Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202400591)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400591

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited

28 November 2024

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 repairs to resolve damp and mould.
2. Decision not to decant the resident.
3. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors.
4. Response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
5. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She moved into the property, a 3-bed terraced house, in 2016. She lives there with her 3 children.
The landlord’s repair records show the resident first reported concerns about damp and mould in May 2023.
In October 2023 the resident made a complaint about the length of time it was taking the landlord to respond to her reports of damp and mould (Complaint 1). She said she had been reporting the issue for almost a year and that while it had carried out an inspection in July 2023, she had heard nothing since. She had 3 young children. Her 3-year-old had “severe asthma” which had been “exacerbated” by the damp and mould.
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It offered her £250 compensation and agreed to prioritise the works to resolve the damp and mould.
On 28 November 2023 the landlord’s contractor started work on the property. The scope of works included:
1. Digging up the path to the front, side and rear of the property to install a French drain.
2. Repointing the brickwork to the front, side and rear of the property where required.
3. Renewing the sealant to the bath.
4. Hacking off the existing plaster and re-plastering the bottom half of the walls in the bathroom, kitchen, living room and hallway.
On 8 January 2024 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the way the damp and mould works were progressing. She said:
1. Work had been going on for 5 weeks and was not complete.
2. The contractor has allocated the work to a subcontractor. Additional work was being carried out to rectify the “poor workmanship” of the subcontractor.
3. The work was having a “detrimental impact” on the family. One of her children had “special needs” and another had asthma.
4. She was having to pay to eat out or buy takeaways due to the level of dust caused by the works. The family were also having to eat in their bedrooms.
5. She was paying for electricity used by operatives.
6. The family had to leave the property over Christmas due to the works.
7. There had been no radiator in the living room for 1 week. The property had also been without heat as works caused pressure in the heating system to drop.
8. A plug socket had been damaged and the wiring left exposed. Her child nearly put their finger in the socket.
The landlord replied on the same day and said it was escalating Complaint 1 to stage 2 of its process. It emailed the resident again 3 days later and said it was now raising a new stage 1 complaint (Complaint 2) rather than escalating Complaint 1. It said this was because her concerns were about her dissatisfaction with the contractor and the works completed, this was a different issue to that raised in Complaint 1.
On 2 February 2024 the resident asked the landlord to consider her concerns regarding asbestos management within its stage 1 response. She said she was concerned that when the contractor hacked out the plaster on the window reveal in the living room it had exposed and damaged what she believed to be asbestos insulation board (AIB). She asked whether the landlord had completed an asbestos survey before the works started. She also said works should have stopped immediately and testing carried out on the board.
The landlord called the resident to discuss her concerns on the same day. It then emailed her and confirmed it would add the issue to its stage 1 complaint investigation.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to Complaint 2 on 8 February 2024. It said:
1. It apologised for the delay in its response.
2. It understood that the resident was dissatisfied with:
  1. How the damp and mould works had been planned, managed and supervised.
  2. The quality of work completed and delays caused by the works having to be re-done.
  3. The conduct of the contractors including disparaging remarks they had made, damage caused to her flooring and blinds, and mess they had left in her home.
  4. The contractors’ approach to safety.
  5. Contractors using her electricity supply.
  6. Concerns about asbestos management.
  7. Inconvenience caused by lack of use of her kitchen facilities; having to leave the property for a week over Christmas; and loss of power, heating and hot water for periods during the work.
  8. The landlord’s “failure” to decant her for the duration of the works.
3. Planning, management and supervision of works
  1. Contractors started work on 4 December 2023 and completed the work on 7 February 2024. The time taken to complete the work exceeded its policy timeframes by 17 days.
  2. It accepted there was a “lack of effective communication, planning and coordination”. It also “accepted” the photographs and description of events provided by the resident.
  3. Its repairs team had not provided “entirely satisfactory responses” to its requests for information about the issues. It had therefore relied on the resident’s account.
4. Quality of work
  1. It accepted that the work was of “poor quality” and therefore had to be re-done. This had caused further delay and inconvenience.
5. Conduct of contractors
  1. The resident reported that an operative called her a “mad woman” and said she and her brother had heard other operatives making “disparaging remarks” about her. Due to a lack of evidence it was unable to make a finding on this issue but it was sorry if this had occurred.
  2. It apologised that her flooring had been damaged. The contractor had initially offered to arrange for a flooring company to repair the flooring. It then withdrew this offer and instead offered £190 compensation.
