and 5 working days for an urgent repair.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it is responsible for:
1. The structure and exterior of the property including walls, roofs, windows, external doors, etc.
2. Insecure external doors, front, rear and patio door primary lock.
3. Insecure windows, frames and sills. It says it is not responsible for blown double glazing windows unless they cannot be seen through.
4. Repairs to internal and external walls where cracks are greater than 5mm or severely crumbled.
5. Any damaged asbestos containing materials including repairs that are the tenants’ responsibilities.

Asbestos

The landlord’s website tells residents to contact it if they think material containing asbestos has been damaged or if they are concerned about the condition of asbestos in the property.
The landlord’s asbestos policy acknowledges that asbestos is dangerous, however it says if in good condition and well managed it can be left in-situ safely. It adds that exposure to asbestos fibres arising from disturbances can cause serious long-term harm and as such it says effective management arrangements are in place to prevent asbestos disturbance.
The asbestos policy confirms the landlord’s commitment to the management of asbestos and says:
1. All identified asbestos containing material will be either managed, remediated to reduce the risk or removed as appropriate.
2. Provide training on asbestos as required.
3. Continually monitor the condition of known asbestos containing material.
The landlord’s asbestos process and procedures policy sets out what it should do to manage asbestos. It details workflows that should be followed which include:
1. Checking its internal system for any previous asbestos checks.
2. Arranging for an asbestos consultant to attend the property, whilst providing details of the surveyor for the area on this request.
3. A copy of the survey is reviewed by the asbestos team who will recommend actions upon completion and upload to its internal system within 14 days.
The Health and Safety Executive confirms that asbestos can be found in any building built before 2000. It confirms that if asbestos materials are in good condition, and in a place where they are unlikely to be disturbed, then they should not cause any harm. It is only when the materials are damaged or disturbed, that asbestos can become a concern.

Covid-19

The landlord’s direct maintenance policy, updated in March 2020, explains its approach to repairs during coronavirus (Covid-19). It says:
1. Emergency repairs – the resident should be advised that the landlord will call them back with an appointment time scheduled for the next 24 hours.
2. For routine repairs the resident should be advised of the landlord only operating a critical repairs service and a date for booking an appointment cannot be given at that time.
3. New surveyor inspections should only be raised if they fall under the critical repairs categories.
On 28 March 2020 the Government issued guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the Covid-19 pandemic. The guidance recommended that:
1. access to a property was only proposed for serious and urgent repairs,
2. landlords ‘must follow sensible precautions to keep yourself safe when you or contractors or others are visiting the property’ by following public health and social distancing guidance.
3. wherever possible landlords “avoid all direct contact between residents and visitors to the property’.
On 18 May 2020 the Housing Minister sent a letter to all social housing residents saying that “As we start to ease lockdown measures, landlords should be able to carry out routine as well as essential repairs for most households. There will be a backlog of repairs that they will need to address, so it may take longer than normal to carry out more non-essential work…”
On 1 June 2020 the Government issued updated guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the Covid-19 pandemic. The guidance said that landlords “can now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken in line with public health advice” and that “where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs, as well as any planned internal works.”

