Trent & Dove Housing Limited (202204417)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204417

Trent & Dove Housing Limited

31August 2023 (amended at review 28 November 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:
1. Handling of reports of asbestos in the resident’s property.
2. Response to reports of damp.
3. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant in a two-bedroom ground floor apartment and has lived there since June 2003. The resident lives in the property with his child.
The landlord has recorded that the resident has disabilities, and his child also has asthma.
The resident had raised issues of disrepair associated with damp and mould in his kitchen, bathroom and living room in 2020 which resulted in him issuing proceedings against the landlord. The landlord believed this was because of inadequate ventilation and heating. The matter was settled outside of court and the landlord attempted to complete the agreed repairs to the property. The landlord also offered to temporarily decant the resident from the property whilst it completed works to the property, which the resident refused.
The landlord’s asbestos policy states it would identify the location, condition, nature, and extent of all Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) in its domestic premises before work which may disturb them is carried out. Following identification, it would conduct suitable and sufficient risk assessments, to determine the potential for fibre release and subsequent exposure from these materials. Where its algorithm identified a high risk associated with an asbestos containing material, it would be removed. It also states it may remove items where it is not high risk, but to remove the need for ongoing management.
The landlord’s repairs policy provides advice on mould growth. It states residents can get rid of mould by washing down the affected surface with a fungicide. However, it states that the only permanent cure is the reduction of condensation. It then explains residents can reduce condensation by opening windows to let out steam, drying wet clothes outside on washing lines and ensuring tumble dryers are properly vented to the outside.

Summary of Events

Floor tiles in the resident’s property contained asbestos and the landlord completed an asbestos survey in 2019. The survey identified a “very low risk” with the asbestos in the property. It also identified that there was “low damage” to the floor tiles in the property.
The resident raised a complaint on 27 of January 2022 about poor workmanship to the soil vent pipe which he believed led to a leak into his property and caused damp in his second bedroom. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord completed an inspection on 31 January 2022 and found that a previous leak had led to the uplift of some floor tiles to the resident’s front room.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 7 February 2022 and did not uphold the complaint. The resident did not escalate his complaint to the next stage.
Between 25 April 2022 and 28 April 2022, the landlord and resident communicated. After the resident provided photographs of the landlord’s contractor’s workmanship, the landlord explained it understood works were taking place at the resident’s property to redirect the soil pipe. It asked him what he would like to raise a complaint about. He responded and raised an issue about its contractor’s workmanship. The landlord, thanked him for bringing this to its attention, said it would ensure all future works were compliant, confirmed it had raised his complaint and provided a 10-working day timescale for responding.
On 27 April 2022, the landlord was contacted on behalf of the resident by his MP, due to concerns about works at the property, that works had been outstanding since 2021. Work was booked in for 23 May 2022 to carryout repairs to the brick work for addressing the damp in the child’s bedroom. Damp in this room was measuring in the high teens or above, when zero to five percent was the acceptable level.
The following day, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed it had received an MP enquiry regarding the reported moisture levels he had sent a picture of, together with his complaint about the quality of the works to his bathroom. It explained:
1. It had discussed the current issues with him, and they did not relate to his disrepair claim in 2021, and it was doing everything in its power to rectify them.
2. It had arranged 3 appointments between 23 February 2022 to 12 April 2022, but could not gain access, due to the resident and his child having covid and self-isolating. It said the works had been rearranged for 23 May 2022.
3. The resident’s cooperation to attend on the date mentioned would be appreciated as it would enable it to complete the works and investigate his claims of moisture in the walls and bathroom repairs.
The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and said although it said the recent issues were not related to the previous list of works from the disrepair claim, the leaks came from corroded pipes. Those pipes were included on the works list for the disrepair settlement, and corrosion would have been an inevitable discovery in 2020 or 2021, therefore the link could not be dismissed. He said the industry accepted standards for damp on internal walls was zero to five percent and his asthmatic child’s room was reading at 20% even with a large dehumidifier.
On 11 May 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord explained it was not upholding the complaint. It addressed the resident’s other complaints and noted the resident felt the damp and mould in his property had not been remedied by the disrepair works in 2022. He also believed that there was unacceptable moisture still present which proved the damp had returned and showed the works done in 2021 were not successful and indicated poor workmanship. The landlord explained the leak it was currently dealing with had no relation to the previous works. It said, it required access to the property for its surveyor to inspect his kitchen ceiling and explained an appointment had been arranged. It said if a leak or damp was found in the property, it would address it as a matter of urgency. Following the landlord’s response, the resident did not escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process.
