Stevenage Borough Council (202009309)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009309

Stevenage Borough Council

6 May 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 leaseholder 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 leaseholder complains about the landlord’s response to his concerns about works carried out to the asbestos containing ceiling outside of his property.

Background and summary of events

2. The landlord employed a contractor to undertake works to upgrade the external lighting at the block the property is situated in. This contractor used its own sub-contractors for this; a contractor licensed to deal with asbestos (the licensed contractor) and an electrical contractor. 
3. On 7 January 2020 the licensed contractor carried out works to asbestos containing materials in the communal area outside of the leaseholder’s property in preparation for the electrical contractor, who attended the following day and installed an electrical conduit. When the leaseholder raised concerns about the works and asbestos exposure soon after, the landlord’s contractor attended to inspect, concluded that the conduit had been tampered with, and carried out an air test, the result of which was clear.
4. On 23 January 2020 the leaseholder submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord explaining that the conduit was poorly fitted and hanging down. The leaseholder expressed concern that he and others had been exposed to asbestos and asked a number of questions about the matter, including:

1. “Why was there no asbestos labels on the roof showing it is??
2. Why was I allowed to walk through that area all day
3. Why was the area no closed off when the supposed asbestos team turned up to drill the holes with there vac system.
4. Why was the holes left And not sealed and painted and only sealed and only painted when everyone from council turned up??
5. Who signed off the supposed asbestos team work to say that it was ok and Contractors can carry on with holes exposed and not paint and sealed.
6. Why was I not informed by anyone that the area is safe and clean and now can be walked through,”

5. He said that due to the works undertaken the ceiling was coming down and asked who would be paying for the cost of repair.
6. The landlord provided a stage one response on 5 February 2020, in which it answered each of the leaseholder’s questions in turn. In relation to the concern that the works had been left in a poor state, the landlord explained that in fact the work in question had not been completed, and neither its contractor nor its own Clerk of Works had post inspected and signed off the installation. Once it became aware that the conduit had been tampered with, an immediate make safe and air test to the area was carried out. The landlord provided the leaseholder with the air test and environmental clean report.
7. The landlord explained that the drilling was carried out by the licenced contractor in semi-controlled conditions in accordance with regulations, and provided the consignment note as evidence of this. The area was sprayed with a surfactant, and once the holes had been formed the surface was vacuumed of any loose debris and sprayed with PVA. The drilling method used a sealed cup that was mounted over the drill head ensuring all fibres were captured and nothing released into the atmosphere. There was no requirement for the area to be sealed off, but the contractor did cordon off the area and display signs during the works, which was only required during the drilling process. Once this was completed the supervisor visually inspected the area, then authorised the cordon to be removed. There was no requirement to label asbestos materials, but the landlord attached a copy of the asbestos report that it provided to the leaseholder’s solicitor when he purchased the property.
8. The landlord said ‘Having re-evaluated the aesthetics of the installation and listening to leaseholder feedback, it was agreed that the best way forward would be to relocate as much of the conduit as possible within the ceiling void. As part of this work, we will have to remove the asbestos soffit.’ The landlord acknowledged that this work would mean an element of inconvenience for the leaseholder and said ‘Please be assured you will not be re-charged for the aborted work, however, the removal of the ceiling and subsequent electrical works will be re-chargeable in accordance with the terms of your lease.’ The landlord also provided the asbestos register, the Risk Assessment Method Statement (RAMS) and the name and license number of the licensed contractor as the leaseholder had requested.
9. On 5 February 2020 the leaseholder submitted his stage two escalation request. In this he said ‘First and foremost I don’t like lying and trying to cover up. You made some massive fatal errors in that. There was no asbestos contractor. I have witnesses who see the work being carried out and I was in and out in the area with my wife. So no it was not signed or cornered off or signed off.’ He questioned the date that the works were carried out and said ‘…one fatal error what you have missed. I’m laughing why I write this. You supposed contractors did this. Boss signed it off and then allowed contractors to bang red wall plugs into a asbestos roof after which breaks the edges…So I will give you 3 days to get the truth to me or I will go to press with the lies.’
10. The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 7 February 2020 stating that it had arranged a site meeting for 11 February 2020 to be attended by its Clerk of Works. It said ‘As advised on the phone we will not be discussing the complaint, we will be there so that you can explain one of the issues from the Stage 1 response letter...’ It asked the leaseholder to put his questions/queries about the stage one response in an email so that the stage two complaint could be fully investigated, along with the outcome he was seeking as a resolution to the complaint.
11. On 10 February 2020 the leaseholder emailed the landlord with a copy of its stage one response, in which he had set out his response under each paragraph, refuting nearly all of the information and explanations provided by the landlord. He asked a large number of further questions, including:

1. “Who designed and installed the system???
2. Why were the holes drilled by the asbestos company not have paint or sealant round them like they supposed to do after drilling holes?
3. So photos will show the area around all the holes to be nice and clear with no dust on the ceiling?? Please provide me with evidence that this was done?
4. Please provide me with exact times the area was cordoned off and please provide with the times the are was un-cordoned off?
5. And reg number [of the van]? Where was it parked as RAMS say it has to be close as possible.
6. Any more evidence of people present. What where they wearing?

12. On 11 February 2020 the landlord emailed the leaseholder to thank him for taking the time to show it round the works and for explaining why he disagreed with its response regarding tampering. The landlord said that it would ‘“…use the discussion we had today along with your points in red font below for your Stage 2 complaint.’ The leaseholder responded that same day, stating that the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 stipulated that employers must protect the ‘health, safety and welfare’ at work of all their employees, as well as others on their premises. He said that this had not been adhered to, because: Asbestos holes were drilled with no PVA; the system was not fixed correctly; red wall plugs were inserted into asbestos which disturbed it; no RAMS was carried out, and the area was not decontaminated
13. As a resolution, the leaseholder wanted “honesty and integrity” from the landlord, rather than it saying that the work was carried out by licensed contractors as there was no clarification of this, it was untrue that an air test was carried out straight afterwards and the area was not ‘cleansed down from head to toe.’ He also requested that leaseholders not be charged for the electrical works, as these were poorly designed and installed. He also requested compensation ‘…for what I and my family have gone through, and the stress it’s left my wife with now worrying that [their son] could of inhaled it as he played out there that day in that dirty area.’
14. The landlord provided a response on 2 March 2020, which consisted of 31 numbered responses to the points and questions that the leaseholder had raised. Regarding the leaseholder’s concern that the installation was not tampered with as the contractor had claimed, the landlord explained that it asked the contractor to provide further evidence of this. The photo that was given to the landlord, which was taken on 20 January 2020, was not detailed enough to demonstrate the tampering the contractor referred to. Following the site visit with the Clerk of Works and having had the photo reviewed by the Programme Manager, the statement ‘it has been tampered with’ was withdrawn as there was no clear evidence of this. The landlord would raise the matter with the contractor at the next contract monitoring meeting.
15. In relation to the leaseholder’s concern that fixing the conduit with red plugs was not a suitable design and its enquiry into who had designed this, the landlord explained the design process and said ‘As plastic plugs potentially may not provide sufficient purchase for our fixings we instructed [the contractor] to research and identify a more suitable fixing. The options available rely on a stronger connection to the asbestos insulation board (AIB) such as threaded helix fittings or toggles. In view of the potential for failure of the sheet material if these were used it was agreed with [the contractor] the only way we could prevent this is for full removal of the AIB…’
16. In response to the leaseholder’s concerns that the PVA spray was not visible, the landlord said that it had asked for and received further reassurance from the licensed contractor that the RAMS was followed and PVA spray used, which would not be visible to the naked eye. Going forward the licensed contractor had been asked to use a spray that left a visible mark.
17. The leaseholder had asked for evidence (such as photographs) that a vacuum was used around the area after the drilling was carried out, and the landlord explained that a vacuum combined with the drill attachment was used, and then a rag to dab the area following this. The contractor would not have taken photographs of this work being carried out. The supervisor would then undertake a visual inspection of the working area to ensure that it was clean. There was no further evidence that the landlord could provide, and it was satisfied the works were carried correctly.
18. In relation to the questions that the leaseholder had asked about times that the licensed contractor arrived, the time it cordoned off the area and so on, the landlord explained that the contractors did not have a record of these times. It said that works were carried out to a number of blocks on 7 January 2020 and the electrical contractors carried out their installation work on 8 January 2020. The asbestos was not drilled on the same day the electricians were on site. It noted that it had already provided the leaseholder with the signing in sheets for the day showing the asbestos and electrical contractors signing in and out and said ‘We cannot record the exact times as the operatives are working on multiple blocks each day, the signing in sheet issued provides information of who has signed into site and which general location they have worked at.’