Summary of events

A contractor attended the property on 6 January 2020 to assess smoke alarms at the property. The contractor made a request for an asbestos test for the kitchen ceiling prior to completing works. An asbestos report was conducted on 17 February 2020.
The asbestos survey from 17 February 2020 confirms that low levels of chrysotile (asbestos) were found in some ceilings. The asbestos survey recommends the “material to be managed as asbestos and inspected.”
The landlord’s file note shows that on 2 March 2020 its contractor told it that an asbestos report was sent to it on 18 February 2020.
On the 3 March 2020, the landlord told the resident that it had “reviewed the asbestos test results and they are clear of asbestos”. As such it requested works to be carried out at the property.
On 16 May 2020 the landlord’s contractor attended an emergency appointment for a broken toilet handle and blocked toilet. The contractor unblocked the toilet but caused the toilet to leak. It told the resident that an emergency repair would be raised and picked up on 18 May 2020.
On 18 May 2020 the resident was told the toilet repair had not been raised and that the landlord would contact the resident about it. The resident chased the repair on 22 May 2020 and was told again that it had not been raised. A follow-on order was raised on 4 June 2020.
On 9 June 2020 following another contractor’s visit to the property to fit smoke alarms, the resident raised further concerns about asbestos in the ceilings. The landlord’s internal note said although it “had not disclosed anything” a surveyor had told the resident the property had asbestos. The note shows the landlord was reasonably aware that asbestos was detected in the ceilings at the time. Later the same day, the landlord told the resident that asbestos had been found at the property. Its note said it had two reports for the same areas giving different results.
The resident emailed the landlord her initial complaint on 10 June 2020.
1. She complained about the landlord’s handling of the toilet repair. Including its contractor causing a leak, being told an emergency repair would be raised and picked up on 18 May 2020. But a repair was not raised on 18 May 2020 and she had to chase the landlord and complain about this.
2. The resident said an asbestos survey was conducted on 17 February 2020. The landlord said it did not have the results of the survey despite its laboratory confirming it had. The resident said she was told there was no asbestos but later told it was found in the ceiling. The resident expressed her unhappiness about the conflicting information provided by the landlord.
3. The resident said there were ongoing issues that the landlord needed to deal with which included subsidence and cracks around the property. She said she was previously told all windows should be replaced as the handles were broken and that three windows had dropped and wouldn’t shut. She also said the back door had dropped. She told the landlord that the repairs had been raised but had not been dealt with.
4. The resident explained the kitchen and bathroom were falling apart.
5. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with how the landlord had let her down. She raised concerns about the landlord neglecting the property and prioritising new buildings.
On 11 June 2020, the landlord responded to the complaint. It said:
1. The toilet issue had been investigated and an appointment was booked for 18 June 2020.
2. The window matter had been placed on hold, but it would contact the planning department and request for it to be prioritised.
3. A full property inspection was needed. However, explained it was operating an emergency/critical repair service due to Covid 19 and as such it could not provide a date for this.
4. It had made a request to attend the property and said this would take place when it returned to normal service.
On 8 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to tell it her main concern was the asbestos and the windows. The resident asked for dates when the property inspection could take place as Covid-19 restrictions had eased. She told the landlord that its contractor attended the property and had no issues with social distancing.
On 15 July 2020 the landlord told the resident it was still operating an emergency and critical repairs service and as such it was unable to give a date for an inspection. It also said that:
1. The window repairs had been passed to another team who would contact the resident directly.
2. The asbestos survey detected a low level of chrysotile (a type of asbestos) in the ceiling and said no further action was required. It added that its laboratory made no recommendation for removal as chrysotile was commonly used in artex prior to 1999 and did not present any risk or harm unless there was significant damage to the ceiling.
3. It said it would address the concerns further during the inspection.
On 5 August 2020 the resident asked for a copy of the asbestos report and said she had requested it previously and was told it had been lost. Due to no response, the resident chased this again on 12 August 2020.
The landlord’s internal notes show that on 10 September 2020 it booked window repairs for 24 September 2020. On 17 September 2020 the resident requested a cancellation of the appointment due to returning to work. The landlord’s file note said it would request another appointment.
On 3 November 2020 the resident chased the landlord concerning the rearranged appointment. On 10 November 2020 the landlord said its contractor would contact the resident to rebook. It also said that it was still operating an emergency repair service and that the property inspection would be conducted once it returned to normal service.
The resident responded on 11 November 2020 to explain why she had to cancel the previous appointment. She said she was told the landlord would contact her to rebook the appointment in September 2020 but this had not happened. The resident also said that:
1. She was confused by the landlord’s approach of allowing its contractor to attend the property but saying it would not conduct an inspection due to Covid-19.
2. The cracks in the property were getting worse, the windows were “appalling”, the front door locks did not work properly, no smoke alarm were fitted in the kitchen, the kitchen units were falling apart, the taps had no colour to distinguish hot and cold water and that there was no further information on asbestos in the property.
On 23 November 2020 the resident submitted a further complaint. She said:
1. There were ongoing issues at her property which included windows, kitchen, toilet, cracks, asbestos, smoke alarms.