Due to the asbestos issues, and the resident’s concerns about exposure, he commissioned his own asbestos survey. On 25 May 2022, the resident’s contractor provided a survey which stated the asbestos in the property should be “managed”. The resident provided a copy of the survey to the landlord.
Between 25 May 2022 and 26 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and said he had metres of asbestos in his property, and this had been proven by scientific laboratory evidence. He also said his property flooded in January 2022 and this was completely avoidable had the landlord’s contractor not missed works from the “legally binding contract”. The landlord responded and said if the resident felt he was not adequately housed due to the asbestos, it was happy to review the laboratory report. It asked him to submit the report together with what he wished to complain about and what outcome he was seeking.
On the same day, the resident responded and said:
1. The landlord told everyone his flat was adequate. He had everything he complained about denied and this led to his protest.
2. His solicitors said the pipes were on the contractor’s job list from the settlement, and they were not repaired and then in January 2022 his property flooded. The issue was completely avoidable had the contractor not missed things off the legally binding contract.
3. That the landlord stated letters from doctors were not evidence of any kind and the peak flow diaries, kept by his child, twice daily over several weeks and overseen by a highly reputable GP, were not evidence the asbestos had impacted his family’s health. A peak flow diary is a method used to track variability of asthma based on numerous factors such as environment.
4. He was complaining about all the above and more than 18 years of broken asbestos flooring and adhesive, despite estate quality surveys, asbestos monitors and record keeping.
5. The landlord listed the floor repair for 11 July 2022, but having consulted with a contractor who came back to the flat, took samples, ran the tests, and wrote a report, he now knew every tile had to go. Several millimetres of concrete had to be mechanically sanded away and other health and safety protocols would need to be observed.
6. He would also inform former neighbours of what the report said.
7. He had sent the report to his MP, solicitors, and the press. He asked if something could be done about him being charged rent despite all the issues.
The landlord responded to the resident the following day and said it had addressed all the matters raised through its complaint’s procedure, aside from the matter he raised about asbestos being present in the property. It told the resident it would log this as a formal complaint.
The resident responded on the same day and said he had been exposed to asbestos from broken floor tiles, there was damp of more than 30% in an asthmatic child’s bedroom and suggested the landlord’s priorities were skewed. The resident then told the landlord to speak with his solicitor going forward.
On 6 June 2022, the landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response. It said it had not upheld his complaint. It explained the resident completed an independent survey about the asbestos, and felt the survey pointed to the fact the level of asbestos in his property was dangerous and the landlord had put him and his child’s health at risk and it needed to move him. The landlord explained from its investigations, both its survey and the resident’s surveys found the risk to be low and the advice provided across both surveys was to manage the asbestos and not remove it. The landlord said it hoped the response reassured the resident that it had considered his concerns, and that the risk to him and his child was low.
The resident responded on the same day and said it neglected to consider loose chipped and missing tiles which had been observed throughout his flat over the last 20 years. He said the landlord’s contractors were going to seal the tiles with concrete the following month, and he believed because of the missing tiles for over two decades, all tiles, adhesives and the sub level of concrete should be sanded away in line with “ASB5 certificate” advice from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). He then asked the landlord to begin a stage 2 complaint. The landlord confirmed the escalation of the resident’s complaint on 10 June 2022.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 June 2022, and explained the outcome he was seeking. He said:
1. As it caused or indirectly contributed to him and his child being exposed to the asbestos, and the very high damp levels in his child’s bedroom returning, the landlord had to examine “what it had led to”.
2. It had caused an exceptionally long absence from their family home, the only permanent home his child had known. The stress of the situation had led to worsening physical and mental health. It had exacerbated a physical condition over the last 6 months to one year and saw the need for increased treatments from his GP. He said there had also been an increase in the frequency of visits to the GP for mental health issues.
