South Tyneside Homes (201908131)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201908131

South Tyneside Homes

23 March 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos at the property.
    3. The landlord’s complaints handling and response to the resident’s request for compensation.

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. The resident states that the landlord has failed to complete repairs to the property reported up to 14 years ago and to address its overall poor condition, including damp and mould. However, there is no evidence that a formal complaint was made about the landlord’s failure to complete the repairs that are the subject of the present complaint until September 2019.
  3. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In accordance with paragraph 39(e), the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and evidence is available, so it can reach an informed conclusion. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  4. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment focusses on the landlord’s response to the formal complaints made in September 2019 and October 2019, including the action taken by the landlord to investigate the issues, to identify any unreasonable delays and to put things right for the resident. Reference to historic events is made throughout this report to provide context and is taken into account in our assessment of the landlord’s approach to investigating the complaint.
  5. Paragraph 39(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
  6. During the course of the complaint the resident has asked the landlord to consider compensating her for defamation, personal injury caused by a collapsed ceiling and door frame and exposure to asbestos. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation has been assessed below. The Ombudsman does not, however, have the authority and expertise to assess medical evidence and draw a direct causal link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any detriment caused to the health of the resident or her family members. The courts are able to appoint expert witnesses to review medical evidence to assess these matters and to calculate and award damages where appropriate. Similarly, this Service is not able to adequately assess and provide a binding determination on allegations of defamation, or to calculate and award damages. The resident’s concerns about defamation, personal injury and asbestos exposure are therefore outside this Service’s jurisdiction to determine. The resident is advised to seek independent legal advise should she wish to pursue these aspects of her complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a 3 bedroom, semi-detached house, since 1996, under a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord.
  2. The resident has reported that, prior to the formal complaint, the property was in generally poor condition. She stated that since the start of the tenancy she has reported numerous repairs and that the landlord has taken either no or inadequate action in response. These include repairs to the property’s drains, fencing, pointing, path, door frames and fireplace. The resident also states that she has reported damage caused by leaks, and damp and mould, including lifted tiles to the kitchen and bathroom floor, a hole in the ceiling, damaged kitchen units and worktop, bowed shelves, damaged bathroom panelling, damp carpet and concrete skirting boards that were contributing to the presence of damp. She has also reported fly-tipping at the bottom of her garden.
  3. There is limited evidence available to this investigation of the resident’s historic reports of disrepair to the property. This investigation has primarily relied on the repairs records and case notes provided by the landlord as evidence of the dates that repairs to the property were first raised and subsequently completed. The resident has provided a copy of an email sent to the landlord on 30 September 2016 regarding Tenancy Support Visits to the property, which states ‘as [the landlord] has not done the repairs once again I’ve been asking for over the last 20 years I am busy doing them myself’. The email referred to works the landlord had reportedly failed to undertake to a collapsed kitchen ceiling, a rotten kitchen door frame, rotten kitchen units and rotten and missing fencing . The resident referred to the expenditure she had incurred as a result of the landlord’s alleged failure to complete repairs.
  4. The landlord’s repairs records and case notes show a large number of inspections and repairs raised and competed at the property between 2007 and 2019, including to the pathway in 2007, bathroom and kitchen floor tiles in 2010 and 2011, scaffolding erected for repointing works in 2013 and a number of jobs raised to inspect and repair damaged ceiling plasterboard between November 2016 and December 2017 following a leak. A job was also raised and completed to clear the gutters at the property in November 2017. Damp inspections were completed at the property in November 2013 and February 2014 and a job was raised to open and clear cavities in May 2014. Prior to the resident’s formal complaint, the last repair logged on the landlord’s system was a rechargeable repair to the property’s lock, completed on 17 December 2018.