  3. It was also sorry that the subcontractor did not “adequately tidy up”.
6. Approach to safety
  1. The resident had reported that contractors were not wearing personal protective equipment (PPE), had left an electrical socket in a “potentially dangerous state” and had overloaded extension cables with “multiple power tools”. As a result of her reports its contractor had removed the subcontractor from the job.
7. Use of electricity
  1. The contractor stated that all operatives used generators and not the resident’s electric supply. Due to a lack of evidence it was unable to draw a conclusion about this issue.
  2. The resident said she had provided a heater for 19 days to assist in drying the property out. Its repairs team was “unable to confirm it hold any records” about the use of a heater. In the absence of information it accepted her account and had reimbursed her for the use of electricity.
8. Lack of facilities
  1. Its repairs team said the kitchen was not out of use for any duration.
  2. The removal of a radiator caused a drop in pressure which “compromised” the heating and hot water systems. She was without these facilities for 24 hours. It had attended and resolved the issue within its policy timeframe.
  3. It had factored in the cost of her having to use electric heaters for this period in its compensation for use of electricity.
9. Decant
  1. It had not anticipated the “delays and level of disruption that occurred”. Had it known this it would have recommended that she be decanted.
  2. When issues started to arise it should have asked her if she wanted to be decanted. It apologised for not having done so.
10. The resident’s concerns regarding asbestos had been separated from the complaint as it needed further time to carry out a full investigation. It would be in touch when this was complete. One of its directors had offered to meet her to discuss this aspect of the complaint.
11. It offered £1,258 compensation comprising of:
  1. £750 for “stress and inconvenience” for the delay; poor planning, management and supervision of works; and the quality issues.
  2. £110 for electricity usage.
  3. £18 for the damaged blind.
  4. £350 for “failing to react to problems and offer alternative accommodation” and to reflect the resident having to leave home over Christmas.
  5. £30 for the delay in its stage 1 complaint response.
On 20 February 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 2 to stage 2 of its process. She said:
1. She did not feel its stage 1 response sufficiently addressed the impact of its failings on herself and her children. One of her children was vulnerable and that the delays therefore had an increased impact.
2. It had been unable to decide on relation some issues of the complaint due to a lack of evidence. The lack of evidence was due to the landlord’s lack of oversight and monitoring of the works. Had it monitored the work it would have seen that she did not have “adequate hygienic cooking facilities and heating”.
3. It should not have needed to separate the asbestos issue from her complaint. The information it required should have been readily available.
4. She wished to speak to its CEO and for it to review its compensation offer.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 28 February 2024. On 13 March 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised it needed more time to investigate her concerns. It said it would provide its stage 2 complaint response by 2 April 2024. It wrote to her again on 28 March 2024 and advised that due to the bank holiday its response would be provided by 4 April 2024.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 2 on 5 April 2024. It said:
1. Its CEO did not respond to complaints. In line with its process one of its directors had offered to meet with her.
2. It had ordered the repairs to the property as part of a resolution agreed in response to Complaint 1.
3. Its stage 1 complaint response “included factual inaccuracies” and some of its findings were incorrect. The stage 1 response offered “too much compensation” and “went above and beyond the amounts [it] would usually award”. It had made the offer based on “limited information and in some cases incorrect assumptions”.
4. Quality and delays to works
  1. It should have told her at the time that, given the scope of the works, it was unlikely to complete them within its standard repair policy timeframe of 28 days.
  2. The work started on 27 November 2023 and was completed on 7 February 2024. It “took an additional contractor to complete” the work.
  3. It accepted that there had been quality issues with the subcontractor’s work. It apologised for this and resolved the issues. It had advised its contractor not to subcontract large jobs like this in future.
  4. While the repairs had taken longer than it aimed for it was now satisfied with the quality of the completed works.
5. Asbestos management
  1. The stage 1 response referred to asbestos reports from 2009 and 2016. It should have explained that it could not investigate any complaint issue that was known more than 12 months before the complaint.
  2. Its compliance manager had contacted her at the time to discuss her concerns. This demonstrated it was taking her concerns seriously.
  3. It had not seen any evidence to support her report that it had failed in respect to its asbestos management. Nor that it seen evidence that there was any threat from asbestos in the property.
6. Compensation
  1. The compensation offered at stage 1 was “incorrect”.
  2. Where evidence was “not available or present” it had taken the resident’s “word as fact where that [was] not a fair reflection of what happened”.
  3. It reduced its offer of compensation for delays in completing the works. There was no evidence to support the amount offered at stage 1.