2. She was told someone would contact her about windows in September 2020 but had heard nothing.
3. She had emailed but had no reply from the landlord.
4. The front door was not locking properly.
5. The landlord’s surveyor would not visit the property due to Covid-19, but the landlord’s contractor would.
On 30 November 2020 the landlord emailed its surveyor to ask it to arrange an inspection. It also told the resident that the surveyor would be in touch.
On 16 December 2020 the resident requested an update on the property inspection. She said the windows had been inspected on 15 December 2020. The landlord sent an email chaser to the surveyor on 16 December 2020 and the surveyor visited the property on 23 December 2020.
On 5 January 2021 the resident told the landlord that its surveyor had visited and its insurer had been in contact to arrange a visit to see the cracks. She said that whilst she had been told the repairs were given the ‘go ahead’, the surveyor had placed the repairs on hold until the insurer had completed its inspection. The resident also said:
1. She was having issues with the windows, bathroom, rear and front door and lack of smoke alarm. She repeated previous concerns about the kitchen, bathroom and toilet issues. She said the quick fix of the toilet was not resolving the issue.
2. The issues had been ongoing for almost a year.
3. A tenancy officer had not visited the property in the 14 years she had lived there.
On 14 January 2021 the landlord informed the resident about work that had been approved following its visit to the property. It said that:
1. It had placed the work on hold until it had received the report from the insurer.
2. It was operating an emergency/critical work programme due to Covid-19.
On 17 February 2021 the landlord’s insurer confirmed the damage at the property was not due to subsidence and said it was due to a combination of historic and thermal movement which was not uncommon for the type and age of the property. It said the landlord should:
1. Repair internal cracks to walls and ceilings, which should be raked out and filled.
2. Test for asbestos containing materials on artex ceilings throughout the property prior to the above work.
3. The areas that require more immediate repairs are the external cracks to the front and rear of the property which should be re-pointed so they were weatherproof.
4. Carry out various works needed to the windows and attached its engineers report.
On 18 February 2021 the landlord’s surveyor said the works could go ahead as the insurer had confirmed there was no subsidence. The surveyor said a dip in the living room needed to be seen to. It told the landlord to raise an asbestos test to survey all floors and ceilings. The landlord confirmed “there was already a survey to all ceilings from last year which came back as low level chrysotile, [the surveyor] advised these ceilings will need removing where there are cracks that need seeing to.”
On 18 February 2021, the landlord instructed its contractor to arrange the repair works with the resident. It also provided the resident with an update. Later that day, the resident refused access to measure for a replacement window as she wanted all windows replaced. On 19 February 2021, the resident told the landlord this and explained that she had understood all windows would be replaced.
An asbestos report from 10 March 2021 found chrysotile in some of the flooring. The report recommended the material be managed as asbestos and inspected.
On 10 March 2021 the landlord confirmed the agreed work as:
1. Work to the windows in the kitchen, three bedrooms and bathroom. As well as a UPVC living room window replacement.
2. The front door works as service, adjust, set and replace gasket.
3. The rear door works included drill and replace cylinder, adjust set and replace the gasket.
4. It explained that whilst some work was agreed for the bathroom window it was not judged to need replacing. The landlord recommended the resident allow access to avoid further delay with repairs.
On 15 March 2021 the resident told the landlord that she felt completely let down by it. She said the inspector/surveyor were telling her something different to the reports and said that:
1. The windows were over 15 years old and all the seals had gone. She said the windows did not open or close properly and the landlord had already replaced the glass numerous times.
2. The resident requested sight of the reports and said she was awaiting the asbestos report completed in March 2021.
3. She had received no communication about a new window scheme.
4. The property had not been referred for any home improvements or upgrades during the 14 years she lived there.
5. She felt she was not being listened to and the landlord was focusing on more prosperous areas than properties it had in under privileged areas.
6. She wanted the landlord to explain how she could escalate the issues.
On 22 March 2021 the landlord emailed its repairs department and said “resident has now escalated her complaint so it would be best if we can put the works on hold.” The repairs team asked to be kept updated. The landlord then told the resident that her complaint had been escalated to stage two of its complaint process.
Following this, the resident continued to report further repairs which included worsening conditions of the windows. The resident made a further request for a copy of the asbestos report from March 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 June 2021 to apologise for not having resolved her complaint. It said it was adopting a new approach to complaint handling which met the need of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. It said it would be in touch once the complaint had been allocated.
On 15 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord expressing further dissatisfaction at its lack of response to her complaint and told it she was still waiting for repairs to be completed.
On 20 August 2021 the landlord said it would respond to the resident’s complaint by 17 September 2021. During this time, the resident continued to remind the landlord of outstanding repairs.
On 17 September 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response:
1. In relation to the toilet repair issue:
  1. It acknowledged a broken toilet handle and blocked toilet was reported on 16 May 2020 and its contractor attended but caused a leak. It accepted the resident called it on 18 May 2020 about the repair and that this was not resolved until 18 June 2020.