Summary of Events – Repairs Complaint

  1. The resident made a formal complaint and logged a request for repairs on 21 September 2019. She provided further details of her complaint about the condition of her property in emails to the landlord sent on 23 September 2019 and 4 October 2019. The resident indicated that the landlord had been aware of the poor condition of her property for a number of years, stating that it had failed to carry out works recommended at previous inspections, including re-pointing work that had been outstanding for 14 years. The resident reported damp, which she stated had caused £800 worth of damage to her wood flooring and £500 damage to carpets, as well as damage to her furniture and belongings. The resident stated she had replaced her kitchen units after the landlord’s failure to respond to her reports of disrepair, at a cost of £1500. She had also replaced fencing at a cost of £1000. The resident reported that blocked and broken guttering and drains required attention and that the path to the rear of the property was in need of repair. She also reported fly-tipping. The resident estimated that the landlord should compensate her £23,000 for the loss she had suffered as a result of its inaction. She also asked that the necessary repairs be completed within 28 days.
  2. On 11 October 2019, the landlord provided a response at stage 1 of its internal complaints process to the resident’s complaint about repairs. On receipt of the complaint the landlord had inspected the property and completed works to the guttering and blocked drains on 1 and 4 October 2019, with roofing repairs to commence on 11 October 2019. The landlord would also arrange for damaged flagstones to be removed and a concrete path laid. The landlord identified that re-pointing works raised in August 2017 had not been done and confirmed that this would be completed in the week commencing 14 October 2019. The landlord had referred the resident’s complaint about damage to her belongings and furniture to her Neighbourhood Officer to take forward as an insurance claim and noted that she may also wish to consider a claim for personal injury. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and acknowledged that its service had not met the required standard.
  3. The resident reported on 11 October 2019 that further works to the drains and gutters were required and the landlord confirmed on 14 October 2019 that this had been arranged. It also noted that an appointment had been arranged with the resident’s Neighbourhood Officer for 17 October 2019 to discuss the insurance claim.
  4. On 17 October 2019, the resident sent an email to the landlord confirming that she wished to make a claim for compensation, separate to the formal complaint, with regard to alleged defamation, disrepair, exposure to asbestos, personal injury, increased heating costs and the time and money spent completing repairs to her property. The resident stated that she was claiming £12,000,000 to ‘also cover future care’. The resident requested a response by 22 October 2019. On 21 October 2019 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint regarding repairs to stage 2 of its internal complaints process. She challenged delays in dealing with her compensation/insurance claim.
  5. The landlord met with the resident to discuss her concerns on 11 November 2019 and responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 27 November 2019. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s repairs requests had been completed, with the exception of fencing work and guttering, which would be completed that week. The landlord had been unable to establish why works weren’t completed sooner and apologised for the inconvenience. The landlord also confirmed that it would be arranging for the resident’s windows to be replaced. The landlord noted that the resident’s asbestos complaint and insurance claims were being progressed separately.
  6. The resident attempted to raise 2 further complaints and so the landlord sent an email on 17 December 2019 stating that it could escalate her complaint regarding repairs to stage 3, however, she would need to provide details of the outstanding issues. It asked the resident to clarify whether the 2 new complaints related to the repairs and asbestos issues.
  7. The resident responded on 18 December 2019, noting that she was happy with the works completed recently but that she still wanted the landlord to address why the work was not done sooner. She also asked the landlord to respond to the alleged misconduct of its staff, who she stated had insulted her, threatened her, and called her a liar. The resident requested an apology for the damage to her property and health and for the behaviour of the landlord’s staff. Also on 18 December 2019 the landlord’s claims department wrote to the resident to make an offer of compensation in the sum of £3500. It acknowledged that ‘the damage to [the resident’s] property was due to increased moisture in the property due to repointing’ and that the delay in completing ‘substantial’ repointing works identified in 2017, ‘resulted in damage to [the resident’s] belongings for the period of June 2017 to 2019’. The landlord’s offer of compensation took into account the information provided by the resident about damaged items.
