Somerset Council (202115567)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115567

Homes in Sedgemoor

15 February 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about asbestos in her home.
2. Allegation about the behaviour of a contractor.
3. Requests for repairs to the bathroom extractor fan and garden gate.
4. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a joint secure tenant of a three-bedroom house from 26 May 2020. The property is owned by the local authority and is managed on its behalf by the landlord which is an arm’s length management company. The landlord is aware that the resident has asthma and dysphagia, a condition that can increase the tendency to develop chest infections, as well as mental health issues. The resident also says she has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, a personality disorder and supraventricular tachycardia, a condition affecting heart rhythm.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and duties under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the property in good repair. It is also responsible for keeping the fixtures it provides in proper working order. These responsibilities mean that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the living room floor, bathroom extractor fan and garden gate.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will respond to emergency repairs within four hours. It defines emergency repairs as those that, if not done, will put people at risk. The policy says that non-emergency repairs which can be carried out in under one to two hours will be completed the same day, and other routine repairs within 28 days.
The landlord has general duties under the Defective Premises Act 1972 to protect tenants from disease or injury caused by a defect or hazard. It has further duties under the Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to assess risks to third parties, including tenants, when undertaking repair work. However, there is no specific legislation regarding asbestos in domestic (residential) properties.
The landlord has an asbestos safety policy which says that it will carry out a survey when a property is vacant to assess whether asbestos is present. It says that it will assess the risks and implement a plan to manage them. It also says the landlord will provide information to those who may disturb asbestos containing materials, including residents, as to the location and condition of any asbestos present. The landlord’s website says that it will attend within 24 hours of receiving a report of damaged or disturbed asbestos.
The landlord has an unreasonable behaviour policy which says it will keep a register of customers that it considers to present a risk to staff members and may apply a “visit in pairs” approach. The policy says that customers will be informed of any decisions made under the policy, unless doing so would create a greater risk to its staff members.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process which says it will respond to complaints at both stages within ten working days. The policy provides for giving compensation where there has been a service failure.

