South Kesteven District Council (202234837)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234837

South Kesteven District Council

15 March 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 resident’s complaint was about:
1. The landlord allocating a property not suitable to the resident’s needs.
2. The condition of the property when it was let. ·
3. The landlord’s response to:
  1. the resident’s request that it installs a bath.
  2. the resident’s report of water egress from the bathroom.
  3. the resident’s request for replacement roof, insulation, and bathroom flooring.
  4. the resident’s request for repairs to her external doors, radiators, loose wiring, guttering and blocked drains, a hole in the bathroom wall, and for the provision of vents and window keys.
  5. the resident’s concerns about asbestos in the property.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

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 41 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme Housing-Ombudsman-Scheme-1.pdf states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease.
Paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
The Memorandum of Understanding between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) Memorandum of Understanding – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) set out that the LGSCO investigates complaints regarding applications to the local authority housing register (such as allocations and suitability of housing) and for emergency housing under Part 6 and Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 respectively.
In the circumstances the following complaint is outside the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord allocating a property not suitable to the resident’s needs.
This is because this aspect of the resident’s complaint, which included that the property was so unsuitable that it should not have been allocated to her and that she felt pressured into accepting the property, did not concern the management of housing but its allocation process. The Ombudsman will, however, consider its condition on letting.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a property, a two-bedroom bungalow, under a secure tenancy which initial start date was amended to 27 February 2022. The property as let was an adapted with a level access shower. She occupied the property with her daughter.
The resident suffered from a number of significant physical health vulnerabilities which affected her mobility and she received treatment for pain management. She was also diagnosed with COPD and an immune disorder. The resident had stated on her housing application that she had PTSD and severe depression. It also set out that she was unable to walk very far or bathe independently. Her daughter suffered from ADHD and panic attacks.

Scope of this report

During the course of the complaint correspondence, the resident disclosed a number of physical and mental issues suffered by both her and her daughter, including her daughter’s worsening mental health. The resident reported how the events complained of affected her and her daughter’s mental health. This was clearly and understandably distressing for the resident.
The Ombudsman does carefully consider what a resident tells us about how they have been affected by the issues in their complaint, including the overall impact on them, and may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure by a landlord.
However, the Ombudsman cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and/or mental health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence. This report will not therefore set out in detail the resident’s reports but they have been noted.
The resident raised a number of issues, including the landlord’s bins management. The investigation can only address the issues that the resident raised with the landlord in her 2022 complaints. If the resident wishes to, she can raise a fresh complaint. The resident also raised an issue about data protection in correspondence. The Ombudsman does not investigate breaches of data protection. Any complaint should be referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord did not provide the terms and conditions to the tenancy agreement or its repairs policy. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to undertake repairs within a reasonable timescale. What is reasonable depends on the type of repair. Reflecting the Right to Repair regulations 1994, a repair to heating in the winter would be more urgent (1 day) than a repair in the summer months (3 days).
The landlord’s empty property standard set out as follows:
1. The standard was not an improvement standard and therefore improvement work will be undertaken after the new tenant has moved in, and only prior where a repair was not viable.
2. The landlord should replace all toilet seats.
3. Make sure all windows were in good working order.
4. Bathroom floor covering must be a specific non-slip safety floor.
5. Tenants were to be offered a decoration allowance for some rooms if the condition of the decoration was in a very poor condition.
6. The loft is to be clear of any rubbish.
7. The property would be checked for asbestos which would be either removed or left in a safe condition.
8. Carpets to be fitted to bedrooms.
The landlord’s complaints policy operated a three-stage procedure. Some complaints could be dealt with “quickly and informally at the initial point of contact”. It would explain if the complaint could be dealt with as an informal complaint. If not, it would address the complaint as a formal complaint. It would respond within 10 working days at Stage 1 and 20 working days at Stage 2. According to the landlord’s self-assessment, the landlord operates a two-stage procedure.