  2. It said feedback had been provided to its staff. It acknowledged that it should have followed up on the concerns rather than requesting the resident call back. It apologised for its poor service and said comments had been noted which would be discussed with senior management to improve its service going forward.
2. Window repairs:
  1. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had raised issues with the windows in November 2019 and December 2019, when three glass units were replaced. It said further reports of faulty windows were raised on 3 March 2020 but due to Covid-19 day-to-day repairs were placed on hold. It said it was operating an emergency repair service only and as such the window repairs were placed on hold.
  2. On 7 September 2020 the landlord assigned the window repair to its Covid-19 recovery project team. An appointment was arranged for 24 September 2020, but was cancelled by the resident. It apologised for not contacting the resident to rearrange an appointment. It said it would provide feedback of this failure to its maintenance team. It said its contractor attended on 15 December 2020 and quoted for the work. On 19 February 2021, the contractor tried to confirm an appointment to take the size of the windows. This appointment was refused as the resident wanted all windows to be replaced.
  3. The landlord told the resident the repairs were considered best practice in resolving the draft and gap issues around the windows and doors. It reassured the resident of the contractor’s knowledge and skills and encouraged her to allow the authorised repairs to take place. It said that if issues continued after the repairs had been completed, it could consider these further.
3. Front entrance and rear door:
  1. The landlord said that in 2017 two repair orders were raised as the front door had dropped and the resident was unable to secure and lock the door. It said a further order was raised in August 2019. However, as the landlord was unable to gain access the work order was closed.
  2. Another door order was raised in November 2020. It said its contractors had quoted repair for the rear and front doors in the work order with the windows.
4. Subsidence and crack concerns:
  1. The landlord said the complaint about cracks was not reported to it previously. However, it said the cracks were inspected on 23 December 2020 and that whilst this was looked into its building surveyor recommended the window work be placed on hold. On 17 February 2021 the landlord’s insurer confirmed the cracks were not a result of subsidence and on 18 February 2021 the ‘go ahead’ was given for the window works.
5. Asbestos:
  1. The landlord said its contractor requested an asbestos test to the kitchen ceiling. It said the resident was told on 15 July 2020 that chrysotile was detected in the ceiling coverings. It said it was deemed that no further action was required as no recommendations for removal were made. It said the type of asbestos found did not present any risk or harm unless significant damage has occurred to the ceiling.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments about previously being told that no asbestos was present. It said its investigation found no evidence of such communication.
  3. The landlord explained the confusion with sending the report to the resident and confirmed a report was sent on 13 August 2020.
6. Kitchen and bathroom:
  1. The landlord said repairs to the kitchen and bathroom had not previously been reported.
  2. The landlord explained that a yearly survey was conducted on homes to collate information about their type, age, condition and structure.
  3. It told the resident dates for upgrades for the resident property, being 2030/31 for the kitchen and 2035/36 for the bathroom. It said if repairs were required in the interim the resident could contact it.
1. The landlord said that due to the reports of worsening conditions of the windows and other developments, another inspection would be required. It said it would arrange a new building survey which would include all the points raised in the resident’s complaint.
2. It acknowledged times where its communication could have been better and its delay in completing actions. It apologised for its poor service. It apologised that the resident felt the landlord neglected properties in disadvantaged areas and said this was not the case. It explained how its budget was spread and how it takes all customer feedback seriously.
3. It apologised for the delay in responding to the stage two complaint and offered £100 compensation in recognition of this.
4. It also apologised for the poor service in relation to the toilet repair and lack of communication during this time and offered an additional compensation amount of £80. It said the total amount of £180 would be deducted from the resident’s arrears.
On 17 September 2021, the landlord sent an internal email highlighting outstanding repairs which included:
1. An appointment for external pointing/rendering to be carried out as originally agreed.
2. Internal cracks to be repaired once the external works were completed.
3. Heat alarm to be installed/wired in the kitchen.
4. Asbestos was determined in the kitchen but removal was not recommended. It said it was to liaise with its surveyor about this.
5. Inspection of the bathroom and kitchen and any required repairs to be raised accordingly.
6. The window works had been approved but another inspection might be due.
7. Repairs to the dip in the living room floor. Asbestos was determined so required removing prior to any extensive works. It might need an inspection.
8. New appointment arranged for the step on the staircase.
On 20 September 2021 the landlord requested a new inspection of the property.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that the following repairs were completed:
1. External cracks to the front and rear of the property on 19 October 2021.
2. Stairs repaired on 11 November 2021.
3. A surveyor attended on 26 October 2021.
The repairs log also shows that a visit was scheduled for 3 December 2021 to drill fixing points to the ceilings.
On 7 December 2021 the resident told this Service that she was still experiencing difficulties and poor communication about the outstanding repairs. The resident did not specify which repairs were outstanding at that time. In February 2023, the resident told this Service that the landlord had not repaired the windows, the front and rear doors. However, she said the landlord fitted a new kitchen and bathroom in October 2022.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint this Service considers whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord in relation to a toilet repair