19. The landlord acknowledged that the consignment note listed the wrong asbestos type, however the correct drilling methods were still used and would be the same for either type of asbestos. It had no further evidence to provide in relation to the asbestos being taken away. It would not provide any names of operatives or registration numbers of vehicles present as this would breach GDPR. It did not record the location that vehicles were parked during works however the company vehicle was parked at the nearest possible point to the works location at the time of exiting the vehicle to commence works. The landlord said ‘We are therefore satisfied the asbestos contractor has complied with their RAMS.’ The landlord provided a photograph of the cordoned off area as the leaseholder had requested.
20. In response to the outcomes that the leaseholder was seeking, the landlord said ‘We have provided you with all the evidence we have to show the work was completed in accordance with the contractors RAMS. We have also provided you with [the licensed contractor’s] registration number. I believe we are acting with honesty and integrity and will continue to do so.’ As a leaseholder, he was obliged to pay for the work recharged to him under the terms of his lease. As had already been advised, the landlord would be waiving any charges for the work involving the drilling of the asbestos and fitting of the conduit. The landlord advised that as the work was carried out in semi-controlled conditions no contamination of the environment took place. The area immediately outside the property was safe at all times and therefore compensation would not be offered.
21. The leaseholder replied on 20 March 2020 with a stage three escalation, again refuting much of the landlord’s response and stating that he required further evidence. He noted that the picture provided showing the cordoned area could have been photoshopped. He said ‘Solid evidence is needed in the form of below please’ and listed a number of pieces of information he required, as well as asking a number of questions. He said that he wanted factual evidence to support the landlord’s claim that works were carried out in accordance with the RAMS and the waste was taken away and disposed of in the correct manner.
22. He stated that because the inappropriate red plugs were used to fix the conduit, and the design and installation had caused the plugs to break away, the asbestos was damaged and caused asbestos exposure. He concluded that the holes were not drilled by the licensed contractor but were instead drilled by the electrical contractor. He requested compensation for exposing him and his family to asbestos, the time he had taken raising the issue and the inconvenience caused. He asked for his bill for the block to be ‘completely wiped’. He emailed again the following day adding a number of further questions, such as ‘Can you confirm yes or no that after every hole in every block was drilled was capsules used to put in the hole to protect the holes from damage. Which is required in the HSE guidelines.’
23. The landlord provided its stage three response on 17 April 2020. This reiterated many of the responses that had already been provided to the questions asked by the leaseholder and explained that it had nothing further to add. It said that the RAMS was signed by the operatives prior to works commencing, and the RAMS already provided covered multiple sites and would not be completed for individual blocks. The exact times the operatives were working at the block were not recorded as they were working on multiple blocks each day. The signing in sheet provided information on who had signed into site and which general location they have worked at. The entire area did not require cleaning down as the drilling was carried out in semi-controlled conditions. As PVA spray was used there was no requirement to install enclosed capsules to the holes.
24. The landlord noted Evidence has previously been provided to show the work was completed in accordance with the contractors RAMS. [The licensed contractor’s] registration number and the certificate of consignment have also been provided. There is nothing further we can provide to you as evidence of this work having taken place in the manner in which has been stated in earlier correspondence.
25. In relation to the leaseholder’s comments about the installation not having been tampered with, and the issues being caused by a design and installation fault, the landlord said that as had previously been confirmed the installation had not been completed, inspected or approved by its contractor or itself. It said that its contractor had carried out ‘tool box talks’ with both the licensed contractor and the electrical contractor to ensure that site approved codes of practice were clear and understood by all the appropriate operatives. It said ‘The decision has also been taken that in future all Asbestos Insulating Board (AIB) ceilings of this type, where it is considered fixings may need to be made or disturbed in any way to facilitate work, will be removed.’ The landlord referred the leaseholder to the Ombudsman to escalate his complaint.
26. The Ombudsman is aware that there has been ongoing correspondence with the leaseholder since the end of the complaint process, with the leaseholder continuing to email the landlord, its contractors and others with his concerns. The Ombudsman has also seen that around June 2020 the leaseholder raised concerns about ten holes having been drilled, whereas these were not all accounted for by the licensed contractor (although it is not clear exactly when the leaseholder discovered this issue). The landlord continued to refer the leaseholder to the Ombudsman as the next step in the escalation of his concerns.
27. On 24 June 2020 the conduit became detached from the ceiling, and the landlord attended the next morning with an asbestos surveyor who confirmed that there was no asbestos debris in the vicinity. An asbestos contractor attended on 26 June 2020 and sealed the holes where the fixings had come loose to encapsulate the asbestos material. An air test was conducted and returned satisfactory results.