Chronology

The void pack for void works carried out November – December 2021 in the property set out a number of works including loft and window checks, test of electrical fittings, remove a bedroom carpet, fix new toilet seat, test shower and provide new shower curtain, reseal windows, strip wallpaper in relation to a leak in the wet room, with photos including of the shed. Radiators were considered to be satisfactory. Asbestos information was provided. Items were removed including from the shed. There was a reference to a job in relation to an additional vent to the window of bedroom 2. No works were needed except one, a ”very slight drop” in the floor of one of the bedrooms which was not the subject of the resident’s complaints. A void completion certificate dated 21 December 2021 stated that there was asbestos waste to collect and a “very slight drop to a bedroom 1 floor”.
An unsigned void property “disclaimer” dated 29 November 2021 stated that “Having viewed the above property, an agreement has been made between “myself and (the landlord) that the following item(s) shall be left at the property”. The list included the lounge carpet, laminate in the hall and bedroom 1, all blinds, bathroom vanity unit, cabinet and accessories, and a timber shed. It referred to a “partial refurb and demolition” survey.
On 21 December 2021, a statement of cleanliness was issued by a certified waste management company stating that following the removal of “non-licensed” asbestos from the shed and a “thorough” clean, the company certified the area to be safe.
An EPC of the same date showed the property was rated as “C”, The roof was rated a “good”. Neither it or the loft insulation were recommended areas of improvement.
The resident signed the tenancy on 31 January 2022. The resident declined the offer of support. She had initially refused the property because it had no bath but this was deleted. She also signed the “void property disclaimer” stating that she accepted liability for the maintenance, upkeep and replacement of the items, including the shed.
On 3 February 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord as a complaint as follows:
1. She said she was not able to move in due to the condition of the property.
2. She asked for a bath to be installed to help with her pain management and COPD.
3. She was given permission to move the shower seat but was told to retain it. It was in a “disgusting” state in particular given her health conditions. She asked it to be collected.
4. There were also leaking and mouldy pipes in need of repair.
5. She was concerned about health risks in particular, given her health conditions.
6. She attached photos of the shower, tiles, and pipes with black marks which, it was not disputed, was mould.
A housing officer of the landlord wrote on 3 February 2022 internally as follows:
1. She referred to the resident’s request for a bath as advised/evidenced by a letter from her GP. As the property was adapted and had a ramped access, permissions to install a bath would not be granted. The resident had then informed the landlord that on that basis she would have to refuse the property. She then withdrew that decision but subsequently accepted the property.
2. The parties agreed to sign the tenancy agreement on 31 January 2022. There was a discussion about housing benefit and paying rent on 2 properties. The resident required time to fit a carpet. The housing officer confirmed it would be unable to install a bath or agree to the disposal of the shower seat. The landlord had rescheduled the signing of the agreement. The resident would have to make a decision, as otherwise the landlord would withdraw and reallocate.
3. While the bathroom was decorated and two units in good condition, there was mould on the shower seat.
4. She had signposted the resident to financial support.
The landlord logged the resident’s complaint and assigned it to its head of housing.
On 11 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident as follows: The email was headed “update on the complaint”.
1. It referred to a telephone conversation with the resident.
2. It would credit her rent account with 4 weeks rent, a full clean on the property to be undertaken, the roof to the shed would be logged for repair, leaking pipework would be repaired in the bathroom, it would make a tenancy support referral.
3. The resident would self-refer to the Occupational Health Service (OT) for assessment of needs.
A clean to the bathroom was subsequently arranged for 1 March 2022.
According to the heating contractor, on 23 February 2022, the resident reported that the lounge radiator was leaking. It attended 24 February 2022 but was not able to get access. The fault was reported again and it attended on 28 February 2022 and repaired a leak in the pipework.
On 23 February 2022, the resident wrote she had requested paint and cleaning materials due to her immune disorder. She expressed her thanks.
In February and March onwards, the resident was accepted on a garden maintenance scheme. The landlord made funding applications to address additional expenses to replace under counter freezer. The landlord adjusted the tenancy stop and start dates so that there was a continuous housing benefit payment. She was referred to tenancy support which ended in September 2022. Following a visit on 22 March 2022, the landlord made a referral to a further charity. It provided decorating vouchers, it acted as a go-between with the repairs team and assisted with benefits applications. The landlord funded £200 towards a replacement shed and there would be a charity application to cover the balance. Unless specified, the support worker will also be referred to as ‘the landlord’.
According to the heating contractor, the resident on 17 March 2022 reported that the radiator was “stuck” on full. It attended 21 March 2022 and reattached the valve.
On 17 March 2022, the resident wrote as follows:
1. A repairs operative or surveyor attended and advised that the whole shed was rotting. The roofing had asbestos in it and ”throughout the house” and some of this had been cut outside to put a vent in. She attached a photo of a tank. This had her “really nervous” due to her health condition.
2. The guttering required a repair and was “full of water in one point”.
3. The roofing needed to be redone.
4. The loft insulation was inadequate at only 200 mm instead of the required 1000 mm.
5. There were numerous pipes and wires in the property which served no purpose. She said the operative advised that they should have been removed.
6. The shower would flood the bathroom however she was unable to use it in any event. The flooring was not angled correctly to allow for proper drainage.
7. She had had to replace the toilet seat. The operative stated it should have been done as a matter of course.
8. She did not receive a decorating grant but had paid for decorating and had a team of volunteers to assist.
9. She felt the property should not have been offered to someone with her health conditions.
The landlord replied on the same day that it had requested a copy of the asbestos report. It said many of its properties had asbestos and it managed the risk through its compliance register. It would take action in relation to any identified risks.
The operative wrote internally the next day. The shed was beyond repair. It should have been removed and disposed of as part of the clearance. The loft insulation was only 200 mm thick and should be 270 mm minimum. There was also wrapped up asbestos in the loft which, in his view, should have been removed. The resident stated that she had to purchase a new toilet seat, as the one which came with the property was a disability commode. It was in the rear yard in “a disgusting unhygienic state”. He attached photos to the email.
The void team wrote on 18 March 2022 that it would arrange to remove the shed at the earliest opportunity as well as the water tank and would “top up” the insulation. This was subsequently arranged for 3 May 2022. It could not locate the “void pack” and post-inspection photos.
The resident continued to chase dates for when the guttering, roof, and window vents were to be addressed. She was concerned about the loss of the shed on her daughter. She said she had been advised not to use the loft which affected her storage space. She had to repaint all the ceilings in order to cover any asbestos. She was “terrified” about the asbestos and worried about her daughter. She was using her friends and family’s bathroom. She did not feel settled.
In an undated internal email in March, the support worker noted that some redecoration had taken place and that there was a small area of staining to the corner to the living room.
An ‘electrical installation condition report’ (EICR) dated 30 March 2022 was carried out at the resident’s request and stated the condition was “satisfactory”. It made a few recommendations including regarding some of the plates.
The resident wrote on 1 April 2022 as follows:
1. The asbestos had been “cut into”.
2. The repairs operative had suggested she should be in the list for roofing repairs.
3. The window vents needed replacing.
An undated internal email of April 2022 noted that survey information from 2017 set out that, as long as asbestos was not being disturbed, then it was safe.
In an undated email but from early April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident as follows:
1. When any asbestos works were carried out a statement of cleanliness (Non licenced removal) or four stage clearance (Licenced removal) was required to ensure that the area was safe to re-enter. As long as the asbestos was not disturbed, then it was safe.
2. The loft insulation was booked in for 3 May 2022.
3. There was no record of any outstanding roofing repairs and it asked for further information.
4. It was awaiting any recommendations by an Occupational Therapist assessment in relation to the bathroom which it would then consider.
On 5 April 2022, there was a disposal of asbestos by the certified specialist company. It issued a “statement of cleanliness”. It had removed a “asbestos water tank” from the loft and checked the area for cement debris but none was found. It was satisfied that the area could be occupied safely.
On the same day, the resident wrote as follows:
1. The specialist asbestos company had told the resident that a report should have been generated when the property was empty. She requested a copy. She had been advised not to paint the ceilings as “paint did not seal asbestos”.
2. Given the tank was left in the loft, this process was not carried out. She asked the landlord to arrange this.
3. She referred to her and her daughter’s health conditions.
On 11 April 2022, the resident asked for a safety check, she chased the works to the bathroom works, the gutters, window vents, roof and asbestos report. She felt unable to access the lounge and garden and that the property should be deemed to be unfit for habitation due to the presence of asbestos fibres. She described the effects on her health, living, storage, and that the landlord should replace the shed as it helped with her daughter’s mental health. She asked for a move or a decant until the works were done. The resident continued to chase in a similar vein on a number of occasions throughout the complaint period, as did the support worker internally.