The landlord’s handling of the toilet repair was not in line with its policy. The tenancy agreement allocates a 24 hour timeframe for an emergency repair. The landlord was made reasonably aware of the leak to the toilet on 18 May 2020 however it did not attend to it until 18 June 2020. This was 22 working days in total, which was 21 days over its emergency repair timeframe.
It is acknowledged that the resident would have been caused some frustration in the landlord’s handling of the toilet repair and in having to chase it.
However, in its stage two response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the length of time taken to repair the toilet and the delay it caused in reporting the repair. It apologised to the resident, said it would discuss its findings with senior management to help improve its service going forward. In recognition of its failings it offered £80 compensation to the resident.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident would have been caused some frustration by the landlord’s delay in repairing the toilet especially as she had to chase it, there is no evidence to show the delay had a significant impact on the resident. As such, the landlord’s response to the above complaint was proportionate to the impact that its actions had on the resident and the landlord has offered redress to the resident which resolves the complaint satisfactory.

The landlord’s handling of multiple repairs

The above complaint relates to multiple repairs. For ease subheadings (i-ii) have been used to conclude on specific repair points and an overall conclusion on the landlord’s handling of repairs has then been made.

i) Handling of window, front and rear door repairs

The evidence shows the resident raised concerns about faulty windows in June 2020 the resident told the landlord that windows handles had broken and that three windows had dropped and would not shut. The resident also told the landlord that the back door had dropped and made it aware of her concerns about subsidence at the property. In response to these concerns the landlord said a full property inspection would be needed. However, due to Covid-19 and operating an emergency only service it said it was unable to provide the resident with a date for the inspection. It was appropriate for the landlord to have requested a property inspection in light of the concerns raised by the resident at that time.
The evidence shows the resident chased the landlord for a date for the inspection and that initially one was scheduled for 24 September 2020, which was later cancelled. Following this it took the landlord a further three months, to 23 December 2020, to inspect the property. The three month timeframe for a further appointment was not appropriate.
In January 2021 the resident told the landlord of worsening conditions at the property. She told it of issues with the back door and a ground floor window not opening. In its response the landlord explained that whilst work had been agreed these were placed on hold to allow its insurer to inspect the property due to the cracks and subsidence concerns. It was appropriate for the landlord to have adopted this approach, to assess whether there were underlying issues causing damage to the property.
Once the landlord’s insurer confirmed the damage to the property was not due to subsidence the landlord attempted to continue the agreed works. This was appropriate. However, the resident felt the landlord’s agreed works should have included more and as such refused the works. It is noted that in attempts to progress matters, the landlord appropriately emailed the resident on 10 March 2021 and confirmed the package of work that had been agreed. This included works to windows in the kitchen, three bedrooms and living room. It also included works to the front and rear door. It explained its view that the bathroom window did not need replacing and recommended the resident allow access to avoid further delay with repairs.
On 15 March 2021 the resident told the landlord that she felt completely let down by it and said that its contractor had told her something different to the reports. The landlord treated this email as a complaint and on 22 March 2021 its complaints team emailed its contractor and said “resident has now escalated her complaint so it would be best if we can put the works on hold.”
It is acknowledged that at times when there is a dispute it may be appropriate to pause such work and decide the best approach. However, here the landlord’s decision to pause the repair work whilst a complaint was ongoing was not appropriate especially as it did not show insight into how it would resolve matters and it did not inform the resident of its planned approach.
In its complaint response on 17 September 2021 the landlord said due to the reports of worsening conditions of the property another inspection was needed. Whilst this was an appropriate approach, it should not have taken the landlord six months to recommend this.
The landlord caused delay in initially inspecting the property between September and December 2020. The resident had to repeatedly chase it, telling it of the worsening condition of the property at that time. The landlord caused further delay in its decision to pause the package of repair work to the windows and doors whilst it addressed the resident’s complaint.