Summary of events

Prior to the resident moving in, the landlord commissioned an asbestos survey whilst the property was vacant. The survey was done in April 2020 by an accredited contractor. The survey recommended removal of asbestos containing materials in the downstairs toilet, bathroom and kitchen, which was completed to enable refurbishment of those rooms. The survey noted the presence of asbestos elsewhere including in the living room floor tiles, determined this as very low risk and recommended the landlord “manage, monitor and inform maintenance personnel prior to relevant works”.
On 3 May 2021, the landlord raised an order with its general repairs contractor to seal cracked and broken floor tiles to the resident’s living room floor. The evidence seen shows the order incorrectly stated that the floor tiles did not contain asbestos.
On 5 July 2021 the resident reported that the bathroom extractor was not working and that her garden gate needed repair. The landlord raised work orders with its contractor, both with a target date of 2 August 2021.
On 8 July 2021 the resident contacted the landlord concerned about the presence of asbestos in the living room floor tiles. She said that the contractor had attended that day but the work could not be done because no asbestos survey had been carried out. The resident said that she wanted to make a formal complaint and was asked to send an email with the details. The resident did speak to the landlord’s surveyor who assured her that the property was safe and there was no danger from the asbestos.
On the same day the resident emailed the landlord requesting removal of the asbestos from the living room floor and for an asbestos survey be carried out. Her email explained that she has asthma and dysphagia, that the joint tenant has a heart condition, and said she was concerned their health was at more risk due to these conditions. The resident also emailed the local authority’s environmental health department asking for an investigation to be carried out under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The landlord raised an order with its accredited asbestos removal contractor to remove the living room floor tiles and seal the floor with a target date of 5 August 2021.
On 14 July 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord saying she was anxious about the presence of the asbestos and had not received the survey report that the surveyor had promised to send. The evidence seen shows that no one was available to speak to the resident and that she telephoned multiple times on that day. Later that day, the resident spoke to a manager about the asbestos and also raised concerns about the conduct of the operative that had attended her home.
On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord stating she wanted to make a formal complaint. She said that:
1. The landlord was in breach of its responsibilities in its handling of the asbestos.
2. She had not received the asbestos survey that the surveyor had promised to send on 8 July 2021.
3. She had reported other repairs and not had any contact regarding an appointment.
4. The operative that had attended her home on 14 July 2021 had made inappropriate propositions.
5. She had been told that any future visits to her would be made in pairs and felt this was discriminatory and delayed her repairs.
6. In future, the landlord should give 24 hours written notice of any visits, explain the reason for the visit and only enter the property with her permission.
7. She had made a complaint on 8 July 2021 and not received any response.
8. She requested the landlord’s complaints and housing enforcement policies.
The landlord sent a copy of the asbestos survey on 14 July 2021 and acknowledged the complaint on 16 July 2021. It said that it would respond to the complaint by 22 July 2021 and sent a copy of its complaints policy.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 20 July 2022. It said that:
1. Various officers had spoken to the resident on 8 and 14 July 2021 to allay her concerns. The presence of asbestos did not make her home unsafe.
2. It was required to adhere to the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. It was responsible to monitor, manage and remove asbestos as required. If asbestos became damaged, it had a duty to remove it.
3. It provided new tenants with a copy of the asbestos report for their home. The resident had requested another copy which it had sent on 14 July 2021.
4. The floor tiles contained chrysotile and were a low-level risk. It said that its responsibility was to remove or encapsulate damaged sections. As an extra precaution it always asked for a property to be vacated during work.
5. She had reported some floor tiles breaking up on 29 April 2021 and it had raised an order with its contractor on 3 May 2021. An appointment had been made for 18 June but was rescheduled for 8 July 2021 at the resident’s request.
6. It’s general contractor had not notified its specialist contractor which meant that the work did not take place on 8 July 2021.
7. It had subsequently agreed to remove all the living room floor tiles and had scheduled the work for 14 July 2021. The work had not been completed on that day because the resident had not removed her belongings. The work could be rescheduled for 28 or 30 July 2021 and the contractors would assist with moving items that the resident was not able to move.
8. She had made a serious allegation about the operative that attended and the landlord had asked the contractor for a statement. The operative had given an account which conflicted with that of the resident. Due to this, future visits would be made in pairs to protect all parties. The operative would not attend her home again.
9. It had acted in a fair and reasonable way and did not uphold her complaint.
Between 22 July and 25 August 2021, the landlord attempted to arrange the repairs by telephoning and texting the resident. The landlord says that the resident did not respond.
The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 27 July 2021 but initially emailed the local authority and not the landlord. Although the local authority passed the email on, the landlord was not able to open the accompanying attachment. The landlord contacted the resident who sent her escalation directly on 29 July 2021. She said that:
1. The landlord had not provided her with its housing enforcement policy, had delayed its responses and failed to carry out work.
2. It had disregarded her wellbeing, health and safety, and had discriminated against her.
3. It had not fulfilled its responsibilities regarding the asbestos and had not responded to other repairs requested on 8 July 2021.
4. She disagreed with its response regarding the operative’s behaviour.
The landlord acknowledged her escalation on 11 August 2021 saying that a panel meeting would be held and that it would respond no later than 25 August 2021.
The landlord provided its stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 26 August 2021. It said that:
1. It had responded to the resident’s concerns about the asbestos in its stage one response. It had completed a survey when the property was vacant and there were no issues of concern at the time she moved in. It had provided her with a copy of the survey on 14 July 2021.
2. A specific risk assessment would be done before any work was carried out that may be affected by the presence of asbestos.
3. It could not make a decision about the allegations she made against the operative as their accounts of the incident conflicted. It confirmed the operative would not attend her property in future.
4. Under its unacceptable behaviour policy, residents were automatically placed on its officer safety register after such an incident. This was a temporary measure until a panel made a decision. A panel meeting would be held to consider her case and the resident would be contacted separately about this. The resident would have the right to appeal the panel’s decision. It enclosed its policy and confirmed it was satisfied that it had followed its procedures in her case.
The resident contacted this service on 7 October 2021. She said that she remained dissatisfied with the landlords handling of her repair requests and complaint. She said that she felt the landlord’s position regarding visiting in pairs was unfair, and that she had not been properly informed or given an opportunity to represent her own position. She said that her physical and mental health had been affected. The resident and the landlord subsequently clarified that the outstanding work to the living room floor tiles, bathroom extractor fan and garden gate had not been completed.