The support worker attended the property on 13 April 2022 and suggested the resident take photos of the leaks from the bathroom. On the same day, an advisor from one of the charities referred by the landlord asked the landlord whether it would provide the asbestos report to the resident and confirm the property was safe to live in.
On 14 April 2022, the resident requested the void inspection in relation to the “broken toilet seat” and the “filthy” state of the bathroom. The gutters were to be repaired and the window vents installed on 30 June 2022. She chased reassurance that the property was safe. She said that the contractor had advised her not to enter the lounge due to the asbestos hazard. She emphasised the impact on her and her daughter’s mental health, who was receiving acute care. She attached a photo of the hallway outside the bathroom.
On 20 April 2022, the landlord wrote that the property, and the outside space was safe to move about freely in including the lounge. The loft space should be avoided until the works had been carried out. A copy of the asbestos survey had been requested.
On 28 April 2022, the resident requested a decant on the basis her daughter would be upset and might be aggressive. She reported that the front door was leaking. The landlord offered to store the resident’s belongings which it did until the resident agreed a date to receive them back.
On 3 May 2022, the loft insulation was “topped up”, and the guttering and the shed were removed.
On 17 May 2022, the resident wrote that neighbours had informed her that a survey had been carried out on all the properties and her property needed a new roof. She asked for a copy of the report.
On 20 May 2022, the resident chased and reported that the floor was damaged by the “flooding” from the bathroom.
On 27 May 2022, the landlord approved full payment for a replacement shed as compensation.
According to an internal email and the repair records, a plumber of the landlord inspected the bathroom on 31 May 2022. According to an internal email, the notes stated that the shower curtain needed to be longer or the rail lowered. It could send an operative to measure the length and order a shower curtain from a specialist supplier.
On or around 9 June 2022, the resident wrote as follows:
1. She reported that the person who inspected the bathroom deemed that the bathroom needs refitting due to the poor workmanship. She expected the landlord to lay new flooring.
2. She had received the shed.
3. She chased the asbestos report as well as the previous issues as above.
4. She reported that the valve on the kitchen radiator was broken and she was unable to turn off her bedroom heater.
5. She wanted reimbursement for the additional fuel she was using.
On 24 June 2022, an OT inspected the property.
On 28 June 2022, the resident reported that the works for the guttering and window vents were delayed until 25 July 2022.
On 11 July 2022, the support worker wrote to the resident as follows:
1. The landlord would not provide the asbestos report. Information would be provided in the event she wanted to carry out improvement works.
2. She set out the outcome of the bathroom inspection of 31 May 2022.
3. The jobs were raised for the leaking front door, replacing the window keys and painting the living room ceiling with a specific paint which sealed textured coating and filled the holes.
On or around 31 July 2022, the local authority refused the resident’s application to fund a replacement bath, however according to subsequent correspondence from the landlord, it made recommendations. The landlord informed this Service that it was as a consequence of a joint review by social services and the landlord.
On 24 August 2022, the resident reported a large hole in a bathroom wall, and that she found cleaning the bathroom floor difficult as it was “industrial” flooring. A longer shower curtain would be a trip hazard.
An undated email stated as follows:
1. The soffits would be removed when the property was re-roofed as the condition of the asbestos containing materials (ACM) was noted as “good”.
2. A longer shower curtain was standard in wetrooms and provided by a specialist company for older people, the disabled, and people with reduced mobility. If an issue, it could install half-height shower screens with a shorter shower curtain with high quality water seals to reduce water egress to the outside of the enclosure.
On 30 August 2022, the support worker noted that she asked the resident whether moving would be a viable alternative to resolve the situation but she said no.
On 7 September 2022, the heating contractor attended and fitted valves in the kitchen and main bedroom radiators.
On 15 September 2022, the landlord replied with its Stage 1 response as follows:
1. It referred to the resident’s email of 24 August 2022 and set out that the complaint was about outstanding repairs, the resident’s financial and welfare concerns, her daughter’s mental health concerns and the OT referral.
2. Repairs to the radiator valves took place on 7 September 2022.
3. The condition of the back door was inspected 9 September 2022 and it was awaiting details of the works required.
4. The small key safes and window vents replacement were booked for 9 September 2022.
5. An inspection of the lounge ceiling was due to take place on 13 September 2022.
6. While the laminate was “disclaimed” and therefore was the tenant’s responsibility, due to the damage caused by the leak, it would remove the flooring to enable her to install new flooring, as flooring was the tenant’s responsibility.
7. The job to address the blocked drains was booked for 20 September 2022.
8. The job to address the hole in the bathroom wall was booked for 11 October 2022.
9. A roof renewal were planned works which were to be rolled out in 2024.
10. The flooring in the bathroom was polysafe nonslip flooring that is fitted as standard to all council properties in wetrooms. The product was widely used in housing as well as other commercial applications.
11. An appointment was booked for 15 September 2022 to address any loose wiring.
12. It was “satisfied” that it was addressing the repairs and queries and managed “with clear dates and responses to each point”.
13. It had taken” numerous steps” regarding her financial and welfare concerns including “additional time to allow her to move considering limitations of her disability”. It set out other steps it had taken.
14. After consideration of the OT referral, it had been agreed that works would be undertaken to adapt the bathroom as suggested.
The resident responded the same day, disputing the report and stating that the landlord had breached the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 because the asbestos and repairs interfered with her “quiet enjoyment” of the property.
According to the repair records and subsequently evidenced by a work sheet, on 11 October 2022 the landlord replaced the window vents. The landlord had identified that there was no hole in the bathroom wall, behind the unit but pipework. On the same day, the landlord cleaned the area behind and painted with stain block white paint to improve its appearance.
The resident wrote on 17 October 2022 that the landlord had agreed to replace the external door but no operatives or contractors had been available. It had agreed to refit the bathroom but had not provided a date for the works to take place. There was a loose wire in one of the switches. She reported that the switch for the boiler should have been moved from a “cupboard” in her bedroom. While the gas contractor attended, the switches on the radiator needed replacing. It would have visited 4 times and the issues with the heating controls were still not rectified. The landlord had stated there was no way to control the radiator but the contractor said otherwise. She did not have a date for the repair to the lounge.
On 9 November 2022, the resident wrote that the landlord had attended to inspect the bathroom.
According to the heating contractor, it attended on 11 November 2022 and found “released pin in TRV kitchen radiator working main bedroom radiator tenant says is working”. It had had no repairs since 2022.
On 10 November 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. There were no outstanding repairs that were logged or in need of follow on works.
2. In relation to a “rotten door”, loose wiring, and ceiling issues, all inspections had concluded that no follow-on works were required.
3. There was an electrical safety inspection undertaken and there were no concerns.
4. In relation to the heating, an appointment was scheduled for 11 November 2022. She still had hot water and a heating supply in the meantime.
5. It had authorised the bathroom works which were to be scheduled. This was “an asset management based decision” so it could, if required, return the bathroom to its original purpose as a wetroom.
6. Resource and material supply impacted on the delivery of this work and it prioritised demands. The decision on planned works was influenced by its stock condition survey, capital budget, and business plan.
7. A roofing upgrade would take place in 2024.
8. It therefore did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
9. It referred to its Stage 1 response regarding the financial and welfare issues.
The resident replied on 10 November 2022. She said she had not been notified of dates for the skimming of lounge ceiling “containing asbestos”, the replacement of front door and the bathroom refit. It had failed to note the condition of the property before it was allocated, including “open areas of asbestos” to a person with COPD.
On 10 November 2022, a job was raised to fit a bath on top of a shower tray and the level access shower would remain in situ.
The resident wrote on 28 November 2022. She was awaiting dates in relation to the lounge ceiling, the door repair and the bathroom. She asked how a “half bath” would benefit and stated that the response did not deal with the bathroom flooring, her report of building regulations, and the condition of the property on letting. She had requested evidence of void checks and she had not received a copy of the asbestos report.
An asbestos report dated 20 July 2023 carried out in advance of a refurbishment of windows and doors stated as follows:
1. It had not completed any previous surveys to this building.
2. One area of ACM was identified. It did not recommend removal or encapsulation only “management”. This meant keeping a record and in a good state of repair. It was rated as the lowest risk “very low” and was in the external soffits.
3. No asbestos materials were observed or detected that required remediation.
On 15 September 2023, the landlord inspected the property, including the “newly installed” windows. The bedroom 2 was in fact missing a vent. It would ask the contractors to return to the property and fix/complete along with a couple of other issues raised. It agreed to fix the hole in the ceiling caused by the asbestos removal with corking.
On 29 February 2024, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that the bath was installed in March 2023. From the photograph provided, a full-sized bath was installed.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property when it was let