Assessment and findings

28. In his complaint to this Service the leaseholder has said that the landlord poorly installed a metal conduit onto the asbestos ceiling directly outside the property. He states that the landlord used the incorrect fixings for this and while only two holes were reported to have been drilled into the ceiling by the licensed contractor, there were in fact ten holes, leaving eight unaccounted for. He argues that the fact that the landlord did not identify this itself shows that it failed to carry out a thorough investigation into his concerns.
29. He explains ‘The work was left in January with red wall plugs hanging out the ceiling and areas of the roof were not cleaned down and had broken away. One of the holes was left open with no fixing even in the hole.’ He says that the conduit was ‘left over our heads’ for over 6 months. Over time it gradually came away and in June 2020 broke away. It was then ‘left attached by a thread’ for 48 hours before the landlord attended to make safe.
30. He would like the landlord to report the electrical contractor to The National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting (NICEIC) as he believes its work did not meet regulations. He also wants leaseholders absolved of the cost of all the electrical works and asbestos removal works. He would like the landlord to work with the HSE to find out exactly how the works were carried out and ‘If the work fails Health and safety and puts lives at risk then, then contractors should be fined or removed.’ He would also like compensation for “…being exposed to asbestos and leaving it up for 6 months incorrectly fitted.”
31. He states ‘All the way through the SBC have assured me that the work has carried out safe. But they have provided me with no evidence to support this….Going forward I feel unless anyone can prove to me how the holed were drilled and prove to me they were carried out safely then I believe all costs of the major work project should be taken care of the SBC for the stress and time this has wasted and fact I will not know if we was exposed to asbestos or not as no one can clarify the answer.’
32. It is important to note from the outset of this investigation that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide exactly how works were carried out, whether cleaning was adequate, or otherwise determine if the asbestos was dealt with appropriately. The Ombudsman does not have the expertise to do so, and this would fall more appropriately under the role of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and in fact, the leaseholder has already taken his concerns to the HSE which has carried out its own investigations (this is addressed in more detail below). Rather, the role of the Ombudsman is to determine whether the landlord responded appropriately and fairly to the concerns raised by the leaseholder, and his subsequent formal complaint.
33. The landlord’s contractor attended quickly when the leaseholder first raised concerns in January 2020, and carried out an air test which was clear. This seems to have been a reasonable response. What is less clear is why the contractor concluded that the installation had been tampered with. There is no information available to show on what basis this conclusion was drawn and as is suggested in the landlord’s subsequent response to the formal complaint, there was no evidence that supported this statement.
34. The leaseholder asked many questions in his 23 January 2020 complaint, and the landlord’s response addressed each of these. It explained the method used to drill the holes and then make safe, and said that the area only needed to be cordoned off for the drilling process. The landlord provided the consignment note, asbestos register, RAMS and the name and license number of the licensed contractor as the leaseholder had requested. The Ombudsman considers that these explanations and the provision of evidence was a reasonable response to the concerns that the leaseholder had raised, demonstrating that the landlord was willing to provide the information requested.
35. Further, it reassured the leaseholder that he would not be charged for the aborted work though would be charged for the works that would be carried out instead. Again, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord acted appropriately here; it was reasonable that it should cover the costs for the works that it began, and then decided would need to be altered, as it would have been unfair to expect the leaseholder to be financially disadvantaged by this. But the Ombudsman can see no basis for the landlord then to cover the cost of the new works which were rechargeable to the leaseholder under the terms of his lease.
36. The landlord said that the installation had not been completed, inspected or approved. The Ombudsman asked the landlord for further details as it was not clear from the complaint responses exactly what was meant by this. In reply the landlord has said ‘…as part of the approval process for all works within the contract, we employ a Clerk of Works that are invited to site to sign off elements of works as completed. The installation of the conduit was in progress and the Clerk of Works had not yet been invited to site to inspect this element of work.’ The Ombudsman considers this a reasonable response to the leaseholder’s concerns that the installation was left unfinished: it in fact was unfinished, and therefore had not yet been inspected. However, it does not fully address the leaseholder’s concern that the installation was poorly installed.
37. When the leaseholder refuted the landlord’s response with his stage two complaint, the landlord arranged a site meeting to help clarify some aspects his concerns, and then provided a response in which it attempted to address each of the large number of questions the leaseholder had asked. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord had already addressed and provided evidence for many of the issues that the leaseholder raised. For example, the leaseholder said that a licensed contractor had not been used, whereas the landlord had previously provided the details of the licensed contractor. The leaseholder stated that no RAMS had been carried out, whereas the landlord had already provided a copy of this. Some of the questions that he posed the landlord could not have been reasonably expected to answer or to have known, such as what the operatives that attended were wearing and where they had parked their vehicle. In addition, some of the evidence that the leaseholder requested such as photographs of the drilling work taking place, again would not be something that this Service would expect a landlord to be able to provide.
38. The landlord withdrew its statement that the installation had been tampered with as there was no clear evidence of this. However, it did not provide any further explanation. It is unclear to this Service why initially the installation was felt to have been tampered with; it suggests that there was a problem with the installation, which, if not caused by ‘tampering’ should have been investigated to determine how it had been caused. While the landlord said that it would raise the matter with the contractor’s supervisory staff at the next contract monitoring meeting, there is no evidence of this having occurred or any further explanation on this issue.
39. In relation to the leaseholder’s concern that fixing the conduit with red plugs was not a suitable design and enquiry into who had designed this, the landlord explained the design process and said ‘As plastic plugs potentially may not provide sufficient purchase for our fixings we instructed [the contractor] to research and identify a more suitable fixing. The options available rely on a stronger connection to the asbestos insulation board (AIB) such as threaded helix fittings or toggles. In view of the potential for failure of the sheet material if these were used it was agreed with [the contractor] the only way we could prevent this is for full removal of the AIB…’