  8. The landlord provided an update to the resident about the repairs complaint on 20 January 2020, stating that it was taking longer than anticipated to complete the stage 3 investigation due to the need to liaise with its insurance team. The landlord requested some further information from the resident on 4 February 2020 in order to respond fully. The landlord asked for:
    1. Confirmation as to whether any works were completed to the property during the Decent Homes Programme;
    2. Confirmation as to when the resident replaced her kitchen using her own resources;
    3. Details of the alleged injuries caused by a ceiling and a door frame collapsing at the property, including whether the resident sought medical advice and whether this was reported to the landlord;
    4. Details of the residents allegations of bullying and threats made by the landlord’s staff, including names of the officers involved, dates and details of what was said.
    5. Clarification as to whether all damage to property was caused by delays in completing re-pointing work, or details of additional items damaged and the alleged cause;
    6. Confirmation as to whether the resident still had concerns about the presence of asbestos at the property and in what location.
  9. The resident responded the same day with the following comments:
    1. The resident asked which programme the landlord was referring to and whether this related to replacement of kitchens and bathrooms or replacement of windows. She stated that all repairs were reported to the landlord but that no repairs had been completed.
    2. The resident confirmed that she had replaced her kitchen ‘a couple of years ago’ after the previous kitchen rotted and collapsed. She stated that this had been reported to the landlord and no repairs had been completed.
    3. The damage to the kitchen ceiling had been reported ‘many times’ following flooding, however, no works were completed and it subsequently bowed and collapsed. The resident noted that the landlord’s surveyor had attended and taken photographs and that repairs had been ordered. The resident described her injuries.
    4. The resident confirmed that damage to the interior door frames was reported many times over many years and she was informed that the frames could not be replaced as they were metal. Photographs were taken by the landlord at previous inspections. The resident described her injuries sustained when the door frame came loose.
    5. The resident was unable to provide the names of some staff who had threatened and bullied her as they had refused to provide their names at the time. The resident indicated that the landlord should have records of the staff she had dealt with.
    6. The resident expressed her frustration that she had again been asked for information that had already been provided, nothing that the landlord should have this information on its files.
    7. The resident confirmed that there was asbestos in the property and stated that the landlord was aware of this as she had sent photographs and had been reporting it for 25 years.
  10. The landlord provided a final response to the resident’s complaint about repairs to the property in a letter dated 7 February 2020. The landlord concluded that the majority of recorded repairs had been carried out in a timely manner, with only ‘a few exceptions of jobs being late by a small number of days’. There was no record on the landlord’s systems of repairs reported for the resident’s kitchen units or door frame. The landlord acknowledged that reports of damp in 2012 were not followed up, although inspections were raised in 2013 and 2014. A survey report from 20 March 2013 concluded that ‘a combination of a severe condensation problem and a bridging problem’ as the likely cause of dampness. It also noted areas requiring re-pointing, suspected blocked cavities, vegetation in the guttering and recommended the installation of a damp proof course. The landlord had arranged to clear the cavities at the property and its contractors had attended on 7 May 2014 but had received no answer. The landlord accepted that it had failed to follow-up and apologised for this service failure. It suggested arranging an independent survey to identify all necessary works, following which it would communicate its findings, agree a plan of work and, once completed, reinstate and redecorate the resident’s home. The landlord noted that its insurers would revisit the issue of compensation once the results of the survey were known. The landlord apologised for the time and trouble taken to bring the complaint and to pursue the repairs.
  11. Condition and electrical surveys were completed at the property on 18 February 2020. The condition survey stated that the property was in ‘fair condition’ but recommended some repairs, including to a loose tile, repointing of ridge tiles, removal of bricks to check and clear the cavity and repairs to the concrete canopy and wash basin. It also suggested that the windows be upgraded to double glazing. To combat the damp reported by the resident the report recommended lifestyle changes, the replacement of the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans and cavity wall insulation. The report also noted that the excessive contents within the property were likely contributing to the condensation problem.