Assessment and findings

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

Handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos

The landlord has obligations to minimise health and safety risks to its employees, residents, and contractors. Its asbestos policy says it will prepare a plan on how to manage the risks of asbestos, put the plan into action and provide information to anyone likely to work on, or disturb, asbestos. The landlord acted appropriately in commissioning an asbestos survey whilst the property was vacant. It appropriately followed the recommendations made in the report to remove asbestos from the downstairs toilet, kitchen, and bathroom to enable refurbishment work to take place. The report noted the presence of asbestos in the living room floor tiles and stated that it presented a “very low” risk. It recommended that the landlord should “manage, monitor and inform maintenance personnel prior to relevant works”. As such, it was reasonable that the landlord did not remove the floor tiles prior to the resident moving in.
It is not clear from the evidence seen why the information on the works order raised on 3 May 2021 was incorrect. Nor is it clear from the evidence whether there was miscommunication between its contractors as the contractor said in its complaint response of 20 July 2021. However, it is evident that the work was delayed and this was a service failing.
The second order raised on 8 July 2021 appropriately recorded that the floor tiles contained asbestos. The evidence seen shows the contractor made an appointment to carry out the work on 14 July 2021. However, the work was not done because the resident had not cleared her belongings from the room. No evidence has been seen that the landlord had given the resident prior notice that the room should be cleared and this was a service failing, causing further delay.
The landlord’s asbestos policy says that it will provide new tenants with a copy of asbestos surveys for their property. The resident maintains that she was not provided with a copy of the survey prior to her moving in and that she only became aware of asbestos being present when the contractor first attended to repair the tiles on 8 July 2021. The landlord told this Service that it “presumes” that a survey was given to the resident at the start of her tenancy but no evidence has been seen to confirm this did happen. The landlord should take steps to make sure that it has assurance that asbestos surveys have been given to new tenants in future.
The landlord did provide the resident with a copy of the asbestos survey on 14 July 2021 but it is noted that the resident had asked for it on at least two occasions before it was sent to her. It is not clear from the evidence seen whether the resident was made aware that asbestos had been removed from the downstairs toilet, bathroom and kitchen prior to her moving in. If she was not made aware, the survey may have caused her to have an inaccurate perception of the risks and may have contributed to her continuing concerns and anxiety. The landlord should consider the information it provides to residents about asbestos in their homes to make sure it is accurate and up to date.
The landlord’s asbestos policy does not contain any timescales for removal of damaged asbestos containing materials. Its website says that it will respond within 24 hours but does not explain what the nature of its response will be. The landlord’s website also says that it will inspect some types of asbestos every year but does not clarify which types. As such, it is not clear what residents can expect if they have asbestos in their homes or if they report damaged asbestos. The landlord should take steps to provide more clarity about its approach to asbestos in its policy and on its website.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will set out its emergency approach to damaged asbestos in its asbestos safety management plan. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a copy of its asbestos management plan for this investigation. The landlord provided a copy of its policy but did not provide the asbestos management plan. As such, it is not clear whether the landlord’s response in this case complies with its management plan. However, given the known health and safety risks when asbestos particles are released and the landlord’s knowledge of the resident’s health conditions and concerns, it is unreasonable that the landlord has not removed the floor tiles as it had committed to doing.
In its complaint response of 20 July 2021, the landlord said that it “always” asked for properties to be vacated during asbestos removal work. This is not reflected in the landlord’s asbestos policy and no evidence has been seen that the landlord required the resident to vacate for the duration of the work in this case. It is noted that the residents were present when contractors attended the appointments on 8 and 14 July 2021.
No evidence has been seen that the landlord considered the resident’s health conditions when planning the work. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether the property should be vacated during works and whether it needed to provide assistance to enable the work to take place. The landlord did offer assistance in clearing the living room in its complaint response of 26 August 2021 but could have done this sooner.
The resident expressed concerns about the landlord not complying with its duties in respect of the asbestos on several occasions. The evidence seen shows the landlord gave the resident confusing and conflicting information in response to her concerns about the asbestos and it is understandable that the resident did not feel reassured. The resident had asked on several occasions for a further survey and risk assessment to be carried out. Although the landlord had no obligation to do as she asked, this was a missed opportunity to provide clarity and reassurance to the resident.
It is not disputed that the required work has still not been carried out. The landlord told this Service that it had made attempts to arrange an appointment with the resident. However, the resident disputes this and maintains that the landlord has not attempted to arrange the works. Given the nature of the work, we would expect the landlord to have taken all reasonable steps to arrange access and have not seen evidence that did so. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to complete the work.
For the reasons set out above there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding asbestos in her home.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In this case, the landlord agreed to carry out the work but has not yet done so. As such, an order has been made to pay the resident £400 compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused by the delay in carrying out the work and the communication failings. This has been calculated on the basis of a proportion of rent for the period from the resident making her complaint to the landlord until her complaint was duly made to the Ombudsman.

