Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Plus Dane Housing Limited (202303061)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303061

Plus Dane Housing Limited

28 February 2025


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns about asbestos removal at her property in April 2023.
    2. The resident’s reports of black dust in her loft space in December 2023.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy for a three-bedroom end terrace house owned by the landlord. The resident lives with her two children.
  2. A specialist asbestos contractor completed the removal of the resident’s landing ceiling on 3 April 2023 as part of a disrepair claim. The resident discovered large amounts of dust at her property upon returning home on the same day. The landlord inspected the property on 4 April and arranged a professional clean on 5 April with a new contractor at the resident’s request.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 6 April 2023. She said the works had caused damage to her carpet, hob, toaster, kettle, and blinds. She felt the property was unsafe, stating the contractor did not complete the work correctly and was not compliant with legislation.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 May 2023. It upheld the complaint as it found the asbestos removal contractor failed to follow its procedure, but an air test by a separate contractor found the air was clean and safe. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused and offered £1450 compensation. On 1 June 2023, it revised its compensation offer to £1545. It also offered redecoration vouchers.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint through the Ombudsman on 29 June 2023. She was dissatisfied with the compensation offer, believing her property was unsafe and the asbestos removal contractor had not protected her home. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 1 August. It upheld her complaint, reiterating the failings by the contractor. It increased its compensation by £1000, to £2545.
  6. On 4 December 2023, the resident reported to the landlord she had entered her loft and there was dust everywhere from the ceiling removal. She said this had damaged her possessions and was concerned about the presence of asbestos. The landlord arranged for a contractor to complete an air test on 7 December 2023 and promised it would provide the results in 5 working days. The resident chased the response on 2 January 2024 and the landlord raised a complaint on her behalf.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 25 January 2024. It confirmed the air test was clear, but acknowledged it failed to update the resident or resolve the issue until her complaint. It offered £150 compensation for its failure to communicate with her. It said it would professionally clean her possessions, clear the loft, and replace the insulation. It agreed its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) would visit her at home to discuss her concerns.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 and 26 January 2024. She said the landlord had failed to take ownership of the issue since April 2023. She said the issue had affected her health and her son’s school exams living in what she described as a building site for 12 months. She did not accept the £150 compensation as her children’s possessions and her Christmas tree was damaged.
  9. The landlord’s CEO provided the stage 2 complaint response on 14 March 2024. It agreed with the stage 1 response but found it had not addressed the extent of the failure. It considered its compensation offers from the complaints in 2023 as well as its January 2024 stage 1 response. It offered additional compensation of £4450 and arranged follow-up works to clean the property and complete plastering jobs.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the compensation. On 11 April, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £7000.
  11. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman as she did not believe the landlord had appropriately compensated for the impact on the family’s health and circumstances.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment

  1. The resident has complained that her family’s health has been impacted by the repair issues in her home. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts. It will not be considered in this report.
  2. The resident said in her complaint of 25 April 2023 her vacuum cleaner was damaged by the contractor. In its complaint reply of 23 May 2023 the landlord asked for further details so it could raise the issue with the contractor. There is no evidence the landlord received this information at this time and the resident did not raise this in her complaint escalation. She raised the issue again on 11 March 2024, outside her complaints or the landlord’s responses.
  3. Also in communication with the Ombudsman the resident raised concerns about damage to her sofa, due to dust. She also raised about the appropriateness of the professional cleaner used on 5 April 2023. There is no evidence of the resident raising these issues in her complaint to the landlord.
  4. As such, in accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider the issues surrounding the vacuum cleaner, sofa or professional cleaner. This is because they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident has the opportunity to raise a further complaint with the landlord. However, the age of the issues may now mean they are potentially too old to be considered.

The resident’s concerns about asbestos removal at her property in April 2023.

  1. In her initial complaint of 25 April 2023, the resident raised her dissatisfaction with the work carried out by the landlord’s asbestos removal contractor. She believed they did not comply with legislation during the removal of the ceiling coating. Because of that, the resultant dust and debris damaged her property and affected her health.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 23 May 2023 appropriately confirmed the contractor was a licenced asbestos remover. It also confirmed the work carried out was in line with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). This was in accordance with its asbestos management policy. The resident did not raise concerns with this in her complaint escalation of 29 June. She did however repeat her concerns in December 2023 and her further complaint on 2 January 2024.
  3. The landlord took the reasonable step of further addressing the point in its 2024 complaint responses, despite already responding in May 2023. It confirmed the contractor was accredited by the HSE and that it had followed its policy regarding the contractor’s suitability. It believed it was not required to notify the HSE but acknowledged the resident intended to do so herself. These were relevant and appropriate responses to the resident’s concerns that the work had not been done correctly.
  4. The landlord repairs policy confirms it must maintain a clean working environment and dust sheets must be used when performing tasks likely to cause a mess. It must ensure all waste and unrequired material is removed at the end of each day.
  5. The landlord’s response of 23 April 2023 appropriately recognised that its contractor had not contacted it to discuss a change in the scope of works when it found a change to the ceiling. It also had no evidence from the contractor they had maintained a clean working environment. It upheld the resident’s complaint as a result of both these failings and took action to raise both points with the contractor. It reiterated this in its stage 2 response of 1 August. Furthermore, it provided evidence of learning points it was taking forward in accordance with its complaints policy to stop such issues occurring in future.
  6. The landlord’s later stage 1 response of 2024 confirmed it had ended its contract with the asbestos removal contractor as a result of the complaint. This was a reasonable step in accordance with its asbestos management policy.
  7. In her complaint of April 2023 the resident believed her property was unsafe due to asbestos. She said she had to clean the property and the dust had affected her eczema and asthma. She confirmed shortly after the landlord tested the air that she was satisfied with its results. However, in her complaint in January 2024 she raised concerns about the test. She said it had not been thorough. By that point there had been a second test in December 2023, which had reached the same findings as the April one. The landlord’s handling of the December test is addressed below, nonetheless, this issue was remedied when the landlord shared the outcome of the December test with her.
  8. In its reply of 25 January 2024 the landlord explained it would raise this with the specific contractor. There is no further evidence it explained the outcome to the resident and this was not included in its later reply in March 2024.
  9. The resident raised concerns that the soft furnishings in the property were covered in asbestos dust. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response it had arranged for the contractor to clean the property on 3 April 2023. It inspected the property the following day. When it found there was still a significant amount of dust it arranged for a professional clean on 5 April. It arranged this with a different contractor at the resident’s request. These were all timely and appropriate steps to try and resolve the issue as quickly as possible.
  10. The landlord offered compensation of £1450, which it later increased on 1 June to £1545. This was to replace the stairs carpet, cleaning materials and the blinds. It was also to replace a kettle and toaster and to steam clean the oven and hob, which the resident also said were damaged.
  11. The compensation offer was reasonable, taking into account quotes for the blinds and carpets the resident had provided. There is no further evidence of the resident being further dissatisfied with the compensation offered for the items stated above.
  12. In its CEO response in March 2024 the landlord took the resident’s concerns about the dust on the soft furnishings further. It arranged an environmental clean of the property which involved removal of laminate flooring in the property. As a result it initially offered £1500 compensation to cover 50% of a quote to replace her flooring. It increased this in April 2024 to £2980 to cover 100% of a quote to replace her flooring. These were reasonable steps to address the residents concerns that the flooring was unsafe.
  13. The landlord offered redecorating vouchers and compensation for the cost of takeaway meals whilst the resident was out of the property whilst the works and cleaning took place. This was an appropriate offer in accordance with its compensation policy.
  14. The landlord offered £1020 for redecorating in its CEO response of 11 April in response to the resident’s concerns of damage to soft furnishings. The resident told the Ombudsman this was a third of her quote. The Ombudsman has not seen the details of the quote. The landlord’s compensation policy does not confirm amounts relating to redecorating. However, it does suggest damage be referred to home contents insurance. Therefore, in the circumstances, the offer was reasonable, given that the appropriate course of action would be for the resident to make an insurance claim for the damage.
  15. The landlord did not offer compensation for the inconvenience and distress suffered by the resident until its stage 2 response of 1 August 2023. It offered £1000 for this which was in accordance with its compensation policy.
  16. The CEO’s response at stage 2 on 14 March 2024 addressed the impact on the family and this was supported by their visit to the resident’s property. The landlord apologised for the impact and offered appropriate compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The £2500 offered was equivalent to 6 months’ rent and in accordance with the compensation policy.
  17. In summary the landlord addressed its contractor’s failure to appropriately manage the asbestos removal at the resident’s property. The landlord took steps to stop this reoccurring and reassured the resident her property was safe. It took further pragmatic steps to clean the property. It offered significant and reasonable compensation ensuring it acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the family.

The resident’s reports of black dust in her loft space in December 2023.

  1. In response to the resident’s concerns in December 2023 about asbestos dust being released from her loft the landlord promptly arranged an air test. Despite promising to share the results it failed to do so until the resident chased it. When she did the landlord correctly realised its mistake it logged a new complaint on her behalf. That was a proactive and appropriate course of action in the circumstances of the resident’s ongoing experience with its handling of the asbestos.
  2. The landlord’s complaint response of 25 January 2024 shared the air test results confirming they were clear. It acknowledged its failure to provide assurance and resolution for the resident following the test, which had then caused delay for her in arranging cleaning and installing carpets. The landlord explained it was not certain of a link between loft dust and the ceiling removal in 2023 but took a reasonable approach in agreeing to clean the loft. It also agreed to complete plastering work at the property.
  3. The landlord followed this up in its CEO response in March 2024 agreeing for a further environmental clean of the property. It also provided specific dates for repairs to the plastering. This was an appropriate approach to take because it addressed the issue and the resident’s concerns. 
  4. The resident complained that the dust in the loft had covered or damaged her children’s possessions she had stored there. In response, the landlord offered to clean the items. This was a reasonable and pragmatic offer, given that in line with her tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy she would normally need to claim for the damaged items against her own insurance.
  5. In her complaint escalation on 25 January 2024 the resident repeated her concern about damage to items in the loft, such as a doll house and the Christmas tree. The landlord’s CEO response was reasonable and fair in the circumstances. It offered £250 to restore the doll house and £100 to replace the Christmas tree. Following the resident’s dissatisfaction with this, the landlord increased this on 11 April to £500 to restore the doll house.
  6. In summary the landlord’s appropriately acknowledged its failure to manage the resident’s concerns in December 2023 raising a complaint to address this. Its offers of compensation were reasonable and fair in the circumstances. Its approach at all stages appropriately addressed the specific damage raised by the resident. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos removal at her property in April 2023.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of black dust in her loft in December 2023.