Summary of Events – Asbestos Complaint

  1. On 14 October 2019, the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s failure to address the presence of asbestos in the property since 1996, which the landlord acknowledged on 16 October 2019. She also stated that at that time she was told to remove asbestos herself and to leave it in the garden for collection by the Council. She expressed her concerns for her own health and that of the Council’s staff who had attended to collect the potentially hazardous material.
  2. The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the complaint about asbestos on 18 November 2019. It noted the resident’s claim that she had been exposed to asbestos at the property since 1996 and her statement that she was told to remove asbestos containing material and place it in her front garden for collection. The landlord reviewed the property’s records and concluded that due to the length of time that had passed, it was unable to adequately investigate the issue. It could not find any paperwork relating to the incident or locate a member of staff still working within the organisation who would have knowledge of the events. The complaint was therefore not upheld. The landlord stated that it wished to arrange an asbestos management survey of the property and asked the resident to contact it to arrange an appointment.
  3. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint about asbestos on 3 December 2019 and the landlord provided a stage 2 response on 23 December 2019. As part of the stage 2 investigation it had discussed the complaint with the resident and interviewed a staff member named by the resident. It had also reviewed its records and the details of the stage 1 investigation, together with photographic evidence and emails provided by the resident. The landlord repeated its desire to arrange a full asbestos survey of the property and for the removal of material the resident stated was currently being stored in an outbuilding. The landlord stated that it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint, making the following comments:
    1. The resident’s Housing Officer was unable to recollect any discussions or visits regarding removal of asbestos or collection from the resident’s garden.
    2. The landlord’s electronic records, which began on 25 October 2010, contained no reports of asbestos by the resident until an email sent on 14 October 2019. The resident had provided the landlord with a copy of the email she had sent on 20 September 2016.
    3. The landlord had reviewed a letter from the resident dated 26 January 2003 and its response of 10 March 2003 and confirmed that neither letter referred to issues with asbestos.
    4. A partial asbestos survey was obtained on 24 August 2017, however, the surveyor was unable to gain access to the bedrooms at that time.
    5. The resident had failed to provide some additional evidence that she had referred to, which the landlord had requested to facilitate a full investigation.
  4. On 6 January 2020 the landlord confirmed that it had escalated the resident’s complaint regarding asbestos to stage 3 of its complaints process. The landlord provided its final response to the complaint about asbestos on 11 February 2020. The resident alleged that she had raised the issue of asbestos at the property ‘over a number of years’, during which time she was ‘insulted by staff and informed that no records of this exposure exist’. The landlord advised that it no longer held records dating back to 1996 and that this had limited its investigation and findings. It had reviewed contact with the resident from the date its electronic records system began in 2010 and the first recorded contact regarding asbestos was on 27 October 2010, when records showed the resident had telephoned to speak to someone in the Asbestos Service following receipt of a letter detailing a contractor appointment. The landlord’s investigations with the contractor indicated that the resident declined access to her property to complete an asbestos survey at this time. The landlord confirmed that it was aware that some of its homes contained asbestos but was ‘satisfied that this is not a cause for concern as it is safe, provided it is left undisturbed’. The landlord noted that it had undertaken a survey of the downstairs of the property in 2017. The resident had also been contacted in January 2020 to arrange a full survey.
  5. An asbestos survey was completed at the property on 18 February 2020. Samples were analysed and an analysis report dated 20 February 2020 confirmed that no asbestos was found in the samples taken from inside the property. A sample provided by the resident, taken from the exterior of the property, was also tested and found to contain asbestos.