40. This response was not entirely clear to the Ombudsman, as it neither appeared to be confirming that the red plugs were appropriate nor confirming that they were not. This Service therefore asked the landlord for further clarification and evidence on this point. In response, it has explained that the red plugs were appropriate, and has provided an email from NICEIC dated 20 February 2020 which states that properly selected and installed plastic wall plugs can be used to support cables, wiring systems and the like, and there was no evidence to show that these were non-compliant with regulations.  
41. The Ombudsman accepts this as evidence that supports the landlord’s claim, but it would have been better had this been provided to the leaseholder at the time. Having said this, the fact that the installation became detached from the ceiling in June 2020 suggests that, as the leaseholder had claimed, it had not been installed correctly.
42. The landlord explained why it could not answer all the questions the leaseholder had asked, and that there was no further evidence that the landlord could provide, and it was satisfied the works were carried correctly and the licensed contractor had complied with the RAMS. The landlord advised that as the work was carried out in semi-controlled conditions no contamination of the environment took place. The area immediately outside the property was safe at all times and therefore compensation would not be offered. It noted that it had already provided the leaseholder with the signing in sheets for the day showing the asbestos and electrical contractors signing in and out, and provided a photograph of the cordoned off area (the Ombudsman notes that the leaseholder rejected this siting that it could have been “photoshopped”).
43. The Ombudsman finds that, again, the landlord had made significant attempts to provide the information and reassurance that the leaseholder sought. When he responded with his stage three request, again refuting the landlord’s explanations and asking a number of further questions, the landlord again provided a detailed, numbered response in which it attempted to address the leaseholder’s ongoing concerns. As much of the stage three complaint was a repeat of the concerns and questions that had already been raised and responded to, the landlord necessarily had to repeat the information that it had previously given, and explain that it had provided all the evidence it could. 
44. As noted above, the leaseholder reported his concerns to the HSE, which subsequently inspected how the work was carried out. In a letter dated 16 December 2020 it noted that the leaseholder had submitted a complaint to the HSE regarding possible exposure to asbestos dust during the installation of communal lighting on the landing outside of his property. The HSE’s investigation established that the landlord had appropriate arrangements in place to manage asbestos.
45. A site visit was then undertaken by a HSE inspector on 27 July 2020. On 7 September 2020, additional enquiries were carried out by the inspector to establish how the work in question was carried out in practice, and whether this had been done without any precautions. It was noted that the electrical contractor involved had stated that it had marked up the position of all the holes required to install the lighting. The licenced contractor (whose role it was to drill the holes) asserted that it only drilled two holes into the ceiling, because only two holes had been marked up. It was able to evidence that it drilled these holes under ‘semi-controlled’ conditions, consistent with the approach set out by the HSE.
46. The electrical contractor confirmed that all holes required to install the lighting were pre-drilled and had wall plugs inserted prior to it attending site and maintained that if it had arrived on site to find that no holes had been pre-drilled into asbestos containing materials, it would stop work and inform the principal contractor rather than drill the holes itself, as it did not drill holes into asbestos.
47. The letter said ‘HSE has been unable to conclusively establish who drilled the remainder of the holes, and whether these were drilled using a safe system of work. I fully understand that it is your contention that the work was carried out unsafely. However, from the evidence that has been collected, HSE has been unable to confirm or deny this assertion. It follows that our investigation has been unable to establish if any of the parties involved in the work breached relevant legislation. In light of this no enforcement action had been taken, although advisory letters had been sent to the dutyholders involved in the upgrade of the communal lighting.’
48. In relation to the leaseholder’s concerns about risk from asbestos disturbance, the HSE stated ‘The risk of asbestos exposure for occupants of the block during the external work, if airborne exposure occurred at all, would be very limited and likely to be below the exposure limit. Any exposure duration is likely to have been very short (probably a few seconds per hole) and the fibres would be more readily dispersed and diluted in the natural ventilation. Fibre release would stop after drilling ceased and airborne concentrations will quickly return to background levels.’
49. While the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s response to the complaint was detailed and comprehensive, and that it clearly made efforts to try and answer the many questions that the leaseholder put to it and reassure him that he and his family had not been at risk at any time, there is still the question of the additional holes that are unaccounted for and were not investigated as part of the original complaint.
50. The Ombudsman’s understanding from the information available is that the landlord declined to respond to this issue as the complaint had already gone through the full complaint process and had been referred to this Service, and as the HSE was carrying out its own investigation. While it perhaps would have been useful for the landlord to have provided a response on the matter, given these circumstances the Ombudsman does not criticise it too heavily for not doing so.
51. As part of this investigation the Ombudsman has asked the landlord if it was able to provide an explanation for the eight additional holes, and whether this was raised with the contractors. In response the landlord noted that the HSE could not determine with certainty who drilled the remaining holes and had ‘…consequently cited poor record keeping.’ The landlord has advised that in light of this, its contractor had ‘…dispensed with [the licensed contractor’s] services and given an undertaking to us and the HSE that this form of poor record keeping will not occur again.’
52. As set out in the HSE’s response to his concerns, even had there been airborne exposure it would likely have been very minimal and below exposure levels. Therefore, there is no indication that the leaseholder or his family have been at risk at any time. However, the issue has clearly caused him a great deal of anxiety and worry, and it is of course a concern that the additional holes were unaccounted for. While the landlord has taken reasonable steps to address this by dispensing with the services of the licensed contractor, the Ombudsman finds that a payment to reflect the worry felt by the leaseholder is appropriate to put things right.  
53. While the Ombudsman appreciates the leaseholder’s view that the landlord should have identified this issue when he first made the complaint, it is not possible to determine whether it is something that it could reasonably have been expected to have been identified at that time.