The landlord acknowledged that the property was not relet in the condition it should have been, given the condition of the shower seat and cleanliness of the bathroom. It was unreasonable that the landlord initially told the resident to store the shower seat, given its condition, however that was remedied. It addressed the resident’s complaint by carrying out a clean of the property and crediting the resident with a four-week rent rebate.
The resident reported that the condition of the bathroom meant that the resident felt unable to move into the property and therefore did not move in for approximately one month. Given this was the resident’s original request, while the situation would have been unsettling for the resident, the Ombudsman does not consider there was an adverse impact on the resident as far as a delay to moving in was concerned. Moreveor, the landlord ensured that the resident’s benefits were not affected.
The evidence showed that, despite the clean, the commode was in a “disgusting state” yet the void report stated the landlord had installed a new toilet seat. There is not enough evidence for the Ombudsman to make a definitive finding on the events, however this report will make a recommendation in relation to the landlord refunding the cost of the toilet seat.
The empty property standard stated that there should be a carpet in the bedrooms. It also stated that the standard did not require the landlord to make improvements. The landlord’s position is unclear whether laying a carpet constituted an improvement and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation.
The landlord exercised its discretion in taking responsibility for the shed even though it was not an item it was responsible for, but one passed on by the previous tenant. It not only removed the shed but paid for a replacement and paid for storage of the resident’s belongings for a period that suited the resident. This was not only reasonable but demonstrated the landlord’s regard for the resident’s disabilities and her family circumstances.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers there was reasonable redress in relation to the condition of the property.
It is noted that the void team itself could not locate its own records. This investigation has noted some discrepancies, for example in regards to the toilet seat. A recommendation will be made regarding record keeping.
The resident later raised a complaint about the condition of the bathroom and asbestos in the context of the property’s initial condition. While this aspect of her complaint was connected with the suitability of the allocation, which is outside our jurisdiction, those issues will be addressed below when addressing those particular issues.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it installs a bath.