  4. It removed its offer of £110 compensation for electricity usage. There was no evidence to prove that she had lost this amount for use of appliances or power tools. Its contractor had stated it used its own generators.
  5. It removed its offer of £350 in relation to failure to offer alternative accommodation and for the family leaving the property over Christmas. There was no agreement or offer of a temporary decant as the living room was the only room out of use. There was no evidence that the kitchen was out of use for any period.
  6. It removed its offer of compensation for delays in providing its stage 1 complaint response. An apology for the delay “would have been sufficient”.
  7. It offered compensation of £400. This replaced its previous offer of £1,258 at stage 1.
The resident remained unhappy and referred her complaint to this Service. Within her correspondence, she expressed concern that the stage 2 response contained inaccuracies. The resident also advised that she was concerned that there were issues with the landlord’s record keeping and that this had impacted her complaint.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property and for ensuring a property is fit for human habitation, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, and the tenancy conditions.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to identify potential risks and hazards to health and safety in dwellings. The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government, which advises that properties should be free from hazards assessed to be category 1 under the HHSRS; be in reasonable state of repair; have reasonably modern facilities; and provide reasonable thermal comfort. The HHSRS specifically recognises that damp and mould growth can pose a threat to physical and mental health.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will carry out ‘everyday repairs’ within 28 calendar days. It states that during the repair it will explain to the resident how long the work will take and “ensure minimal disruption”.
The repair policy also states that if the time needed to complete a repair exceeds the time allotted or it additional repairs are identified, the landlord will inform the resident of next steps.
The landlord has a separate damp and mould policy, implemented in March 2023 before the events in this case. This states:
1. Where it identifies a category 1 hazard under HHSRS guidelines or where a “vulnerable resident’s health may be affected” it will “provide support and assistance”. It will put an action plan in place that “puts the resident at the centre of [its] response”.
2. Where the household is identified as vulnerable or the damp is deemed a “high risk”, it will “act quickly to move the household as appropriate…whilst the hazard is resolved”.
The landlord’s decant and temporary transfers policy states that when “essential repairs” cannot be carried out with the resident and their household living in the property, it will seek approval to decant them temporarily. The policy does not provide further detail about when it considers it would not be possible to complete works with the resident present.
The landlord’s asbestos management policy states it will keep and maintain an up-to-date record of the location, condition, maintenance and removal of all asbestos containing materials (ACMs). It says it will share this information with its contractors.
The asbestos management policy states it will carry out a ‘refurbishment survey’ where required within a scope of works for “major works and improvements”. The policy goes on to say that a survey should be “undertaken prior to any refurbishment works”.
The asbestos policy does not define ‘major works’. The landlord’s website however describes ‘major works’ as being “larger in scale” than ‘everyday repairs’. It says they can include “structural work such as repairing brickwork, or repairing draining and guttering”.
The landlord operates a contractor charter. This says that:
1. Any contractor wishing to subcontract work must provide the landlord with the details of the subcontractor for approval.
2. The landlord will satisfy itself of contractors’ competence and ability to carry out works.
3. It is committed to ensuring its contractors maintain high customer care standards. This includes treating residents with respect, respecting their homes while working in them, and leaving the property in a clean and tidy state.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It states it may extend this timeframe by a further 10 working days “for good reason only”. If it extends the response timeframe it must confirm this in writing to the resident explaining why the deadline was not met and providing the new deadline.
The landlord has a compensation policy. The policy does not provide guidance on compensation amounts. Nor does it state whether compensation may be reduced at stage 2. The policy does state that the landlord will “act fairly and consider each request for compensation on a case-by-case basis”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord has not considered Complaint 1 at stage 2 of its complaint handling process. It has therefore not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident has not expressed concerns about the landlord’s handling of Complaint 1. Nor have we identified any complaint handling failures which would cause us to include Complaint 1 within our investigation. We have however included details of events surrounding Complaint 1 for context. This is because the events are fundamentally linked to Complaint 2 which is subject to our investigation.

Handling of repairs to resolve damp and mould.