3. There had been a worsening in his child’s asthma, and they had a second inhaler added.
4. At a minimum he needed a move out of the flat to a safe dry place to live. This needed to be on a route for his child’s college bus and within reach of his carer. The property also needed to be suitable for his disabilities and there had to be considerable financial restitution which was also separate to any legal issues about breaking a contractual agreement or permanent damage to his previously asthma free child’s health.
On 24 June 2022, the landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 response and said it was not upholding the resident’s complaint. It provided a summary of the resident’s complaint at stage 1, and it summarised the stage 1 findings. In response the landlord said:
1. The resident had raised health issues now at stage 2 and this was not raised at stage 1. It was sorry he felt his health had deteriorated due to his living conditions, but it could not attribute this to his personal circumstances. With a lack of medical evidence showing the cause of his deterioration, it was unable to comment further. It said it was keen to resolve his concerns of damp as soon as possible.
2. In relation to his child’s health, it could confirm there was no link between asbestos and asthma and pointed the resident to the HSE website.
3. Regarding the absence from their home due to the asbestos, it understood from past correspondence that both the resident and his child ordinarily resided at his girlfriend’s home for large parts of the week, and this had been a longstanding arrangement over many months and not something that started because of commissioning an asbestos survey.
4. In relation to the damp at the property, following its recent investigative visit it considered the moisture readings and its professional opinion was that replastering would resolve the issue, as the moisture remained from the former bathroom leak. However, it took all cases of damp very seriously and it wanted to commission a specialist damp report to ensure it was not overlooking anything. Its contractors would be in contact with the resident to arrange a suitable appointment.
5. The scale of the remedial works required in the property did not warrant a decant at the time as they could be undertaken around the resident. It said there were also no grounds to offer him a move, as he was assessed as being adequately housed, but he could look for a mutual exchange.
The landlord’s damp surveyor attended the property and provided a survey on 29 June 2022. The survey identified low to high rising damp to the right side of the wall only, in the front bedroom and issues with condensation to the external walls to the bedrooms and lounge. It provided suggestions to help address the issues. To address the rising damp, the survey recommended that a diffusion cream and damp proof course was applied to all walls.
With regards to condensation, it was revealed that the external walls to the bedrooms and lounge had suffered with it, and this was causing areas of black spot mould growth which had caused decor deterioration. The report said this was often aggravated by the lack of heating, ventilation, and cold surfaces to the external wall. It recommended the external walls were dry lined with insulated plasterboards, and the installation of a positive input ventilator should be considered.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 response on 30 June 2022 and said he disagreed, as there was no safe level of disturbed asbestos. He said he had contacted the Royal Society for the Prevention of Asbestos and others for their opinions. The landlord responded and told him his comments were noted and explained where any legal intervention should be directed. The following day, the resident contacted the landlord and said:
1. Its conclusion stated that there was no medical information about how living conditions were affecting his child. However, this was completely wrong as his doctor wrote that they had seen the video of the flooding in his property. They had assessed him, and it was all having a detrimental effect on his mental and physical health and said he should be moved.
2. They were not the only GP to have requested he was moved on health grounds. That another doctor reportedly told the landlord the same thing after the “damning” peak flow diary covering over a month in at least 4 places he had slept, and the only poor result was at his property. The doctor had restated the need for him to move since then.
3. The landlord told him and his partner that all medical evidence was irrelevant to it, but whether it was irrelevant or not, it should have been considered in the report especially as it mentions the “flooding”. He stated the MP had also told the landlord they had seen the letters and based on all this; its decision was flawed on highly important facts it got wrong.
There then appears to be a break in communication between the parties. During this time, the resident contacted his local councillor about the situation. The councillor asked the landlord for copies of responses provided to the resident. The landlord provided these the same day.
On 23 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and provided information about a legal case against a global company about what was thought to be negligible levels of asbestos. The resident stated, “the balance of probability suggested the levels were not negligible after all”. He said the asbestos in his flat could be from the same origin as that in the case. He asked the landlord to consider how many people had been using the product and how bad it was that he was living with materials possibly from the same mineral source floating around his home for 20 years and having to raise his child in it.
The landlord discussed the resident’s email internally on the same day. Its operative said:
1. There was nothing to suggest that there was a health and safety concern. In response to his email, it said it understood that the case against the global organisation could be distressing but it had no reason to assume a link between their product and the floor tiles in the resident’s property.