Assessment and findings

Obligations of the Parties

  1. Section 4 of the resident’s Tenancy Agreement sets out the landlord’s repairs obligations. Clause 4.5 confirms that the landlord will repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the drains, gutters, roof, external walls, internal walls, ceilings, doors, door frames, main entrance path and plasterwork. Section 6 of the resident’s Tenancy Agreement sets out the resident’s obligations in respect of repairs and maintenance to the property. Clause 6.1 requires the resident to report any faults or damage to the landlord immediately and clause 6.4 states that the landlord must be provided with reasonable access to complete repairs, improvements, servicing or inspections. In addition, clause 6.2 states that the resident must obtain written permission from the landlord before completing any alterations or additions to the property.
  2. The landlord has provided a copy of its Repairs and Maintenance Policy in use at the time of the complaint. Paragraph 4.3 of the Policy notes the impact of poor property conditions on residents and the need to ‘support our most vulnerable residents with tailored support plans’. Paragraph 5 sets out the ways in which repairs can be reported, including by telephone, email, in writing, in person or by reporting to a member of the landlord’s staff. Under the Policy, emergency repairs should be attended and made safe within 4 hours, urgent repairs ‘affecting the tenants ability to live comfortably in their home’ should be completed within 1-3 working days and routine repairs within 20 working days. Planned repairs should take a maximum of 3 months.
  3. A landlord’s primary obligations in relation to asbestos arise under Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004, Section 11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. The presence of damaged asbestos that could pose a risk to health is also capable of constituting a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
  4. There is no legal obligation to maintain a register of properties containing asbestos or to inform residents if asbestos is present in their home. Undamaged asbestos can often be left in situ as it poses minimal risk to health and the presence of asbestos in a domestic property does not alone constitute disrepair. However, if it is damaged or its condition has deteriorated, then the landlord should act to prevent disrepair from arising.
  5. The Housing Act 2004 requires all housing to be free from Category 1 hazards and the presence of asbestos is one of the 29 categories of potential hazards identified under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS guidance suggests landlords should take steps to identify any asbestos present and assess whether it is damaged or vulnerable to damage in the future.
  6. The landlord’s website contains an asbestos factsheet for residents. This notes that homes built before 2000 may contain asbestos and provides a number for residents to call if they have concerns about the presence of asbestos in their home. The landlord has a dedicated Asbestos Team that can arrange for a surveyor to assess the presence of asbestos and plan how it will be monitored or addressed. The factsheet advises residents to contact the landlord if asbestos becomes damaged or deteriorates. The landlord states that it surveys and updates its register each time a property becomes empty. It has also arranged management surveys for many of its properties. Where asbestos needs to be sealed or removed, residents will be advised about the work and how to keep their family safe.