Handling of the allegation about contractor behaviour

In cases where an allegation has been made against a staff member or contractor, the Ombudsman looks at how the landlord responded to the allegation including the investigations made and any subsequent action taken. In this case, the landlord acted reasonably in asking the contractor to provide a statement of the incident that gave rise to the resident’s allegation. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether the contractor’s explanation of the operative’s behaviour was in line with expected working practices, and no evidence has been seen that it did so.
The evidence seen suggests that, when the resident first made her allegation about the contractor’s operative by telephone on 14 July 2021, she wanted to make sure that they would not attend her property again. The landlord’s subsequent confirmation that the operative would not attend in future was, therefore, reasonable and gave the resident the outcome she sought.
However, the landlord also decided that future visits made by its staff or contractors would be in pairs to “protect all parties”. Although visiting in pairs is an accepted practice where landlords have concerns about resident behaviour, we expect landlords to consider the implications for residents and be accountable for their decisions. In this case, the landlord’s response of 20 July 2021 set out a summary of the contractor’s account of the incident but did not clarify whether the landlord concluded that the actions, according to this account, had been justifiable or not. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have given a clear explanation of how and why it had concluded that visiting in pairs was necessary. Having decided to visit in pairs, the landlord should have followed its unreasonable behaviour policy requirements by notifying the resident that she had been added to its officer safety register, and explaining the reasons for, and implications of this. No evidence has been seen that it did so.
In its complaint response of 26 August 2021, the landlord further explained that such incidents would automatically result in the resident being temporarily placed on its officer safety register pending a panel decision. However, this is not reflected in the landlord’s unreasonable behaviour policy. Nor is there any reference in the policy to a right of appeal as stated in the landlord’s complaint response.
The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide evidence of the panel meeting referred to in its letter of 26 August 2021 and any correspondence with the resident on the matter. The landlord advised that a panel meeting had been held and resulted in a decision that the resident would remain on its officer safety register for six months. However, it did not provide evidence of the meeting or correspondence sent to the resident regarding its decision and the right of appeal. The resident maintains that she received no correspondence from the landlord on the matter, has not been given an opportunity to appeal and does not know whether the visit in pairs approach is still in place.
Furthermore, the resident told this Service that she believes that the visit in pairs approach had been put in place by the landlord before she made the allegation on 14 July 2021. She said that two operatives had attended her home to complete repairs on previous occasions. From the evidence seen, there was an occasion where two operatives were specified as required on an order raised on 7 December 2020. However, it is not clear from the evidence seen whether this was due to a visit in pairs approach or the nature of the repair to be done. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether or not a visit in pairs approach had been adopted by the landlord before 14 July 2021.
Under its unreasonable behaviour policy, the landlord should have informed the resident of its decision to place her on its officer safety register, unless doing so would create a greater risk to its staff members. No evidence has been seen that the landlord did consider that advising the resident of its decision in this case would increase the risks. As such, its failure to notify the resident of the panel’s decision was not appropriate and an order has been made below for the landlord to put this right.
It is noted that the Ombudsman has previously drawn the landlord’s attention to the Ombudsman’s guidance on unacceptable behaviour policies following a another investigation (case 202105004 of April 2022). Clearly the events in this case happened prior to that advice but the landlord should consider this guidance if it has not already done so. The landlord should also ensure that it adheres to its policy requirements in future.
For the reasons set out above there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s allegations about the contractor’s behaviour. In relation to the failures identified, an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.