On 31 July 2023 the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on the property at the request of the resident. It found rising damp affecting the living room, kitchen and bathroom. The inspection report noted the following issues:
1. A planter was blocking an external airbrick.
2. The distance between the ground and the damp proof course was half that required.
3. The downpipe needed lowering to stop water discharging onto the brickwork.
4. There was a leak under the bath due to defective sealant.
The landlord drew up a scope of works to address the damp and mould on 13 October 2023. The scope included:
1. Installing a French drain to the front, side and rear of the property.
2. Repointing the brickwork where required to the front, side and rear.
3. Supply and fix a new downpipe.
4. Reseal the bath.
5. Hack off and replace the plaster to the bottom half of the walls in the bathroom, kitchen and living room.
6. Redecorate after the plastering.
On 20 November 2023 the resident called the landlord. She said the contractor had previously told her it would start work on 27 November 2023 but would contact her again to confirm. She said she had not heard back since. The resident was concerned as the contractor’s surveyor had attended the property to inspect ongoing works and she had explained no works had started. She said the surveyor had also told her that only internal works were being completed but there were also external works required. The resident asked the landlord to contact her to confirm what works were being carried out and when they would start.
The resident called the landlord on 22 November 2023 and said that the contractor had attended that day without an appointment. It had told her it was there to carry out external work but that it was not aware of the extent of the work required.
From the evidence provided to this Service, it appears that the above situation had arisen as the contractor had confused the resident’s property with another on the street which it was also completing works on. We accept that these errors were frustrating for the resident, and that the landlord and its contractors should have appropriate systems in place to ensure that there is sufficient clarity amongst staff. While it is noted that this was the cause of concern for the resident, the confusion did not delay the commencement of the works.
The records show that the landlord telephoned the resident on 22 November 2023 and said it estimated the works would take 3 to 4 days to complete.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 27 November 2023 and said that she had been told that the contractors may have to delay commencement of works as it could not source a generator. Internal landlord emails show the resident agreed to contractors using her energy supply in if the landlord covered the cost. The landlord subsequently advised the contractor that it must use 110v transformers.
It was reasonable that the contractor used the resident’s electricity with her consent to prevent delays to the works. The landlord acted appropriately by advising the contractor that it had to use transformers for safety reasons and to prevent damage to the property’s circuits. It was not however reasonable that the landlord later failed to identify through its own records that the contractor had used the resident’s electricity. It was further unreasonable that it failed to reimburse her for the increased costs as had been agreed. The landlord was party to this exchange – and indeed facilitated the discussion. As such, it should have been reasonably aware that such an agreement had been reached.
On 28 November 2023 the contractor started work on the property. The resident called the landlord on 18 December 2023. She said there was an issue with the works being completed and that she felt there was more to be done. The resident requested a call back. We have not seen evidence that the landlord returned the resident’s call, this was unreasonable.
The records show that on 21 December 2023 the resident raised concerns with the quality of the plastering completed in the lounge. She said the subcontractor had told her he was not a plasterer. This Service has not seen evidence that confirms whether the subcontractor was indeed qualified and experienced to complete the works. The landlord has however confirmed that the work the subcontractor completed was not to a satisfactory standard. This caused avoidable delays to the work as another contractor had to remove the poorly applied plaster and re-apply it. The landlord has stated that this delayed the works by a week.
When a landlord allocates repairs to its contractor it remains responsible for the satisfactory completion of the work. This remains the case when the contractor employs a subcontractor. This Service would reasonably expect the landlord to monitor the works to ensure they were being completed on time and to a reasonable standard. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord carried out any monitoring until the resident raised concerns.
On 30 December 2023 the resident reported that her boiler was not working. The records show that the boiler lost pressure as, due to an outstanding repair, the contractor was unable to pressurise the system. While we accept that this would have been inconvenient for the resident the landlord attended within 24 hours and repaired the issue. This was appropriate.
The landlord carried out a post inspection of the work on 23 January 2024. It found some works were still outstanding. The outstanding works were completed on 7 February 2024.
It took the landlord 65 days to complete the works to a satisfactory standard. This exceeds the timeframe of 28 days contained within its repairs policy for ‘everyday repairs’.
The landlord’s repairs policy states if the works are going to take longer than planned it will explain this to the resident. We have not seen evidence that the landlord clearly communicated the delays and the reasons for them to the resident.
The landlord has stated in its final complaint response that given the scope of the works it was unlikely to complete them within 28 days. It is therefore unclear why prior to the works starting it told the resident that works were likely to take 3 to 4 days. In doing so it seriously mismanaged her expectations. By incorrectly raising the resident’s expectations the landlord caused additional unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
The resident paid approximately £119 per week in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s maladministration. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that the resident’s occupation of the property was affected during the repair period (65 days). Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £332 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 30% of the total rent during the period in question. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account. The Ombudsman will award additional compensation in recognition of other failings it has identified, and for distress and inconvenience.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Mismanaged the resident’s expectations by giving an unrealistic timeframe for completion of the works.