Repairs

  1. In response to the resident’s formal complaint the landlord took prompt action to attend the property to inspect its condition and to raise any necessary repairs that it is responsible for under the terms of the tenancy agreement. All repairs identified, with the exception of fencing and further guttering works, were completed by 27 November 2019. The majority of works were completed within the timescales set out in the landlord’s Repairs Policy, as repairs to the fencing and guttering could reasonably be described as ‘planned repairs’. The resident has confirmed that she is pleased with the steps the landlord has now taken to improve the condition of the property.
  2. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns and to put things right as quickly as possible. As the complaint progressed, the landlord also commissioned an independent condition survey, which was completed in February 2020. Seeking third party advice was an appropriate means of obtaining an impartial view on the overall condition of the property and identifying any further repairs that the landlord was responsible for.
  3. In response to the resident’s complaint about historic disrepair and the overall condition of the property, the landlord reviewed its repairs records since 2007 and its correspondence with the resident. In general, it found that it had responded to all recorded reports of disrepair in a timely fashion. Having reviewed the landlord’s repairs records, the Ombudsman agrees with its assessment that most of the works described at paragraph 11 above were completed within a reasonable time and it is not now possible to conduct a robust investigation into the reason for any delays to historic repairs. The landlord did note that whilst records showed correspondence about damp in 2012, and a damp survey completed in 2013, it failed to complete the recommended works raised in 2014. The landlord has apologised, which is a proportionate means of acknowledging this historic service failure, given the length of time that has passed and the limited availability of evidence from that time.
  4. The Ombudsman is conscious of the resident’s concern that repairs were reported repeatedly over a number of years and yet were not acted on. However, the Ombudsman is unable to identify service failure where there is no contemporaneous evidence that repairs were reported or identified and that the landlord failed to act. In addition, there is no evidence that a formal complaint was raised about the landlord’s failure to carry out repairs until the complaint of 21 September 2019. This does not mean that the Ombudsman does not believe the resident’s version of events, however, this Service is only able to reach conclusions on the basis of the documentary evidence available, which may become increasingly limited with the passage of time. It is for this reason that residents are encouraged to raise formal complaints with their landlord within 6 months of the issue arising.
  5. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s stage 3 response stated that there was no record of repairs reported to the resident’s kitchen units and door frames. However, the email provided by the resident from September 2016 clearly refers to disrepair to her kitchen units and door frame. The landlord’s current Repairs Policy states that repairs can be reported to a member of the landlord’s staff and throughout the landlord’s records there are references to regular Tenancy Support Visits where, on some occasions, repairs were noted on the landlord’s system following a visit. Where the resident had highlighted repairs to staff during a visit to the property, she had a reasonable expectation that this would be progressed with the landlord’s repairs team. The Ombudsman therefore recommends that the landlord review its current processes for recording repairs reported to members of staff, to ensure that all such reports are captured accurately in its records in the future.
  6. The landlord has accepted that there was an unreasonable delay in completing substantial repointing works to the property recommended following an inspection in 2017. It has been unable to explain this delay and has accepted that this likely contributed to the presence of damp in the property and damage to the resident’s belongings. Although a claim for compensation has been referred to the landlord’s insurers, this did not preclude the landlord from also considering an award of compensation via its complaints process for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and this is considered in more detail in the ‘Complaints Handling and Compensation’ section below. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the repointing works to the property, which it failed to progress between June 2017 and October 2019.
  7. The resident is encouraged to continue to report repairs to the landlord as they arise, via any of the means listed in its Repairs Policy. The landlord must ensure that these are recorded and acted on, in line with the timescales set out in its policy. There is evidence that on some occasions the landlord has had difficulty gaining to the property to complete repairs, such as when it attended to complete works on 7 May 2014 and the resident is reminded that she is obliged to allow access for inspections and repairs to be completed under the terms of her tenancy agreement. It is noted that the resident has physical and mental health conditions, which may give rise to additional needs. The Ombudsman encourages the landlord to work with the resident to establish how best to support her in reporting repairs in the future, to ensure that these are completed within a reasonable timescale that accommodates her needs.

Asbestos

  1. Due to the passage of time it is not possible for this Service to determine what information the landlord gave to the resident in 1996 regarding the presence and disposal of asbestos at the property. The landlord’s internal complaints process is also unlikely to be able to facilitate a detailed investigation into a complaint about events which occurred almost 25 years ago. Despite this, the landlord has used its discretion to conduct a review of its electronic records beginning in 2010 and the paper files it holds for the property, in an attempt to provide the resident with a response to her concerns. It has also interviewed members of staff named by the resident and reviewed additional evidence she has provided. To obtain an understanding of the current condition of any asbestos present in the property, the landlord ordered an asbestos survey, which was completed in February 2020.
  2. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has gone beyond the requirements of its Complaints Policy to attempt to investigate the resident’s concerns and concerns dating back to 1996. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to review records its holds about asbestos at the property and has provided an account of its previous inspections to evidence that it has met its legal obligations as set out above. The landlord has been unable to locate any evidence that it failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about asbestos in the past, and no such evidence has been provided to this investigation. The landlord has not provided a copy of the survey report from 2017 but has noted that the surveyor was unable to gain access to some rooms. It has since obtained an up to date asbestos survey in response to the resident’s concerns. There was therefore no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos. Should the resident remain concerned about the impact on her health due to the presence of asbestos containing material throughout her tenancy, she should seek independent legal advice.
  3. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord could have taken the opportunity to explain its obligations regarding the presence of asbestos in its properties at an earlier stage in the complaints process. Whilst the landlord did refer to the fact that undisturbed asbestos will not usually require removal in its stage 3 response, providing this information and a clearer explanation of the legal and policy framework for managing asbestos at an earlier stage may have helped to manage the resident’s expectations and to reduce her anxiety.