Handling of repairs to the bathroom extractor fan and garden gate

The landlord acted reasonably in raising orders on 5 July 2021 for the resident’s extractor fan and garden gate to be repaired. However, its policy timescales for non-emergency repairs are unclear in that the repairs could have been given a same day or 28 day response time depending on how long they would take to complete. No evidence has been seen that the resident was made aware of the timescale that had been allocated when the repairs were reported. The landlord should consider its response times for routine repairs to ensure that it is clear to residents what they can expect in terms of response times.
It is not disputed that these repairs have not been done. The landlord told this Service that it had made attempts to carry out the repairs but the resident had not engaged. The evidence suggests that it’s contractor attended to repair the extractor fan on 30 July 2021 and left a card as the resident was not at home. The resident said that she would like the repairs to be done and wanted the landlord to contact her to arrange this, but no evidence has been seen that she has chased the landlord up or reported the repairs again.
From the evidence seen there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the bathroom extractor fan and garden gate. However, a recommendation has been made below to offer the resident appointments to carry out the work.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident told this Service that she had found it difficult to communicate with the landlord throughout her complaint. She said that her mental health conditions mean that she prefers to discuss issues by telephone or in person rather than exchanges in writing, but that she prefers discussions to be planned so that she can prepare for them. It is noted from the evidence seen that most of communication during the landlord’s complaint process took place by email. Whilst this is a common approach and often speeds up communications, no evidence has been seen that the landlord considered whether it was the best approach in this case, or had sought to agree communication preferences with the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so, given that it knew that the resident has mental health conditions.
The landlord did not respond to the issue of the repairs to the extractor fan and garden gate in either of its complaint responses. Nor did either of the responses address the resident’s request for its housing enforcement policy. The landlord told this Service that it does not have such a policy but there is no evidence that it explained this to the resident. In not addressing these issues, the landlord missed the opportunity to resolve them during its complaints process. It also caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident in that she had to raise the issues again and felt that the landlord was ignoring her. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that all complaint points raised must be addressed.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not clearly set out what stage of the complaints process the resident was at in line with the Code. The landlord should ensure that correspondence sent as part of the complaints process is clearly marked.
It is not clear from the evidence seen whether the landlord logged the resident’s initial complaint of 8 July 2021 within its policy timescales. Nevertheless, its stage one response of 20 July 2021 was sent within ten working days. In its acknowledgement of the resident’s escalation on 11 August 2021, the evidence shows the landlord said that it would respond “within the next 10 working days, but no later than Wed 25 August”. It is not clear why the landlord said this and its stage two response was actually sent on 26 August 2021. Whilst this delay in itself did not cause serious detriment to the resident, the landlord should ensure that it is able to meet the timescales within its policy and the Code in future and provide an explanation to residents if it is not able to meet those timescales.
The landlord did not comply with the Code in the aspects set out above. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. In relation to the failures identified, an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation of £50 to the resident in recognition of the frustration and inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about asbestos in her home.
2. Allegation about the contractor’s behaviour.
3. Complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the bathroom extractor fan and garden gate.

Reasons

The evidence seen shows that the landlord did not adhere to its asbestos safety policy in this case and did not effectively assess and manage the risks to the resident arising from the damage to the living room floor tiles. Furthermore, the landlord gave confusing and conflicting information to the resident which caused distress, and it has not yet completed the work.
From the evidence seen, the landlord did not give a full explanation for its conclusion regarding the resident’s allegation about the contractor. Nor did it adequately explain its decision to visit in pairs. Furthermore, the landlord did not adhere to its unreasonable behaviour policy as it did not notify the resident of the panel’s decision to continue to include her on its officer safety register. The landlord also gave advice to the resident regarding its process for unreasonable behaviour that was not in line with what its policy says.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint did not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and missed opportunities to resolve the issues at an early stage.
Although the repairs to the bathroom extractor fan and garden gate were not completed, the landlord had appropriately raised orders for the work. Whilst it is disputed as to whether the landlord made attempts to carry out the work, no evidence has been seen to establish that there was maladministration by the landlord.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has done so:
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the shortcomings identified in this report.
  2. Confirm the date(s) that it has added and removed her name on its officer safety register.
  3. Confirm the outcome of the officer safety register panel meeting referred to in its complaint correspondence and reasons for the decision made.
  4. Explain why it had not previously notified the resident of the panel outcome.
  5. Confirm its current position regarding visits and arrangements for any right of appeal against this.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £550 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by the failures highlighted in this report. The compensation must be paid to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
  1. £400 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos in her home.
  2. £100 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s allegation about a contractor.
  3. £50 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. Arrange an appointment with the resident to remove the living room floor tiles and seal the floor. The landlord must consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when planning the work including considering whether the property should be vacated during the work and any assistance it needs to provide to the resident. The floor repairs should be completed within eight weeks the date of this report.
4. Conduct a further asbestos survey of the resident’s home and provide a copy of the survey to the resident and this Service.
5. Update its records regarding the resident’s vulnerabilities.
6. Provide training to relevant staff members to ensure that its complaints handling complies with all aspects of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Offer the resident appointments to complete the repairs to the bathroom extractor fan and garden gate.
2. Consider what information is given to new residents about asbestos to make sure it is accurate and up to date; and how it can be assured that the information has been given to new residents.
3. Review guidance regarding asbestos in its policies and the information on its website to ensure it is clear and consistent.
4. Read the Ombudsman’s guidance regarding unreasonable behaviour policies and consider whether any amendments are needed to its policy (viewable here: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/guidance-notes/managing-unacceptable-behaviour-policy/) . The landlord should also ensure that it adheres to its policy requirements in future.
5. Review its policy timescales for routine repairs to remove any ambiguity.
6. Consider how it can ensure that reasonable adjustments are made for residents with communication difficulties or preferences.