2. It had not seen the asbestos survey report but believed that it would be quite unlikely that the floor tiles in the resident’s property would contain the same type of asbestos. The operative said in his experience, floor tiles tended to be chrysotile and that it would expect the asbestos content to be low and for it to be well bound into the floor tile itself. If the floor tiles remained in good condition and undisturbed, then the asbestos should not cause harm.
3. It said asbestos bound into a product would be very unlikely to become airborne which was quite different to the global organisation’s product which would readily do so. The operative said its advice to the resident would be to leave the floor tiles alone as they were unlikely to cause any harm if they were undisturbed and remained in good condition. It said it had provided some information from the HSE which may help to ease the resident’s immediate fears.
The landlord asked the operative to send the information it provided directly to the resident. On 26 August 2022, the landlord responded to the resident and said his complaint was now with the Ombudsman and it would await this service’s decision before making any further comment.
On 6 September 2022, the landlord discussed internally about its contractor’s damp report and said the resident’s property was suffering from minor condensation related issues as it suspected. It explained internally that the contractor recommended some works, which it was going to do in house the following week. It said the contractor also recommended some injection works to one wall, but not where the resident had stated there was a problem. Later the same day, the landlord contacted the resident about visiting his property on that day to make sure the floor tiles were safe. He said he did not want the landlord to attend and that the tiles would all be cleared for the following week ready for when it had the work booked in.
This service contacted the landlord to request information on what the works discussed on 6 September 2022 consisted of and whether the recommendation of the damp and mould survey were completed. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that works were completed on 9 November 2022. It explained it did not follow the recommendations of the survey as there had been a flood from the property above and it was waiting for the property to dry out following low damp readings. The landlord explained another report of damp and mould was received in January 2023 and it had passed the works on to its damp and mould contractor. These works had been chased on 7 July 2023 and it was awaiting confirmation of the completion date of the works.
The landlord also provided records which show that it completed works on the resident’s property in November 2022 around the asbestos after identifying that the tiles had been damaged. The records also show that its surveyor attended the resident’s property on two occasions in January 2023 to inspect the damp and mould.
The landlord’s subcontractor was due to attend the resident’s property on 19 February 2023, but this was cancelled. It then chased the contractor on 12 May 2023 for an update and works were raised on 7 July 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has previously raised damp and mould issues in a disrepair claim in his property in 2020 which was settled out of court. Following this, the resident then raised 2 other complaints about damp and mould in his property which the landlord responded to on 7 February 2022 and 11 May 2022. The resident did not escalate these two claim to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. Based on this, the Ombudsman is unable to comment on the disrepair claim as this was dealt with through the courts and falls outside of this services jurisdiction. The two complaints which were investigated in February 2022 and May 2022 also did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure as the resident did not escalate them. As such, this services report and determination focus on the resident’s complaint of 25 May 2022.
Although it is acknowledged that the resident has stated the issues of asbestos date back over 18 years, the length of time which has passed would make it difficult to obtain accurate records to carry out an investigation about issues and the landlord’s response going back that far. As such this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports resulting in the complaint of 25 May 2022, which were considered in the landlord’s recent complaint responses.
It is recognised that the situation has been distressing for the resident especially surrounding his child’s health and has been ongoing for a long time. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the impact of such issues on a resident or their family’s health but can consider any distress or inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions or inactions. Such issues are better dealt with by the courts and the resident may wish to seek independent advice regarding this.

Reports of asbestos in the resident’s property

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s handling of reports of asbestos in the resident’s property was in accordance with its policies, procedures, and any agreements it had with the resident, and whether it acted reasonably, considering what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The key aspect of this complaint is the resident’s concerns about what he believes to be the landlord’s mismanagement of the asbestos risk at his property. He feels the landlord left him and his child exposed to a serious health risk for over 18 years. This service understands the resident’s concerns around the risk from the asbestos tiles will have been distressing. As a remedy, he sought a move from the property and compensation.
The presence of materials containing asbestos in a home does not in itself, automatically constitute disrepair or place any obligation for repair on the landlord. However, if the material is damaged or disturbed and there is the risk of asbestos particles or fibres being released, then the landlord should act to repair the damage in line with its asbestos management policy.
The landlord was aware of the asbestos in the resident’s property following an asbestos survey completed in April 2019 which confirmed that the risk rating was “very low”, and it was recommended that the asbestos was managed. Following a leak into his property, the resident had a private survey completed in 2022 which came to the same conclusion.