ii) Subsidence concerns and external cracks to the property

On 10 June 2020 the resident told the landlord of subsidence concerns and that cracks were appearing around the property. As mentioned previously an initial appointment scheduled for 24 September 2020 was cancelled and the landlord did not attend until 23 December 2020, which was an unreasonable delay.
On 17 February 2021 the landlord’s insurer told it that immediate work was required to the external cracks to the front and rear of the property which should be re-pointed so they were weatherproof.
The recommended “immediate” work was completed on 19 October 2021. It is acknowledged that an asbestos survey was needed prior to filling the cracks on the walls and ceilings. However, following the asbestos report in March 2021 it took the landlord seven months to complete work that its insurer deemed “immediate”. This timeframe was not appropriate in the circumstances and it further demonstrates the landlord’s delay in completing work until it had responded to the resident’s complaint. This was an unreasonable approach to adopt.
In summary the landlord’s repeated failures in its handling of multiple repairs was poor and amounts to maladministration.
The landlord delayed in arranging inspections and repairs. It decided to pause a package of work whilst it addressed the resident’s complaint and did not tell the resident of its decision to do this. This meant the resident repeatedly chased it for updates on repairs whilst reporting worsening conditions. The landlord took seven months to compete works its insurer had recommended. This timeframe was not appropriate. The landlord missed opportunities to progress the repairs sooner.
The evidence does show the landlord did some repair work whilst the complaint was ongoing. However, this Service has not seen evidence to show the work it completed since its inspection of 26 October 2021 and it is noted that the resident has said the landlord has not repaired the windows, the front or rear door.
The resident has said that the landlord’s approach has left her feeling that she has not been listened to. When considering the repeated concerns raised about the same issues, the landlord’s lack of effective communication, its decision to pause a package of work and its overall reactive approach – it is understandable that the resident would have been left feeling that she had not been listened to.

The landlord’s response to reports of asbestos

The landlord appropriately requested an asbestos survey following its contractor’s request in early 2020. The evidence shows the asbestos survey was completed on 17 February 2020 and that its contractor confirmed a copy of the survey was sent to the landlord on 18 February 2020. The asbestos survey found low level of chrysotile (asbestos) in the ceilings and the recommended action was for the “material to be managed as asbestos and inspected.”
There is no evidence to show the landlord inspected the asbestos at that time as per the recommendation of the asbestos survey. There is also no evidence to show the landlord managed the asbestos as per its asbestos policy or that it followed its asbestos process and procedures policy. This was not appropriate.
On 3 March 2020 the landlord’s internal note said the “asbestos test clear, new job raised to carry out remaining works”. An email was sent to the resident where the landlord said it had “reviewed the asbestos test results and they are clear of asbestos”. The evidence shows this was incorrect. The landlord’s actions here demonstrate its failure to review the asbestos survey. This was not appropriate.