2. Failed to explain to the resident that the works would take longer than expected and why.
3. Did not carry out satisfactory monitoring of the works being undertaken by the contractor or subcontractor.
We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve damp and mould.

Decision not to decant the resident.

The landlord’s decant policy states it will consider transferring the resident to temporary accommodation if repairs cannot be carried out with the household living in the property.
The policy does not detail circumstances in which the landlord could not complete works with the household in situ. It therefore has significant discretion in how it applied the policy. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord considered whether it should have applied the policy in this case. This was unreasonable.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that where a vulnerable person’s health may be affected by damp and mould it will put an action plan in place. It says that where a household is vulnerable it will “move the household as appropriate” until the issue is resolved. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord considered putting an action plan in place or carried out an assessment of the family’s vulnerabilities. This was inappropriate.
The internal works scheduled to be completed included hacking off the plaster in the kitchen, bathroom, living room and hallway. Such work creates a significant amount of dust both airborne and on surfaces.
It is accepted that the landlord did not foresee the works taking as long as they did to complete. It had initially told the resident that the work would take 3 to 4 days to complete. We do not however consider that the landlord’s estimate of the timeframe was realistic. Given the scope of works, we do not consider that its estimate of timeframe was realistic. Had the landlord used a more realistic estimated timeframe it may have considered temporarily transferring the household.
On 8 January 2024 the resident reported that the work had been going on for 5 weeks and was was having a “detrimental impact” on her household. She specifically stated that one of her children had “special needs” and another had asthma.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould”. It also highlights that landlords should consider at an early stage whether moving the resident out of the property to suitable accommodation is necessary, either on a temporary or permanent basis. This will ensure that residents are not left living in unsatisfactory conditions for months before a decant is considered. This is particularly important with respect to vulnerable residents where major works are required.
At this time the landlord was aware that the resident had 3 children living in the property with her and that 2 had health needs which were causing them to experience additional detriment. We would reasonably have expected the landlord to consider whether a decant would be necessary at this point. That it did not was inappropriate.
The landlord acknowledged within its stage 1 complaint response that it had not anticipated the delays and disruption that occurred. It accepted that had it known this it would have recommended that the resident be decanted. It also acknowledged that it should have asked her if she wanted to be decanted when it became aware of issues with the works. The landlord acknowledged these failings and offered her financial redress of £350.
However, the landlord withdrew its offer of compensation in its stage 2 complaint response. It said that it had not agreed to provide a decant and that only 1 room was out of use.
While it may have been the case that only the living room was described as unusable given the nature of the works the use of the bathroom, kitchen and hallway would also have been greatly reduced. These rooms would have been dusty and items would have had to be removed to allow for the works to be completed.
It may have been reasonable for the household to have used these rooms for a short period. It may not however have been reasonable for them to remain in these conditions for the 65 days it took to complete the work, particularly given the additional vulnerabilities of 2 of the children in the household.
The landlord missed the opportunity to consider the factors discussed above because it did not apply its policy. Therefore it has not demonstrated that it fairly and appropriately considered whether a decant was required in this case. There is no evidence to show that it gave the resident’s circumstances due consideration before the works commenced, or later once they were underway, when deciding whether to decant the family. This was a failing.
Overall, the landlord’s initial estimation of the timeframe it would take to complete the works was unrealistic. As it failed to anticipate the time the works would take it did not consider a decant. This was unreasonable. When the resident made the landlord aware of the impact the delayed works were having on her household it should reasonably have reviewed its decision as to whether a decant was required. That it did not was unreasonable. While the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response accepted its failings and went some way to offer some redress, its stage 2 response reversed this attempt. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to decant the resident.

Handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors.

On 8 January 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that subcontractors working on the property had called her a “mad woman”. She also said that her brother had overheard them making derogatory comments about her and had confronted them.
The records show that in early February 2024 the landlord asked the contractor about the resident’s reports. The contractor responded and said that the resident had made it aware of a comment made about her by the sub- contractor to the effect of “she is a complainer”. The contractor said it apologised to her at the time. It said the resident had not made it aware of any other comments made and as it had removed the subcontractor from the job it was unable to investigate further.
It was reasonable that the landlord carried out investigations of its contractor. It is not clear however why it took the landlord almost a month to contact the contractor to do so. That it did was unreasonable. Had it done so sooner the contractor may have been able to carry out further investigations with the subcontractor.