The resident raised concerns with the landlord that both he and his child had been exposed previously to the asbestos and continued to be at risk of exposure. Considering both surveys and after internal conversations and consultations with its staff, the landlord concluded that it was not necessary to move the resident as the asbestos posed a very low risk to his safety as long as it remained undisturbed.
As such it was reasonable that the landlord considered the property was safe and habitable. As such in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable that the landlord decided not to move the resident after consideration of expert advice from the surveys.
After finding out that the tiles in the property had been damaged, the landlord arranged for them to be inspected and replaced. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord acted positively by responding to the potential risk and looking to ensure the tiles remained safe.
However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have done more to reassure the resident that the property was safe. This service understands that two surveys were completed which left the landlord confident there was low risk of harm to the resident from the asbestos, however, the resident remained anxious and disturbed by its presence. Although the landlord provided the resident with assurance at stage 1 that the asbestos did not pose a risk to his or his child, he remained worried. This was because he felt there had been ‘18 and more years of broken tiles and lose and chipped flooring’ in the property, so his issue was not just about the current finding that it was safe, but also historically as well.
The landlord failed to acknowledge this and provide the resident with the correct assurances that he required. The landlord could have provided a copy of its report to the resident if it had not done so already. It might have considered arranging for the resident to speak to a suitably qualified person to provide a better explanation to him about why it considered that the asbestos levels were safe. It could have explained to him how it ensured his safety historically when it repaired the loose and chipped flooring he mentioned. It could also have completed an air purity test as a way of assuring him that although there had been historic issues, the property was still safe. This service acknowledges that the landlord’s operative said it provided information from the HSE, to ease the resident’s fears, but no evidence has been provided to this service that this was provided to the resident.
In summary, two surveys were conducted on the resident’s property by both the resident and landlord which identified a low risk of harm from the asbestos in the tiles. He raised his concerns and the landlord considered both surveys, and reasonably found it was not necessary to move him from his property. Once the landlord identified the tiles in the property had been damaged, it positively arranged for them to be inspected and replaced. However, the landlord could have done more to reassure him that the property was safe. It also failed to acknowledge the resident’s issue was not just about the current findings of the survey but potential historical issues, which led to its failure to properly assure him. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure by the landlord.

Response to reports of damp.

The landlord’s policy seems to suggest that issues of mould tend to be because of lifestyle choices and resident’s use of the property. Whilst it is positive that it provides advice on how to tackle damp and mould in the home, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there needs to be more consideration for other reasons which could lead to damp and mould in a property.
The Ombudsman published a spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021. A recommendation has been made below for this to be reviewed by the landlord.
It is understandable that given the historical reports of damp and mould in the property, the resident was frustrated. Following the resident’s report, the landlord arranged an inspection of the property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its staff in deciding how to handle the damp in the property and acted reasonably in arranging an inspection to inform its approach.
The landlord also acted positively by taking the extra step of arranging a visit from an external contractor, as it promised to in its stage 2 decision, in response to the resident’s concern. This allowed the landlord to gain an alternative expert opinion on how to deal with the issue and allowed it to identify other areas where there may have been problems with damp and mould. The visit identified that there were issues with rising damp in the front bedroom on one wall, and condensation to the external walls to the bedroom and lounge.
The landlord also appears to have provided the resident with a dehumidifier however, from the evidence, it is unclear when this was provided. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was an appropriate action by the landlord.
However, there was a 2 month delay in the landlord taking any action around the recommendations of the damp and mould survey. Further, it has provided this service with no evidence that it communicated the reasons for the delay in implementing the survey recommendations to the resident between June and September 2022.
The landlord has explained to this service that not all works had been completed due to awaiting access to the property and appointments being cancelled by the resident. It explained it had works booked for September 2022, and that it was waiting for the property to dry following a flood and due to this it did not employ the recommendations from the survey report. The landlord’s surveyor attended the resident’s property on two occasions in January 2023 to inspect the property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable that the landlord put the works on hold due to the flood and waited for the property to dry as the evidence suggested low levels of damp in the property.