It is noted that the resident approached the landlord again on 9 June 2020 to ask whether the property had asbestos following a visit by a contractor to fit smoke alarms. Later the same day, the landlord told the resident that asbestos had been found at the property. Its internal note said it had two reports for the same areas giving different results. It took the landlord 77 working days to review the asbestos survey, this was 67 working days more than the 14 day timeframe set in its asbestos process and procedures policy. This was not appropriate.
Within her complaint from 10 June 2020, the resident raised further concerns about how she had received conflicting information about asbestos. This was understandably a worrying time for the resident. It is important to note that this Service had not been provided with copies of conflicting asbestos surveys. Instead, it has seen the asbestos survey which confirms the presence of low level chrysotile in February 2020.
In the landlord’s stage two response it said it had not found evidence to show it told the resident the property was clear of asbestos. The landlord said this despite the evidence to the contrary which it would or should have had access to. This was not appropriate.
In its stage two response, the landlord told the resident that the type of asbestos found did not present “any risk of harm” unless significantly damaged and that it had not received a recommendation for removal. It is important to note, that this Service has not been provided with evidence to show the landlord had inspected or assessed whether there was any damage to the ceilings at that time. This is supported by its decision, set out in its stage two response, to address the asbestos issue once the property had been inspected. Whilst it is recognised that the asbestos survey found the asbestos of low risk, the landlord should have inspected it as per the recommendation made in the asbestos survey and its failure to do so was not appropriate.
The evidence shows that it was not until 18 February 2021 that the landlord told its surveyor “there was already a survey to all ceilings from last year which came back as low level chrysotile.” Here the surveyor told it that the impacted ceilings would need removing where there were cracks. There is no evidence to show the landlord assessed the recommended action until February 2021; a year after it had the asbestos survey. This was not in line with its policy and was not appropriate.
Additionally, there is also no evidence to show the landlord did what its surveyor recommended in February 2021.
The landlord’s failure to adhere to its own policies and the timeframes set within these, combined with its lack of action was a serious failing and as such it missed opportunities to alleviate the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
Overall, the landlord’s response to reports of asbestos was poor. Its failure to consider its own surveys, follow its asbestos policies and procedures was not appropriate. The landlord failed to inspect the property as per the recommendation of the asbestos survey and failed to take appropriate steps once it was made aware of asbestos.
It is acknowledged that the resident may be caused some worry when considering the above findings. It is important to explain that the asbestos survey found low levels of chrysotile and the landlord’s communication confirms that it should not cause harm if left in situ, if undamaged. This is in line with the Health and Safety Executive’s position. As such, the failing here is the landlord’s response to reports of asbestos, which was not appropriate and amounts to severe maladministration.

The landlord’s communication about the kitchen and bathroom upgrade

On 15 March 2021, the resident told the landlord that she had not been referred for any home improvements or upgrades in the 14 years she had lived at the property.
In its stage two response on 17 September 2021, the landlord appropriately explained the approach it adopts to kitchen and bathroom upgrades. It made the resident reasonably aware of when the property would be eligible for an upgrade and what to do if repairs were required in the interim. Its communication around the upgrade was reasonable here and it is further noted that the resident has said the landlord replaced the kitchen and bathroom in October 2022.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There was severe maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.
Whilst the landlord’s stage one response was appropriate. Its stage two response was not in line with its 2021 complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 15 March 2021 and the landlord did not explain why it had not responded to the complaint until 18 June 2021. This was 66 working days after the resident escalated her complaint and 46 days after the 20 working days set in its policy.
In its email from 18 June 2021 the landlord said it was trying to comply with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. However, it then took a further 65 working days to issue its stage two response. This was not in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code or the landlord’s own policy.
Overall, the landlord took 112 working days more than the time set out in its complaints policy to issue its stage two response. This was an unreasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s decision to pause repair work whilst it addressed the resident’s complaint meant the repair work was delayed during this time. This was not appropriate. The resident would have been impacted by the landlord’s delay in responding to her escalated complaint especially as it had paused a package of work during this time and she was repeatedly telling it of the worsening conditions of the property.
In its stage two response the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the stage two complaint and offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of this. The landlord’s attempts to remedy its failings are acknowledged however, it is clear the failings would have had a greater impact on the resident especially as work was paused during this time. As such a greater amount would be more appropriate to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s record keeping