The resident stated that she would not have accepted the property, given the bathroom had a shower and not a bathroom. The evidence indicated that this played a significant part in her decision-making. She reported that she felt pressurised into accepting the property. As this concerns the allocation and suitability of the property, this is outside the remit of this investigation.
The landlord’s explanation for not installing a bath was reasonable, as it has a duty to preserve its public funds, in particular as the property was intended for a person with mobility disabilities. However, there was evidence that, while the resident had mobility issues and needed assistance with bathing, she also had a medical need, given a bath assisted with pain management. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord signposted the resident to its Adult Social Care team for an OT assessment.
Adult Social Care having refused to provide a grant to fit a bath but subsequently recommended that a bath would be beneficial, it was reasonable of the landlord to agree to install a bath. In retrospect, it should have made this decision sooner, given that it paid for installing one in any event, and it also retained the level access shower. While the landlord could have assessed the cost and practicalities of adding a bath sooner, the Ombudsman does not attribute fault to the landlord, given it was anticipating an adaptation grant and it was awaiting a recommendation.
However, given the resident’s disabilities, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out the works within a reasonable time. Even allowing time for any further discussion with the OT and negotiation, the further delay to the fitting of the bath was unreasonable, given the impact on the resident in particular regarding pain management. In the circumstances, while the decision making itself to install a bath was reasonable, the Ombudsman finds maladministration regarding the delay in fitting the bath, once the decision was made.