There was a cancelled appointment with its subcontractor attending the resident’s property in February 2023, but no reason has been provided about why this was cancelled. The landlord stated to this service that it chased its contractor about the outstanding works in July 2023, however, its records show it chased in May 2023 and works were raised in July 2023. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unreasonable and raises questions about the landlord’s record keeping.
Further to the above, the landlord’s evidence suggests that it left it 2 months following the survey to chase its subcontractor for an update on the works. It also took 4 months following the cancelled appointment for works to be raised to address the damp and mould in the resident’s property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable. This would have led to frustration for the resident as he was living in a property with the issue for a prolonged period of time.
Finally, following the flood in the resident’s property which delayed works, it is unclear if the landlord considered employing any temporary measures to aid in drying the flat quicker, such as the use of oscillating fans, dehumidifiers, or moisture absorbers. This service would have expected to see evidence of such measures being taken to allow the landlord to quickly address the issue, however no evidence has been provided to suggest the landlord did so.
In summary, it is positive the landlord provides advice on tackling damp and mould in the home. It was also positive that the landlord commissioned a survey and considered implementing the recommendations highlighted. After a flood to the resident’s property, it chose to wait for the property to dry prior to implementing the recommendations of the survey which was a reasonable action by the landlord. However, there is no evidence it communicated the reasons for the delays in implementing the suggestions from the survey to the resident. After a further report about issues of damp and mould by the resident, the landlord did not chase the outstanding works from its contractor for 2 months following the cancellation of their visit. The landlord also provided no evidence that it considered temporary measures to aid in drying the property quicker to allow the works to take place. The required works were then not raised for a further 4 months. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of damp in the resident’s property.
At review stage, the landlord provided further evidence that it was not able to at the previous stage. It is clear from its explanation that its system for recording repairs at the time of the resident’s complaint was not sufficient, which led to the repair following the recommendations of the Local Authority not being properly recorded. This is further clear evidence of a record keeping failure. However, the landlord has noted that it has taken action to ensure the mistake is not replicated across its records, which is a positive step. However, it did not give any details on how it will prevent the same from happening again in future. As such, a finding of service failure in relation to record keeping will be added, with an additional order for the landlord to review its record keeping practices, and to provide details of this review along with any improvements it intends to implement to ensure the chances of a similar mistake reoccurring are minimised.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports of asbestos in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports damp.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord and the resident’s survey identified that there was low risk to the resident from the asbestos within his property and identified that it should be managed. The landlord has acted in line with the recommendations provided within both reports. However, where it did fail was that it could have done more to reassure the resident around the safety of the tiles in the property.
The landlord acted appropriately by completing an inspection of the resident’s property and identifying solutions to resolve the issues identified. It also took the step of having a contractor complete an inspection of the property to identify any issues with damp and mould and took steps to address the issue initially. However, where it did fail was that it provided no evidence of communicating the reasons for the delay in implementing the recommendations of the survey to the resident. It also delayed in chasing its subcontractor for an update on the works and raised a job 5 months after the resident re-reported issues with damp and mould with the property.
There was evidence of record keeping failures both at investigation and review stage of the ombudsman’s procedures.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
Provide the resident with an apology for its failure to appropriately reassure them about the asbestos in his property and resolve the damp and mould in the property in a timely manner.
Pay the resident £100 in compensation for its handling of the asbestos issue.
Pay the resident £350 in compensation for its handling of the residents reports of damp.
Pay the resident £100 for the identified record keeping failures.
Provide an update regarding the damp and mould works to the resident’s property and confirm to this service and the resident what works have been completed and what remains outstanding. A timeline should also be provided for the completion of any outstanding works. The landlord must implement the following previously made recommendations:
1. To have a diffusion cream and damp proof course be applied to all walls;
2. To fit a passive or positive ventilation system to assist controlling levels of condensation.
Review its record keeping practices, and provide details of this review; along with any improvements it intends to implement; to ensure the chances of a similar mistake regarding the recording of repairs reoccurring is minimised.
Confirm to this service that, going forward, specialist reports will be provided to residents upon request.
Provide the Ombudsman with proof of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should consider reviewing the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould.
The landlord should also give specific consideration to conducting a post remediation evaluation (PRE) (as advised by the damp specialist in its email to the resident of 21 January 2022) if this is advised by the specialist conducting the further survey it has advised the Ombudsman it will be undertaking.