On 19 January 2024 records show the resident was in contact with the contractor regarding damage that had been caused to her flooring. The resident said that the contractor had originally agreed to arrange for the flooring to be replaced. She said it had then changed its approach and said she would have to arrange for the flooring to be replaced and it would pay her the cost of this. The resident was unhappy as sourcing flooring and arranging its installation was an “additional inconvenience”. She added that she would also have to arrange for another company to disconnect and reinstate her appliances in order for the flooring to be installed.
The contractor accepted responsibility for the damage to the resident’s flooring. This was appropriate. It was positive that the contractor agreed to pay to have the damaged flooring replaced. However, it failed to provide redress for the inconvenience experienced by the resident in arranging for the repair and associated work. That was unreasonable.
Overall, we accept that it was difficult for the landlord to determine whether the contractor did make derogatory comments without corroborating evidence. Its investigation into the resident’s report was proportionate, but it delayed by a month in carrying out investigations. This was unreasonable. The landlord also failed to acknowledge that while its contractor had agreed to pay for the damaged flooring to be replaced, it had not provided redress for the inconvenience caused to the resident. We therefore find there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors.

Response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.

The landlord has provided this Service with 2 asbestos surveys. One survey was carried out in July 2016 and areas inspected included the kitchen, bathroom, lounge, and “any area where re-wiring [was] to be carried out”. The second survey was completed in June 2019 and inspected the roof, loft, soffits, rainwater good and the chimney.
We note that the second survey did not include areas relevant to the damp and mould works. The first survey was carried out 8 years before the events considered by this investigation.
The landlord’s asbestos management policy states it will keep and maintain an up-to-date record of the location, condition, maintenance and removal of ACMs and will share this information with its contractors.
We have not seen contemporaneous evidence that shows that the landlord provided the historical asbestos reports to its contractor. The schedule of works states that there was no asbestos present in the property but does not make any reference to the existing reports. If the landlord did not provide the reports to its contractor, the subcontractor cannot have been provided with them.
The asbestos management policy states it will carry out an asbestos survey where identified within a scope of works for major works. The landlord’s website describes ‘major works’ as being larger in scale than routine repairs and may include repairs to brickwork or drainage repairs.
In this case the landlord has stated in its final response letter that the scope of the works was such that it could not reasonably be completed within the timeframe for routine repairs. The works also included external repointing of brickwork and installation of a new French drain which was then connected to the existing drainage. We therefore consider that the works should reasonably have been considered to be ‘major’ by the landlord and a further asbestos survey completed. We have not seen evidence that the landlord considered completing a further survey in this case, this was unreasonable.
On 6 February 2024 the landlord’s compliance manager sent an internal email regarding the resident’s concerns about asbestos. He said:
1. “It would have been beneficial to initiate a request for an additional refurbishment survey specifically tailored” to the works to address damp and mould. This would have complemented the existing refurbishment survey.
2. It had recommended taking a “reassurance approach” by carrying out sample testing of the suspected panel. The resident had rejected this option as the area had been rectified and redecorated. She did not want the area further disturbed.
3. Without sampling the material it remained “inconclusive whether residents were exposed during the process”.
4. It was unclear how the contractor had passed on information from the existing refurbishment survey to the subcontractors as there was a “language barrier”.
This information demonstrates that landlord had identified potential issues in both its own and the contractor’s asbestos management. The landlord did not communicate this view with the resident. Instead it took the stance within its communications with her that there was no evidence that it had failed in respect to asbestos management or that there was any threat from asbestos in the property. This was not a transparent approach and was inappropriate.
This Service appreciates that because the material in question had been ‘made safe’ by being encased with plaster the resident wished to avoid further disruption and therefore refused further testing. She had not however had the benefit of being made aware of the contract manager’s opinion and this may have affected her ability to make an informed decision.
We acknowledge that the resident wishes to avoid further disruption. However, the landlord has an obligation to ensure that it keeps an up-to-date record of any asbestos in the property and to inform the resident and contractors of its existence. At present it cannot definitively state that the material reported by the resident was not an ACM. This is inappropriate and of serious concern. We have made an order in this respect.
Overall, given the nature and extent of the works being completed the landlord should reasonably have considered carrying out an asbestos survey. When it identified potential issues in its handling of the issue it should have been transparent and acknowledged this to the resident. It is of serious concern that the landlord is unable to definitively confirm that the material reported by the resident did not contain asbestos and therefore whether contractors or the resident had been exposed to any risk. We have therefore found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.