Determination (decision)

54. In accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the concerns about works carried out to the asbestos containing ceiling outside of the property.

Reasons

55. This has been a finely balanced decision. It is clear that the landlord has taken the complaint seriously, attempted to provide as much information and evidence to the leaseholder as it could, and offered reassurances that he and his family have not been at risk from asbestos exposure.
56. There is no evidence that suggests that the leaseholder or his family were exposed to asbestos. The HSE did not raise any concerns about the installation other than unaccounted-for holes, and found that the landlord had appropriate arrangements in place to manage asbestos. The landlord has met with the leaseholder to discuss his concerns and provided detailed, lengthy responses to the large number of questions that were raised, and has also provided a number of pieces of evidence in support of its explanations and as were requested by the leaseholder.
57. As a result of the complaint, talks were carried out with both the licensed contractor and the electrical contractor. The landlord agreed that in the future it would remove any ceilings of this type where it was considered fixings may be needed, or it would be disturbed in any way to facilitate work. When asbestos drilling does take place it would use a PVA (or similar) spray that left a visible mark. It also dispensed with the services of the licensed contractor when advised by the HSE that there was a record keeping issue. This demonstrates that the landlord has taken action to learn from the case, and to put things right.
58. However, the landlord has been unable to provide an account of the additional holes that were drilled, and although the information available shows that using red plugs was appropriate, the fact that the conduit came down six months later does suggest that it was not securely fixed. No explanation has been provided regarding the withdrawn statement that the installation had been tampered with. These matters have clearly caused the leaseholder a great deal of concern, as well as time and trouble in pursuing the issue.

Order

59. Within a month of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the leaseholder £250 for worry, time and trouble the failings identified in this report have caused him.