Water egress from the bathroom

The resident reported that the water escaped from the bathroom into the hallway. This made it a repair issue. The resident first realised there was leak on 17 March 2022. While it was not clear whether the leak noted by the void inspection was the same issue as the water egress, and there was a gap between the resident moving in and noting a leak, this should have been reported and inspected. It was not clear why the water egress was not observed during the various visits by the landlord.
There was a lengthy delay, till the end of May 2022, before the landlord inspected the bathroom. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of the plumber and look at installing a curtain. It was also reasonable, in the light of the resident’s response, to consider alternative equipment. It is noted that the resident appeared to resist the proposal and there is no evidence that would have solved the issue. However, given the resident reported water egress, sent photographic evidence to the landlord at the support worker’s suggestion, and reported that the laminate floor was damaged, there was an unreasonable delay to addressing the issue. There was a delay to inspecting the cause of the leak, and even once a shower curtain or screen was proposed, offering this as an interim solution. There was no evidence that the landlord engaged with the resident in relation to a remedy other than via the support worker. That was not satisfactory.
While it was reasonable of the landlord to accept that the hallway flooring was damaged as a result, and to offer to remove the laminate, the Ombudsman considers the offer was insufficient. While the floor was the responsibility of the resident, given the landlord delayed addressing the leak, which led to damage to the floor, the landlord should have considered replacing that flooring or making a contribution. In the circumstances, given the delay to addressing then resident’s reports, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to a leak in the bathroom.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement roof, insulation, and flooring.

The resident asked for roof repairs but there was no evidence of an actual issue. She then enquired about a roof replacement, a condition survey having taken place. The landlord appeared to promise a roof repair but then withdraw it. While the landlord could have been clearer in its communication, its approach that the roof replacement was part of its stock condition upkeep and therefore were planned works, rather than a responsive repair, as there was no evidence of disrepair, was reasonable. The Ombudsman does not find service failure in regard to the roofing.
The resident reported that the roof insulation was insufficient in that it should have been 1000 mm rather than the existing 250 mm thick. It was reasonable that the landlord identified that the insulation was 20 mm short (the requirement being 270 mm) and remedied this approximately 6 weeks later. This is in particular as additional insulation was not a recommendation in the EPC. The Ombudsman does not find service failure in regard to the loft insulation.
The resident reported that the flooring was difficult to clean and of “industrial” standard that she found difficult to clean. The Ombudsman does not make findings on whether a landlord has acted in a discriminatory manner but would expect the landlord to consider whether replacing the flooring as a reasonable adjustment. This would also include a regard for the cost of fitting bespoke flooring. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s explanation that the flooring was approved, non-slip and used for domestic purposes was reasonable and proportionate. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman does not find service failure in regard to the flooring.

The external doors, radiators, loose wiring, guttering and blocked drains, a hole in the bathroom wall, and the provision of vents and window keys.

The resident first reported an issue with the front door on 28 April 2022. The landlord did not raise a job to inspect it until July 2022 and it was not inspected until September 2022. While it agreed to repair the door, the resident was still waiting for a repair in October 2022. This was an unreasonable delay and outside its policy. It then stated in its Stage 2 response that the repair was not required, without explanation. The Ombudsman finds service failure in this regard.
The evidence indicated that the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports about her radiators. However, there was an instance when there was an unexplained gap after she reported a fault on 9 June 2022 and the heating engineers did not attend till September 2022. It is noted that the same issue persisted and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation. While these were the summer months, and the impact was not clear, the delay is noted as part of the overall repairs service. This was also the case in relation to the guttering and blocked drains. The landlord responded promptly and reasonably but there was some delay to the repairs themselves. The landlord inspected the reported “hole” in the bathroom wall promptly and reasonably improved the appearance of the wall. Given this was decorative, the timescale was not unreasonable.
The evidence also showed that the landlord responded promptly in relation to the resident’s reports about loose wiring by raising an EICR. The report did not raise any safety concerns. While it was reasonable to raise a repair, 5 months to effect it was an unreasonable delay. While unsightly, as there was no evidence it was unsafe, the impact was not clear, but the delay is also noted as part of the overall repairs service. This also applied to the vent in bedroom 2 which the void pack indicated was missing when the property was void. Moreover, the resident reported the vent on 1 April 2022 but it was not addressed until September 2022. This overall delay also applied to the provision of the window keys, which may or may not have been provided at the outset, and which were reported as missing in July 2022 and addressed two months later.
While the landlord raised repairs within a reasonable period, which would have had a varying impact on the resident, there were unexplained delays which would have had an accumulative effect on the resident. This meant she incurred the stress and trouble of chasing the jobs. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the above repairs.

The asbestos

We do not have the landlord’s asbestos policy, however its website states as follows:
1. It had surveyed all of its properties to establish the presence and locations of asbestos within the housing stock it owned. The information collected during the surveys was held on an Asbestos Register. The details held in the register was continually updated to reflect any changes which took place to properties, such as when ACM were removed and also to take account of any new findings which it became aware of.
2. Its Asbestos Management Policy was to leave in position all ACMs which were undamaged, in good condition, and where it was safe to do so. If ACM were found and were damaged, it would take measures to either remove or seal it immediately if the presence of this material was considered to present a high risk. In all other situations, and where the risks were to be considered low, it would undertake the work as part of a maintenance programme.
According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the UK, asbestos is not dangerous for the occupants if the building material is in good condition. In summary, if existing asbestos-containing materials (ACM) are in good condition and are not likely to be damaged, they may be left in place, their condition monitored and managed to ensure they are not disturbed.
In addition to the landlord’s duty under section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord had an obligation to keep the property fit for habitation in relation to hazards, including asbestos. Under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, the landlord owes a duty to occupiers to take such care as is reasonable, to see that they are reasonably safe from personal injury due to any defects in the premises.
The presence of asbestos itself does not constitute disrepair. However, if it is damaged or has deteriorated and there is the risk of asbestos dust, then the landlord should act to prevent disrepair arising. In summary, there is no duty on the landlord to remove asbestos unless it had been damaged or it has deteriorated and presents a health risk to the occupier.
The duty of a landlord also extends to carrying out risk assessments before work at the property is carried out. There is no legal obligation on the landlord to inform residents of where asbestos was situated in their homes. A local authority has a duty to address hazards in the home under the Housing Act 2004 and under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to address statutory nuisance, which asbestos may be deemed to be. However, a local authority cannot enforce legal obligations against itself as a landlord.
The Decent Homes Standard guidance (June 2006) states that “problems with the landlord’s stock should already be known to them – for example the extent to which radon affects housing in affected areas, or the presence of asbestos. Landlords should ensure that future surveys help them assess the extent of hazards typical in their stock”.
The landlord acted reasonably in removing the asbestos from the shed and, subsequently, from the loft. The void pack indicated that the property was safe. After each clearance, the specialist company certified that the area was safe. While the landlord did not provide an asbestos report earlier than that of July 2023 to this Service, the evidence indicated that there were reports in existence and that the property had been deemed to be safe. The landlord referred to a 2017 review, as did the void pack. The landlord undertook a further inspection in 2023 as it was undertaking refurbishment of the doors and windows. The report stated that the property was clear of ACM, apart from the soffit, which was external, and that that ACM was safe. It would be removed during the roof works in any event. This was in accordance with good practice and its policy.
Part of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord should have notified the resident there was asbestos present at the outset. While the resident’s concern was very understandable, the landlord had no obligation to inform the resident that asbestos was present in the property unless there was risk of it being disturbed, for example by either party carrying out works in the property. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted in accordance with its policy, its legal obligations and safety practice.
Where the landlord is not obliged to remove asbestos where it does not pose a risk, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider the landlord’s responses to those concerns. The resident’s concern and anxiety regarding asbestos is understandable, in particular as there was ACM in the property, and she had been told not to access the loft until it was removed.
It was clear that the asbestos caused the resident considerable concern, as it does many residents. The resident stated she felt it was unsafe to use the lounge and she had reported that the specialist company had raised concerns. The landlord’s position regarding the safety of the water tank was contradictory. On one hand, it said it was safe and on the other it told the resident she should not access the loft until it was removed.
The landlord made some attempt to reassure the resident in saying the property was safe from asbestos in April 2022. However, the landlord could have considered contacting the specialist company to find out what had been said and to address it accordingly. It did not consider providing more specific information, which was unreasonable, given the resident’s anxiety, rather than adhering strictly to its policy. The landlord would have notified the resident of any asbestos issues if they were to undertake works. In April 2022, it said it would provide her with the asbestos report but it changed its mind in July 2022, without providing an explanation. The landlord’s overall stance showed a lack of empathy with the resident.
There was an inappropriate delay to repairing the hole in the living room ceiling. While this may have had little impact in decorative terms, but this was linked to the resident’s anxiety about the asbestos. While it was reasonable to offer to paint the ceiling with specialist paint in July 2022, it did not inspect the ceiling until 9 September 2022. While it had reasonably agreed to do the works, and again, it appeared the ceiling was safe, it subsequently appeared to change its mind and then back again. At September 2023, the resident was still awaiting a date for the works to be done. This was unreasonable and poor communication.
While the evidence was that the property was safe, given the issues that arose, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s communication and the way the landlord managed the resident’s expectations in relation to the risk of asbestos, in particular given her vulnerabilities.

The Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998.

Part of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord did not have sufficient regard for her disabilities. This has been addressed in this report along with the individual complaints. It is also noted that along with addressing the resident’s financial circumstances, the landlord made several successful grant applications and referrals for support. It assisted the resident with her benefits and provided dedicated support which acted as liaison with the various teams at the landlord. It also provided vouchers and the shed. The Ombudsman considers that its actions regarding the move-in date, benefits, and the shed demonstrated the landlord’s overall regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities and family circumstances.
The resident’s also raised the Human Rights Act 1998 in her complaint as regards the condition of the property, in particular asbestos preventing her from using the lounge. She referred to her right of quiet enjoyment, a right either implied or express in her tenancy agreement. The Ombudsman does not make findings whether there was a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, or whether they are necessarily engaged. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider the resident’s rights and to treat her accordingly, including under Article 8 her rights to respect for her home. There are occasions when it is not necessary to specifically articulate those rights but to look at a landlord’s overall treatment of a resident. The Ombudsman’s findings bear in mind those particular aspects.

The complaint handling

The resident’s initial complaint was about the condition of the property when she moved in. The landlord provided a set of resolutions on 11 February 2022. The landlord appeared to address the complaint on an informal basis but the process was unclear. There was no Stage 1 response until 15 September 2022. The landlord reasonably picked up on the additional complaints made in the meantime. However, this was an unreasonable delay given the landlord’s own policy to reply at Stage 1 within 10 days.
The landlord’s response of 11 February 2022 addressed the resident’s complaint and provided a resolution which was carried out. It is also noted that the initial complaint was escalated to the head of housing. However, its subsequent responses at both Stage 1 and Stage 2 lacked an overall perspective of the resident’s experience and the landlord’s overall performance. The complaint responses consisted of a list of repairs but did not take account of the delays. The resident’s complaint about finances was that the delays to the repair to the bathroom incurred her in additional costs. While it pointed to the assistance and support it had provided, the landlord did not address this aspect of the complaint. It did not address the resident’s request for the asbestos report and void pack.
The Stage 2 response stated that one of the resident’s complaints was about the referral to the OT but did not address this, for example by seeking clarification from the resident, or refer it to Adult Social Care to be addressed. It presented its offer to delay the move as one of the steps it took to assist her financially and address her disability, however this was offered as the property was in poor condition of cleanliness when it was let. The Stage 2 response stated that there were no repairs were outstanding, however the bathroom refit was outstanding. The Ombudsman would expect the complaint process to monitor the works and follow up with timescales but the response did not indicate that it would do either.
In the circumstances, while there were benefits to the landlord’s complaint handling, overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
Finally, this investigation was hampered as the landlord did not provide a complete repair log or inspection reports.

Determination (decision)

In the opinion of the Ombudsman, the following in accordance with paragraph 41(d) and paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The landlord allocating a property not suitable to the resident’s needs.
In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the condition of the property when it was let.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it install a bath.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of water egress from the bathroom.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement roof, insulation, and flooring.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to her external doors, radiators, loose wiring, guttering and blocked drains, a “hole” in the bathroom wall, and for the provision of vents and window keys.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While the property was set in a poor condition of cleanliness, the landlord cleaned the property, agreed to a delay to the letting date, offered a 4 weeks rent rebate and replaced the shed.
It was reasonable that the landlord sought an OT assessment and agreed to install a bath, however there was a delay in installing it.
There were significant delays to the landlord addressing the resident’s report of water egress from the bathroom.
There was no evidence that the roof, roof insulation, or flooring were in disrepair. The landlord topped up the insulation, the roof was to be repaired in accordance with its major works in 2024 and it provided a reasonable explanation for the type of bathroom flooring used.
While the landlord initially responded promptly in many instances, there were delays to the works which had an accumulative negative impact on the resident.
While there was no evidence that the property was unsafe, indeed the evidence indicated that the property was safe, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns and anxiety regarding the presence of asbestos in her property.
While there were benefits to the landlord’s complaint handling, it was not comprehensive or reassure the resident that it would monitor the works and thus provide final resolution.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must pay the resident the sum of £1,150 consisting of follows:
  1. £250 in relation to the delay in the installation of a bath.
  2. £300 in relation to the water egress.
  3. £200 in relation to the delay in repairs to the external doors, radiators, loose wiring, guttering and blocked drains, a hole in the bathroom wall and for the provision of vents and window keys.
  4. £200 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
  5. £200 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should offer to replace the damaged floor covering in the hallway.
3. Within 4 weeks, a suitably qualified contractor or member of staff of the landlord should, if those works are outstanding, inspect the condition of the external doors and radiators, and the hole in the lounge ceiling, and any other repairs referred to in this report, and set out in a report any required works to be scheduled no later than 4 weeks from the date of the condition report. A copy of the condition report together with timescales of the works, should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of this report.
4. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the resident setting out the condition of the property as regards the presence of asbestos, with evidence, and confirm that any ACM has been recorded in its central register, with a copy of that letter to the Ombudsman.
5. Within 6 weeks, the landlord should review the complaint handling findings in this report and consider what steps it can take to minimise the issues highlighted reoccurring and provide the Ombudsman with that action plan. This should include:
  1. Providing refresher training to all relevant staff.
  2. Providing guidance notes.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 6 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should ensure that that the voids team takes comprehensive photographs of post–void works and considers carrying out a check of the property with the resident during the sign–up appointment.
2. The landlord should consider refunding the resident the cost of the replacement toilet seat.
3. The landlord should clarify which elements in its empty property standards constitute improvements and which should be carried out in any event.
4. The landlord should consider fitting a carpet in the resident’s bedroom, if it has not already been fitted.
5. Where there are repetitive reports by a resident of the same repair issues, the landlord should consider carrying out a fuller inspection and consider replacement equipment rather than repair.
6. The landlord should ensure that it takes steps to reassure a resident about the safety of asbestos, including considering sharing any asbestos reports or information it would provide in any event, were the resident to carry out refurbishment works.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.