Handling of the associated complaint.

It took the landlord 23 working days to provide a stage 1 response to Complaint 2. This exceeds the timeframes outlined in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and the landlord’s own policy. The landlord apologised for this delay in its response and offered the resident compensation of £30. It was right that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failing and offered compensation for the inconvenience that had been caused by the delay.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was detailed and addressed the resident’s complaint points clearly and individually. This was positive.
We note that the landlord said within its response that it had not received “entirely satisfactory” responses from its own repairs team in relation to the issues of complaint. It said that it had therefore accepted the resident’s account. This approach was reasonable.
The landlord is expected to maintain adequate records and communicate effectively between teams. The records show that the landlord’s complaint team requested evidence from its internal repairs team and the contractor. It was unable however at the time of the stage 1 response to find evidence that provided an alternative account which contradicted the resident’s. It was reasonable therefore that in the absence of such contradictory evidence it accepted the resident’s account.
The landlord’s stage 1 response accepted that there had been a lack of effective communication, planning and coordination. It also acknowledged that the work initially completed had been “poor quality” and that having to re-do the work had caused delays and inconvenience. It apologised for this and offered the resident £750 compensation. This was reasonable and proportionate.
In relation to the conduct of its contractors the landlord’s stage 1 response said it was unable to make a finding due to a lack of evidence. The records show that the landlord did carry out reasonable investigations into this issue and that it was unable to confirm the resident’s account. It was therefore reasonable that it explained this to the resident. While it was unable to uphold this element of the complaint it was positive that it apologised to the resident if the comments had been made.
The landlord apologised to the resident for the damage caused to her flooring and outlined the offer made by the contractor.
The landlord reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns regarding the subcontractor’s approach to safety. It stated that because of her concerns the contractor had removed the subcontractor from the job. This was a proportionate response.
The stage 1 complaint response stated that the landlord was unable to draw a conclusion regarding the contractor’s use of the resident’s electricity supply. As set out above, this was not correct.
The stage 1 response also said it was unable to confirm that it had records about the use of a heater. This was also incorrect. The day before the landlord issued its stage 1 response it received information from its contractor in response to its investigations. It confirmed that the resident had provided a small heater to assist in drying out the plaster in the living room as the radiator had been removed. It also the timeframe given by the resident of 19 days was “roughly accurate”.
While the landlord was incorrect in saying that it did not have the evidence to draw a conclusion in relation to use of the resident’s electricity, it did agree to pay her for the use of it regardless. This was positive and resolution focussed.
The stage 1 complaint response acknowledged that the resident had been without heating and hot water for 24 hours. That it factored her use of heaters for this period in its compensation for use of electricity was reasonable.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint that she had been without the use of her kitchen. The records show that it confirmed with both its own repairs team and its contractor that the kitchen had not been “out of use”. The resident had however stated that she was unable to use it due to the dusty condition the contractor had left it in. It is not clear that the landlord considered this aspect of the complaint or carried out reasonable investigations to confirm whether the contractor left the kitchen in a reasonably clean and tidy condition each night when work finished. This was unreasonable and a missed opportunity.
It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged that it had not foreseen the level of disruption the work and the delays would cause. It was also appropriate that it accepted that it should have asked the resident if she wanted to be decanted when issues started to arise with the work. That the landlord apologised for these failings and offered compensation was resolution focussed
The landlord did not address the resident’s additional complaint point about asbestos management within its stage 1 complaint response. It explained that it would deal with this issue separately and would contact her when it had investigated the matter. We accept that the landlord may have needed additional time to investigate this aspect of the complaint. It had however told the resident 6 days earlier that it would consider the issue as part of her stage 1 complaint. It had therefore mismanaged her expectations and this would have caused her avoidable distress.
While it was not unreasonable for the landlord to request additional time to consider this aspect of the complaint, it should reasonably have discussed this with the resident before issuing its response. We have not seen evidence that it did so. It should also have made clear that the issue was still subject to its internal complaints procedure and outlined a timeframe for providing an updated response. That it did not do so was unreasonable.
It took the landlord 33 working days to provide its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord did advise the resident that it required an extension to complete its investigation. Its policy however states that it should only extend the complaint response timeframe “for good reason” and that it must tell the resident why it did not meet the deadline. It failed to provide her with this information in this case.