As part of this Service’s investigation copies of surveys and inspection reports were requested. The landlord was also asked to confirm whether issues had been resolved, including completion dates of repairs or the position on outstanding repairs relating to the complaint and its plans to resolve these. These have not been provided.
Good record keeping is important to evidence the actions a landlord and its contractor have taken. A failure to keep adequate records indicates the landlord’s repair processes are not operating effectively. The landlord should be aware of what a resident has previously been told and of the reports it has received. Its staff should be aware of its record management policy and procedures and should adhere to these.
Overall, as the landlord has not provided this Service with the information mentioned above, it has not provided details of the outstanding repairs and has incorrectly captured information in its stage two response relating to asbestos, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress concerning the complaint about the level of compensation offered by the landlord in relation the toilet repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration:
1. In the landlord’s handling of multiple repairs.
2. in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of asbestos concerns.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s communication about the kitchen and bathroom upgrade.

Reasons

The landlord took 22 days to complete an emergency toilet repair which was not in line with its policy and the resident had to chase it during this time. However, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay in repairing and reporting the issue, its compensation offer of £80 was appropriate in such circumstances.
The landlord’s handling of multiple repairs was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration. The landlord delayed in arranging inspections and repairs. It decided to pause a package of work whilst it addressed the resident’s complaint, causing a further delay. It also took seven months to complete work its insurer had recommended. This was all whilst the resident raised concerns about the worsening conditions of the property. The landlord repeatedly failed to effectively communicate with the resident and failed to adopt a resolution focused approach. It is accepted that this was a difficult time for the resident and the landlord’s handling of repairs contributed to the resident feeling ignored.
The landlord’s response to reports of asbestos was poor and amounts to severe maladministration. Its failure to consider its own surveys, follow its asbestos policies and procedures was not appropriate. The landlord failed to inspect the property as per the recommendation of the asbestos survey and in doing so it missed opportunities to alleviate the residents concerns about asbestos.
The landlord appropriately explained how it would assess kitchen and bathroom upgrades and the resident has confirmed it updated the kitchen and bathroom in October 2022. The landlord’s communication about the kitchen and bathroom upgrade was appropriate and there was no maladministration.
The landlord took 112 working days more than it said it would to issue its stage two response, this amounts to severe maladministration. The landlord’s complaints team decided to pause a package of repair work whilst it dealt with the stage two complaint and its failure to adhere to the timeframe set out in its complaints policy would have had a greater impact on the resident in light of this. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the delay in issuing its stage two response it failed to acknowledge the extent of the impact at a time it decided to pause work.
The landlord’s failure to provide copies of surveys and details on outstanding repairs amounts to maladministration. Its failure to provide correct information about asbestos to the resident and then it incorrectly capturing information in its stage two response also amount to maladministration. These failures demonstrate the landlord’s failure to keep adequate records.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders, that within four weeks, the landlord to arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £2,180 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arears. The compensation comprises:
1. The landlord to pay the resident £80 it previously offered in recognition of the delay in repairing the resident’s toilet, if it has not already so.
2. £650 for the distress and inconveniences caused by the highlighted multiple failings in relation to repairs.
3. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the highlighted failings in relation to its handling of asbestos.
4. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in issuing its stage two response. This amount includes the £100 previously offered by the landlord, which can be deducted from this amount if already paid.
The Ombudsman orders that within fourweeks of the date of this report the landlord completes an inspection of the property to assess the outstanding works.
The Ombudsman orders that within three weeks of inspecting the property the landlord provide details to the resident and this Service of how it plans to resolve the issues it refers to in its stage two response and those that formed part of this complaint. This is to include:
1. Realistic dates for completion of any outstanding repair work. If it decides certain repair work is not required, it should explain why with support from an appropriate inspection or expert.
2. Details of how it seeks to address asbestos concerns within the property. If no action is required, it should provide evidence of an expert opinion on this following an inspection of the property.
The Ombudsman orders, within six weeks of this report, the landlord to identify learning from this report to ensure the asbestos failures aren’t repeated and that it has the appropriate systems/processes in place to ensure its asbestos policy is followed and information is accurately recorded when asbestos is identified in a property. The landlord should send the resident and this Service a summary of its findings and the service improvements it will be making.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to consider this Service’s Complaint Handling Code and train its staff in how to handle complaints in line with this and how it progresses repairs whilst a complaint is ongoing.