Complaints Handling and Compensation

  1. The landlord’s complaint responses were mostly provided in a timely fashion and where there were delays the resident was kept up to date and the reason explained. As outlined above, the landlord has conducted a thorough investigation into both the repairs and asbestos complaints, so far as its historic records allow. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the complaints investigations conducted were proportionate.
  2. The resident also complained about the conduct of staff members. The resident has been unable to name the staff members responsible, as she states that they refused to identify themselves. Whilst again, the Ombudsman does not reject the resident’s account of her conversations with the landlord’s staff as untrue, it is very difficult for a landlord to investigate allegations of a such a non-specific nature. The landlord may not hold contemporaneous records of all conversations between the resident and its staff members and could not reasonably be expected to review all records without some indication of the timeframe in which the alleged behaviour took place. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the landlord was unable to provide a more detailed response to this aspect of the complaint.
  3. The landlord has confirmed that its claims handlers are considering the resident’s claim for financial compensation. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the matter to its insurers, given the nature of the compensation claimed, however, this does not preclude the landlord from considering whether additional compensation should be awarded via the complaints process. Compensation may be awarded in recognition of service failure and of the stress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in both dealing with the issues and in bringing the complaint. Given that the landlord has identified that there was a delay in completing repointing works to the property between June 2017 and October 2019, accepting that this contributed to the presence of damp, the Ombudsman considers that an award of compensation in the sum of £500 is appropriate to reflect the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident during this period.
  4. It is understood that the resident was seeking a significant amount of compensation in recognition of the impact of the unpleasant conditions that she reports she has lived in for a number of years due to the landlord’s failure to complete repairs. Whilst the Ombudsman is sympathetic to the distress that this situation has caused to the resident, this Service is unable to make an award of compensation that takes into account the allegations of historic repair, due to the limits of our jurisdiction and the limited evidence available to demonstrate that repairs were reported and not completed within a reasonable time. For this reason, compensation can only be awarded in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the repointing works between June 2017 and June 2019. The resident is encouraged to seek independent legal advice on the aspects of her complaint that this Service has been unable to adjudicate on. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to your property; and
    2. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of your concerns about asbestos at the property; and
    3. no maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. In response to the resident’s formal complaint the landlord inspected the property, identified necessary repairs and promptly instructed the works. Repairs were completed within the landlord’s target timescales and the resident was kept up to date with progress. The landlord has provided evidence of its response to historic reports of disrepair and has carried out a proportionate review of its handling of repairs to the property since 2007. It has apologised where it has identified service failure and taken steps to complete all outstanding repairs for which it is responsible, also seeking independent advice on the condition of the property. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in respect of the delays to the completion of repointing works and considers that an award of compensation for stress and inconvenience is appropriate in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord has acted beyond the requirements of its policies and procedures to investigate the resident’s complaint about historic advice relating to the disposal of asbestos. It has responded to the resident’s concerns about the presence of asbestos in the property by arranging for an independent survey and there is no evidence that the landlord previously failed to respond to the issues raised in her formal complaint of 14 October 2019.
  3. The landlord responded to the complaint in a timely fashion and took reasonable steps to put things right for the resident. Where appropriate, the landlord referred the resident’s claim for compensation to its insurers, in line with the requirements of its policies and procedures. The landlord was unable to investigate the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, as no further details were provided to indicate the date of the alleged incidents or the identity of those involved. 

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £500 compensation in recognition of the stress and inconvenience suffered due to the delay in completing repointing works to the property.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review is processes for recording repairs not reported in writing, to ensure that all reports are accurately recorded and progressed in line with the timeframes set out in the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy.