Thurrock Council (202219191)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219191

Thurrock Council

28 February 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. damp and mould and the subsequent repairs.
2. Asbestos in the property and the subsequent repairs.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it reimburse the resident for works the resident had carried out and paid for.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
The resident informed this Service in January 2023, that he had employed his own contractor to replaster the upstairs’ walls and ceilings to remedy an issue with dust. The resident said he spent £8,000 on this work and wanted the landlord to reimburse him.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has carried out some works to the property. However, the evidence seen shows that the resident had not raised the request for reimbursement as part of his formal complaint to the landlord. Therefore the Ombudsman cannot consider this matter as part of the investigation. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaints. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint, for example the request for reimbursement, should be addressed directly with the landlord in the first instance and follow the landlords complaints procedure before they can be considered by this Service.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for the works the resident paid for, is outside jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since July 2017. The property is 3 bedroom terrace house.
The landlord said it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident said 2 children under the age of 5 live at the property.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will review all reports of damp and mould within a property. It states that for severe cases, it will carry out a survey and complete any identified remedial work as a routine repair within 20 working days. The policy also states that minor mould growth, which is due to condensation, will be addressed under a batch programme following a review by its contracted delivery partners.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that when several repairs are required to address an issue, the landlord will combine those into a batch repairs programme. The time scale for batch repairs will vary depending on the work required. The policy says remedial work due to damp and mould will either be completed as a routine repair or a batch repairs programme. It also says that repairs to ceilings will be completed as a batch repairs programme.
The landlord informed this Service on 17 August 2023, that as part of its routine business, the resident would have been kept updated on progression of the repair orders by its contractors.
The landlord informed this Service that when it receives a repair request, if suitable, and if there is no asbestos survey on record for the property, it will take a sample for testing prior to any work starting. This is to ensure that any remedial works are undertaken in line with the relevant control of asbestos regulations. Where required, the landlord will make safe any areas pending the sample test being undertaken and results being received. The landlord has not provided a written copy of this procedure.

Summary of events

The resident reported damp and mould in the hallway on 14 March 2022. The landlord attended 3 days later and applied mould treatment in the lounge and hallway.
The resident informed the landlord on 14 March 2022, that his family was feeling sick due to the poor air quality upstairs. He said that the landlord had not informed them there was asbestos in the property. He requested the landlord to investigate. The landlord booked an asbestos specialist to attend the property to carry out some tests.
On 11 April 2022, the asbestos specialist took samples at the property for testing and to establish whether asbestos was present. The landlord received the report with the findings on 28 April 2022. The report identified several areas within the property where asbestos was present. The asbestos was assessed as very low risk and the recommendations were to undertake routine inspections for damage and deterioration. It said that if the asbestos was damaged or affected by refurbishment work, it would need to be removed or enclosed.
The landlord inspected the ceilings containing asbestos on 3 May 2022. It confirmed that they were in good condition and sealed. The landlord noted that no further work was required.
The resident contacted the landlord several times in May 2022 to query about the results of the asbestos tested samples. He shared that he was anxious, especially for the health of his children. The resident also reported holes in the ceilings on 17 May 2022. The landlord responded on 31 May 2022, and informed the resident that its asbestos team would attend on 10 June 2022, to inspect whether any ceiling repairs were required. The asbestos contractor recommended that 2 ceilings to be repaired due to bowing. They also noted that there was no flaking, and that the remaining ceilings were all in good condition.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey at the property on 16 June 2022. The resident was present during the survey. The surveyor identified mould growth within the built in wardrobe, which it said was a “slight mould growth” and “was found to be limited to surface areas only”. It concluded the property to be safe, not suffering from a serious damp and mould problem, and found no evidence of water ingress into the property. It noted the resident’s concerns regarding poor air quality. It recommended some modifications to improve this, such as providing an extractor fan in the bathroom and the kitchen and servicing the heat exchange system. The surveyor also advised the landlord to apply a mould wash in bathroom to address the damp issues. The surveyor provided practical advice to the resident in managing adequate ventilation and preventing the growth of mould.
On 4 July 2022, the landlord rejected the work order raised for the hall and lounge ceilings. The landlord requested further information from the contractor in order to process the order. It noted that the contractor attended the property and gathered the required information. Due to a change of process, the order was then automatically authorised. Then, the contractor attempted to contact the resident several times to organise for the work to be completed but was unable to make contact. Because of this, the job was then cancelled. It said a new job was then raised on 20 July 2022.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 2 August 2022. He said he was concerned about his family’s wellbeing. The complaint was about:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of asbestos and damp in the property;
2. the kitchen having no vent;
The resident provided further information about his complaint to the landlord on 9 August 2022. He said:
1. his family, including an infant, had slept in the living room for 6 months, due to damp in the bedroom wardrobe.
2. chrysotile asbestos had been found at the property prior to the family moving in and had not been removed. The resident said that the asbestos was dangerous. He confirmed that the asbestos removal team came and removed part of the ceilings in the hallway and living room. He said the landlord failed to return to finish the work.
3. he was distressed and concerned for his family.
The landlord’s records noted that sections of the 2 ceilings were removed as planned on 9 August 2022, and the work was completed on 15 August 2022. On 16 August 2022, the contractor confirmed to the landlord that all work to the asbestos ceilings had been completed.
The resident reported damp and mould in the bedroom on 15 August 2022. The contractor inspected 2 days later and explained to the landlord that the resident had refused remedial work as he wanted the landlord to inspect itself.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 August 2022. It was as follows:
1. The complaint was about the delays in completing works for damp and asbestos within the property.
2. The resident had reported damp in the hallway and it had completed the remedial work within 3 working days.
3. Between March 2022 and August 2022, inspections and repairs were carried out to address the asbestos at the property. The landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in progressing the repairs. It explained that when it had been unable to contact the resident, it had cancelled the work order. It also said that there had been delays in progressing with the work due to a lack of information to raise a new order for the job.
4. It apologised for its failings and said that it would monitor the situation and ensure the outstanding repairs were completed in a swift and satisfactory manner.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 24 August 2022. The resident remained dissatisfied because:
1. the damp in the build in wardrobe had not been addressed. He said that this was the reason for the family could not sleep in the bedroom;
2. the repairs to seal and paint the ceilings were not completed as planned;
3. the extractor fan in the bathroom was not working;
4. the landlord’s surveyor indicated that the kitchen should have an extractor fan in place.
On 15 September 2022, the landlord removed the resident’s built in wardrobe to apply mould treatment to the affected area.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 September 2022. It was as follows:
1. The complaint was about outstanding repairs at the property.
2. The resident said that the damp in the wardrobe was still an issue because the landlord had not treated it. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the failings in its handling of the repairs. It explained that an administration error had led to the work being delayed. It also recognised that there had been confusion around whether or not the wardrobes would be removed. The landlord confirmed that the repairs would be completed on 26 September 2022.
3. The resident said that following the asbestos removal, works to seal the holes and repaint the ceilings remained outstanding. The landlord acknowledged its failing to complete the work as agreed. It said that this was due to an error with the work order. The landlord confirmed that the hallway and kitchen had now been completed and that the lounge was booked for 27 September 2022.
4. The resident reported that the vent in the bathroom remained faulty. Following an inspection on 9 September 2022, the landlord agreed for a new fan to be installed on 29 September 2022.
5. The landlord apologised for its failing and explained the actions it took to prevent those from happening again. It confirmed that it had discussed the failings with its team and its contractors.
6. In recognition of the delays and time and trouble caused to the resident, it offered £100 in compensation.
The landlord said it completed several repairs in September 2022 and October 2022:
1. It removed a section of asbestos ceiling in the bedroom, around the wardrobe, and encapsulated as required. The work was completed on 26 September 2022.
2. It installed a new extractor fan in the bathroom on 29 September 2022.
3. It painted the lounge ceiling on 11 October 2022. This was initially planned for September 2022, but was delayed due to staff sickness. The resident had been informed.
4. The landlord said it contacted the resident on 13 October 2022, who confirmed that the landlord had completed all repairs relating to the complaint.
The resident informed this Service in November 2022 that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaint as he did not feel his complaints had been resolved. He said that his family had suffered for a number of years due to housing disrepairs and that he should be ‘heavily compensated’ and the repairs should be finished.
In January 2023, the resident informed this Service that he had employed his own builder to replaster the upstairs walls and ceilings and spent £8,000 on the works. He said he wanted the landlord to reimburse him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman recognises that the presence of damp and mould and asbestos at the property has caused the resident some distress. The resident expressed his concerns around how the issues may have impacted on his and his family’s health. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Damp and mould

Over the past few years, there has been an increased awareness of the risks to health from damp and mould. It is understandable that residents would be concerned if damp and mould were present in their home, especially when children or people with certain health conditions live at the property. The issue can cause considerable distress to residents. In this case, the resident said there was an issue with damp and mould in his home. He also said that 2 children under 5 lived at the property and he was concerned for their health and wellbeing.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. In March 2022, the resident reported damp and mould in the hallway. In keeping with its repairs policy and the Ombudsman’s recommendations, the landlord attended 2 days later and carried out remedial work to address the issue. This was reasonable, it showed that the landlord took the issue seriously and took prompt actions once it received the resident’s reports.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) says that it is the landlord’s responsibility to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amounts to a hazard that may require remedy. In this case, on 16 June 2022, the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey at the property. The evidence does not show what triggered this course of action. However, this demonstrates that the landlord is aware of its obligations and that it is expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where damp and mould is identified. Such a survey enables the landlord to understand the underlying cause of the damp and mould and what can be done to remedy the issue.
On completion of the survey, the surveyor recommended some remedial work. The evidence does not show when the landlord completed some of those works. It is unclear whether the landlord applied mould wash to the bathroom and installed an extractor fan in the kitchen and one in the bathroom. In its complaint’s response, the landlord acknowledged that following the survey, it raised a work order for the recommended remedial work. It explained that as a result of an administrative error, the work order had not been processed, and because of this, it had failed to complete the work. It is recognised that things do not always go to plan and mistakes can happen. In such circumstances, it is essential for a landlord to respond promptly, communicate with the resident and take reasonable steps to put things right.
The evidence shows that when the resident informed the landlord that some repairs were outstanding, the landlord acted promptly. For instance, when it became aware that the damp and mould in the wardrobe was still an issue, it attended the property within a week and took appropriate actions to address this and resolve the matter. It also apologised to the resident for the delays and put steps in place to prevent this happening again in the future. This was a reasonable and positive response from the landlord.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould says that it is important that the landlord clearly communicates with the resident about the outcomes of surveys, the next steps, and any change to work schedules. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord discussed the outcome of the survey with the resident, which it is required to do. The survey concluded that the property did not suffer from a serious damp problem and there was no risk to health. However, there is no evidence that the landlord made the resident aware of that conclusion or reassured him that the property was safe. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to share this information and offer reassurance to the resident.
The resident said that his family stopped using the bedroom due to the mould in the built in wardrobe and decanted to the living room. It is accepted that the evidence does not show that the resident informed the landlord of this prior to August 2022. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that once the landlord became aware of this, it reassured the resident that the mould in the built in wardrobe did not present a health risk. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain that it had considered this and it was safe for the family to use the bedroom. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had fully appreciated how the issue was impacting the resident or attempted to alleviate the resident’s concerns.
Additionally, the landlord did not show that in June 2022, it had discussed the remedial work it had planned or what the resident could do to address the issue in the wardrobe. The evidence seen suggests that the resident had expected the landlord to address the mould in the wardrobe. This was understandable as the landlord had previously applied mould treatment to other areas in the property and it had not said it would not do this work in the wardrobe. In keeping with its obligations, the landlord was responsible for communicating and clearly stating its intentions to the resident following the survey. Its failure to do so, raised the resident’s expectations. This also contributed to the delay in resolving the matter. This also caused some inconvenience to the resident, who spent time and effort asking for updates.
The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report says that good records are essential. They assist landlords to deliver efficient and effective services and provides an audit trail. The evidence seen has raised concerns about the landlord’s record keeping. For instance, the landlord’s repairs log did not show that it had carried out a damp and mould survey in June 2022. There is also no record to show that it had completed all the repairs recommended by the surveyor, such as applying mould treatment to the bathroom. This is not in keeping with the expectation that landlords will keep up to date and accurate records.
In addition, it is acknowledged that the landlord believes that the resident would have been kept updated on the progress of the repairs by its contractors. However, it has provided no evidence to support this had happened or there was a monitored process in place to ensure the contractor did update residents. Even when landlords delegate repairs to a contractor, they retain their responsibilities as landlords. In this case, the landlord failed to comply with its obligations to keep an audit trail of what happened. It failed to evidence that it had communicated effectively with the resident and keep him informed of the progress of the repairs.
It is acknowledged that damp and mould in a home can have a serious impact on a resident’s health. It is also recognised that a resident with a young family would be especially concerned if damp and mould were to be present in their home. This was the situation the resident found himself in, and understandably he was concerned for his family’s welfare. The issue of damp and mould caused the resident such concern that he said his family stopped using the bedroom and slept in the living room for 6 months. In its response to the resident’s reports, there is no evidence that the landlord considered this information, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to do so.
In summary, the evidence seen shows that the landlord took prompt actions once it received the resident’s reports about the issue. It carried out a damp and mould survey, which recommended some repairs to be completed. The Ombudsman understands that it can take time to complete repairs, especially when specialist trades are required. The landlord recognised during the complaint process, that mistakes were made which caused delays in completing the repairs. It explained what happened and took actions to resolve the matter and appropriately apologised to the resident. It also demonstrated that it had learnt from its failings and put measures in place to prevent those from reoccurring.
However, effective communication with residents is essential to maintain trust and nurture a good resident landlord relationship. In this case, the evidence shows the landlord did not discuss the damp and mould survey with the resident or explain the findings of minimal level risk to the family. Had the landlord communicated this to the resident, his concerns could have been alleviated sooner. The landlord failed to understand how the issue impacted the resident, who felt so concerned about it that he had decanted his family to the living room. The landlord also failed to correctly process the booking of the repairs, this caused delays, which the landlord failed to communicate to the resident. After considering the evidence provided, the Ombudsman has determined that there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the subsequent repairs.
As part of the dispute resolution, the landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident. The resident’s complaint was about 2 issues: issues about the asbestos and issues about damp and mould in the property. The landlord did not provide a breakdown of the compensation, therefore the Ombudsman has considered that 50% of the compensation related to the complaint about damp and mould. After considering all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman has concluded that the compensation of £50 was too low, it did not reflect the impact the failings had on the resident. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance, published on its website, the Ombudsman determined that compensation of £450 is more appropriate. It reflects the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident and is equivalent to:
1. £150 to reflect the inconvenience and the time and trouble the resident spent seeking a resolution.
2. £300 to reflect the distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.

Asbestos

It is accepted that the presence of asbestos in properties built in the late 20th century is not unusual, as it was commonly used in construction during that period. In this case, the resident became aware that there was asbestos in his property in March 2022. This really concerned the resident and he contacted the landlord about it and expressed his concerns. It has been well documented and publicised that asbestos can cause a serious risk to health. It is therefore understandable that the resident was worried whether the asbestos in his home presented a risk to his family’s health.
The HHSRS says that it is the landlord’s has responsibility to consider hazards within its properties that may require management or remedy. This includes identifying and managing potential risks from asbestos. The landlord said it has a procedure in place to identify and manage asbestos in its properties, it did not provide a copy to this Service. Nevertheless, the initial actions it took on receiving the resident’s report of asbestos were prompt and appropriate. In March 2022, the resident raised concerns about poor air quality and asbestos in his property. Within 2 days of receiving the report, the landlord organised for a specialist contractor to attend the property.
A specialist contractor carried out a survey at the property. It also took samples for testing to determine whether asbestos was present and required addressing. This was about a month after the resident first reported his concerns and would have felt like a long time to the resident. It is understandable that during that time the resident would have been anxious to find out whether his family was at risk. The Ombudsman recognises this, but also understands that it can take time to organise a specialist contractor. The evidence seen shows that the landlord acted promptly once it received the resident’s report and confirmed its actions with the resident. This was reasonable from the landlord and in accordance with his obligations.
The landlord received the results of the testing and survey approximately 2 weeks later. The tests concluded that asbestos was present within the property and was very low risk. The report also provided some recommendations on how to manage the risks. A few days after receiving the report, the landlord attended the property to inspect the ceilings, where the asbestos was located. The specialist contractor had advised that the landlord should only remove the asbestos if it was damaged or had been disturbed. Following its inspection, the landlord concluded that the ceilings were in good condition and sealed, and therefore no work was required. However, following further reports from the resident, the specialist contractor made further recommendations and the landlord agreed to do some work on 2 ceilings. This was reasonable from the landlord. It was also appropriate for the landlord to trust the advice provided by its expert contractor.
Whilst it is recognised that the landlord took appropriate actions once it received the resident’s reports, the Ombudsman has also identified some failings on the part of the landlord.
The Ombudsman recognises that landlords have processes in place to authorise and proceed with certain repairs. In this case, the landlord required further information from the contractor before it could process the order for the work. It is accepted that sometimes, thing do not go to plan and delays can occur. However, in such cases, it would be expected for the landlord to keep the resident updated. On this occasion, there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated or explained the delays to him. This was unreasonable from the landlord, whose service fell short of what a resident should expect.
Furthermore, in August 2022, the contractor confirmed to the landlord that all the work relating to the asbestos had been completed. However, the resident raised in his stage 2 complaint that this had not been the case and some work was outstanding. The landlord acknowledged that in July 2022, it had failed to appropriately communicate the detail of the job to the contractor, which had caused delays in completing the work. The evidence seen shows that when the landlord became aware of the issue, it apologised and took steps to complete the work. Whilst this was reasonable from the landlord and in keeping with what is expected in such situations, this delayed the resolution to the problem. This cause further inconvenience and distress to the resident, who remained concerned how the asbestos may impact on his family’s health.
Additionally, the resident informed the landlord several times that he was worried about the asbestos in his property and its impact on his family’s health. He also contacted the landlord several times to query the tests results. It is accepted that a key aspect of managing and fostering good relationships and trust with residents is for landlords to communicate effectively with them. In this case, the landlord did not show that it discussed the survey’s findings with the resident or reassured the resident his home was safe. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to share and discuss the survey’s findings and the test results with the resident. As it did not, the resident was left not knowing what the risks were. This was detrimental and caused him additional distress.