The stage 2 response said that it should have advised the resident that it could not investigate a complaint issue which was known more than 12 months before the complaint. It made this comment in relation to asbestos surveys which were dated 2009 and 2016. We consider that the landlord has incorrectly applied this part of its complaint policy in this case. While the asbestos surveys were completed long before the resident’s complaint, her complaint was not about the completion of or information within the surveys. The resident’s complaint was in relation to the contractor and landlord’s asbestos management during the damp and mould works. These events occurred well within 12 months of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s final response to the resident in relation to her concerns about asbestos was brief. It advised that its compliance manager had contacted her and that there was no evidence of failings in relation to asbestos management. We do not consider that the landlord provided sufficient information to demonstrate that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously or carried out a satisfactory investigation of events.
In its final complaint response the landlord said that its stage 1 response had offered “too much compensation”. It is not clear how the landlord made this assessment.
We note that the landlord’s compensation policy does not state whether it may reduce or withdraw an offer of compensation made at stage 1 when reviewing a complaint at stage 2. It is acknowledged that the landlord is entitled to review its earlier complaint handling and thereby may not reach the same conclusions. However, the landlord could reasonably include reference to this within its complaints policy so ensure that it is effectively managing residents’ expectations.
The landlord stated that in its stage 1 response it had incorrectly accepted the resident’s “word as fact” where evidence was “not available or present”. We consider that it was the landlord’s own record keeping and communication failings that meant it had no other evidence other than the resident’s account. It was therefore reasonable that it accepted her version of events.
The landlord’s final complaint response made several incorrect statements in explaining why it was amending its compensation offer. It stated that there was no evidence that the contractor had used her electricity supply and did not acknowledge that it had confirmed that her heater had been used to dry the plaster in the living room. As above, this information should have been available to the landlord.
The landlord also said that there was no evidence that the resident had lost £110 through its contractor’s use of her electricity. While we have not seen that the resident provided utility bills demonstrating the amount her bills increased, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord requested this information. It would have been reasonable for it to do so.
The landlord stated that it should not have offered £30 compensation for complaint handling delays at stage 1 as an apology would have been “sufficient”. The landlord provided no further explanation as to why it considered this to be the case.
Within the final response letter the landlord said it was replacing its offer of £1,258 with a revised offer of £400. It provided no breakdown of how this figure had been calculated or which failings the compensation was for. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide a breakdown. Doing so would have demonstrated that it had given the complaint due consideration and that it had offered an amount of compensation that was fair and proportionate in all of the circumstances. We do not consider that the landlord’s offer of £400 compensation provides reasonable and proportionate redress for the detriment experienced by the resident because of the failings identified in this report. We have therefore ordered additional compensation.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. Respond to the stage 1 complaint within the timeframe outlined in the Code or its own policy.
2. Identify relevant information which confirmed the resident’s account.
3. Provide “good reason” why it required an extension to the stage 2 response timeframe.
4. Correctly apply its complaints policy in relation to the timeframe of the asbestos issue.
5. Adequately address the resident’s concerns about its asbestos management.
6. Acknowledge the impact its own record keeping and communication had on its ability to investigate the complaint.
7. Offer proportionate compensation to the detriment experienced by the resident. It also failed to provide a breakdown for its revised offer, or explain why it considered it to be more appropriate than the offer which was made at stage 1.
We have therefore found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to decant the resident.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in person for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be made by a senior officer of the landlord at director level or above.
2. Pay the resident £1,732 in compensation which comprises:
  1. £332 for reduced use and enjoyment of the property during the works.
  2. £200 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble due to the landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve damp and mould
  3. £300 for distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s decision not to decant the resident.
  4. £100 for inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors.
  5. £300 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
  6. £500 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  7. The ordered compensation includes the landlord’s offer of £400 made at stage 2 of its complaint process. If the landlord has already paid the resident £400, this should be deducted from the ordered compensation.
3. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide complaint handling training to all relevant staff (including senior officers who complete stage 2 investigations) to ensure that:
  1. Complaints are managed in line with the landlord’s own procedures.
  2. Staff understand the requirements of the Code.
  3. Where it is unable to provide a response within the timeframe outlined in the Code and its own policy it provides “good reason” and requests an extension from the resident.
  4. It adequately responds to each issue raised by the resident.
  5. It correctly applies the restrictions within its policy in relation to when an issue is raised.
  6. Compensation is considered when it is not possible to put the resident back in the position they would have been in if not for the landlord’s service failure. This includes consideration of distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, inconvenience, disappointment, loss of confidence, and varying levels of physical and emotional impact.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must consider whether a review of its compensation policy is required in regard to withdrawal of offers of compensation.