In summary, the evidence seen shows that the landlord took appropriate actions once it received the reports about asbestos in the property. It promptly organised for a specialist contractor to carry out some testing and determine whether asbestos was present. It took proportionate actions to manage the risks based on expert advice. While those actions were in keeping with its obligations, policies, the Ombudsman also identified some failures on the part of the landlord.
There were some errors and miscommunications, which caused delays in completing the repairs. In addition, the landlord could have done more to reassure the resident on the actual risks caused by the asbestos and the actions taken to mitigate those risks. It also failed to communicate effectively with the resident and keep him updated on delays that occurred or explain the reason for those delays as they happened.
The landlord’s failings exasperated the resident, his concerns about asbestos in his property and the lack of timely updates caused considerable distress. The resident was clearly concerned for the health and safety of his family, especially his children. Had the landlord communicated the outcome of the survey in a timely manner, the resident’s concerns could have been alleviated sooner. The failings also caused inconvenience to the resident whilst seeking updates and resolution to the matter. After considering the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman determined that the landlord’s failings amounted to maladministration.
As previously mentioned, as part of the dispute resolution, the landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident in response to it complaints. The landlord did not provide a breakdown of the compensation, therefore the Ombudsman has considered 50% of the compensation related to the complaint about asbestos. After considering all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman concluded that the compensation of £50 was too low, it did not reflect the impact the failings had on the resident. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance, the Ombudsman has determined compensation of £650 is more appropriate. It reflects the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident and is equivalent to:
1. £250 to reflect the time and trouble the resident spent seeking a resolution.
2. £400 to reflect the distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it reimburse the resident for the repairs the residents carried out and paid for is outside jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling:
1. the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the subsequent repairs;
2. the resident’s reports of asbestos in the property and the subsequent repairs.

Reasons

The landlord took prompt actions once it received the resident’s reports about the issue. It carried out a damp and mould survey, and completed the repairs recommended by the surveyor. However, it failed to communicate the outcome of the survey to the resident and clearly communicate what work it would carry out, which caused some confusion. It also failed to explain the delays in completing the repair prior to the resident making a formal complaint. The landlord’s failings caused inconvenience and distress to the resident.
The landlord took appropriate actions once it received the reports about asbestos in the property. However, it failed to communicate effectively with the resident. It did not share and discuss the findings of the survey with the resident. It did not update the resident or explained the reasons for the delays in completing the repairs. It also failed to provide reassurance to the resident on the actual risks and what was done to mitigate the risks. The landlord’s failings caused inconvenience and distress to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1100 directly to the resident (this is including the landlord’s offer of £100, if this has already been paid, it should be deducted from the amount), this is equivalent to:
1. £450 to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused by the landlord’s failings in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. £650 to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding asbestos in the property.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified in this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to comply with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers including the following in its procedures when conducting surveys:
1. Discuss the findings of the survey with residents;
2. discuss the risks identified (if any) with residents;
3. discuss the actions taken to mitigate the risks identified (if any) and how this impact of the level of risk.
The Ombudsman recommends that when the landlord offers compensation, it provides the resident with a breakdown of the compensation. It should say how much compensation is offered for each element of the complaint and the reason for the offer.