London Borough of Hounslow (202220155)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220155

London Borough of Hounslow

24 May 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 is about:
1. The handling of the resident’s request to be transferred to suitable alternative accommodation.
2. The landlord’s handling of requests for repairs following flooding from a neighbouring property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the removal of asbestos from the resident’s property.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident had a secure tenancy for a 1 bed flat with the landlord. She lived there with 2 children, the youngest of these is autistic. The landlord states that it was aware of her youngest child’s disability but that it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded on the resident’s tenancy file.
The resident’s property had been assessed as overcrowded, with the resident waiting for approval of a transfer around the time of the resident’s complaint. She has told this Service that she has now moved to alternative accommodation provided by her landlord.
The resident has told this Service that her neighbour who lived in the flat above was very vulnerable and that she was very concerned about his health and wellbeing. She states that she tried to raise concerns about him with the landlord but she felt she never received an adequate response. This was of particular concern as the resident believed the neighbour could not look after himself. She states that she contacted her local housing officer on 24 June 2021 to express her concerns again, particularly that the neighbour needed referring to Adult Social Care for help.
On 25 June 2021, the resident told the landlord that water was coming in through her ceiling from the flat above her. The resident has told this Service that this was the flat of the neighbour which she had concerns about and that she resorted to forcing entry as there was no response. Once in the property, she found the neighbour naked and unconscious in his bath with the taps on and flooding the floor. She noted that the flat was in a particularly poor condition and that it was contaminated by effluent and excrement. The resident has told this Service that her neighbour passed away not long after this incident.
Repairs records state that the landlord attended on the same day as the flooding and stopped the leak. The resident asked the landlord to inspect her property for flood damage shortly after this. The landlord inspected the property on 12 July 2021 and noted that the bathroom ceiling, flooring, and walls were all damaged. Works were arranged to repair and redecorate all affected parts, as well as installing new vinyl flooring. It also noted to check textured ceilings in the resident’s property.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord’s contractor carried out a survey for asbestos in the resident’s property. Although the survey report stated that there was no high risk asbestos containing material in the property, it identified asbestos in the textured coating of the ceiling in a hallway and to plasterboard boxing by the ceiling. Works to remove this took place on 29 September 2021, with ceiling repairs fully completed on 30 September 2021.
A series of repairs were carried out by the landlord to the bathroom between July 2021 and October 2021. On 29 August 2021, another asbestos survey identified asbestos in the bathroom, bedroom, and kitchen. The overall risk assessment was that this posed very low risk. It identified that adhesive on the floor under tiles in the bathroom contained asbestos and that this needed to be removed to carry on works, with the landlord carrying out this work on 8 October 2021.
On 4 May 2022, the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs following flooding, how her transfer application had been handled, the landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property, and the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the distress caused to the resident and her children by the incident on 25 June 2021. Concerns were raised about a contractor carrying out asbestos checks not attending at the resident’s property on 4 April 2022 despite the resident being in.
A further asbestos survey on 27 May 2022 identified asbestos in a gasket attached to an immersion heater in the resident’s flat, as well as asbestos in adhesive under floor tiles at the base of the heater. This was also assessed as very low risk to the resident.
A Stage 1 complaint response was given to the resident on 31 May 2022. It acknowledged delays in processing the resident’s transfer request but stated that she was now in Band 2 on the housing register with a wait of approximately 18 months to be moved to a new property. It stated that the landlord’s specialist contractor did attend on 4 April 2022 to carry out a further survey but it could not gain access, with the contractor happy to rearrange a visit. No further removal of asbestos was planned at present, and no high or medium risk materials had been identified. An apology was offered for how the resident’s housing officer had handled concerns about her neighbour and it explained that she had now been allocated a new officer.
The resident asked for escalation of her complaint on 19 June 2022. She explained that the landlord had not acknowledged the impact of the flooding and the incident with her neighbour, that she had been in her property on 4 April 2022 to allow access and that the contractor simply did not attend, and expressed further concerns about how asbestos had been managed in the property. The change of housing officer was noted but the resident told the landlord that she did not feel this was enough to put things right. An acknowledgement of the escalation request was given to the resident on 22 June 2022.
Further emails were sent by the resident on 28 June 2022 and 1 July 2022, clarifying some of her points and asking for the landlord to tackle an issue where a fire door had been installed on 23 June 2022 directly in front of the existing front door without removing it.
The resident chased the landlord for a stage 2 response on 10 August 2022 and 19 September 2022. A stage 2 response was given on 12 April 2023. This response acknowledged the distress caused by the flooding and noted that the resident had now moved into a new property. It said that the landlord’s approach to asbestos is that it is low risk until penetrating work is required, with the landlord containing and removing it in a safe manner. It asserted that all repairs were completed and that it accelerated the resident’s transfer. £150 compensation was offered for distress caused to the resident.
When discussing her complaint with this Service, the resident highlighted that she felt her landlord did not pay due regard to her emotional wellbeing, at the point of the flooding, during repairs, in handling asbestos in her home, or in handling her complaint. She also states that she feels her youngest daughter’s disability was not considered properly. This Service has considered this point while examining the resident’s complaints.
The resident has also told this Service that she is experiencing issues with her new tenancy.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, it is considered that the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The handling of the resident’s request to be transferred to suitable alternative accommodation.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states as follows:
1. 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) (available via this link: www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/memorandum-of-understanding-with-lgsco/) sets out that the LGSCO investigates complaints regarding applications to the local authority housing register (such as increasing the applicant’s banding, or priority) and for emergency housing under Part 6 and Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 respectively.
As this aspect of the resident’s complaint relates to her request to be rehoused, this falls properly within the jurisdiction of the LGSCO.

The landlord’s handling of requests for repairs following flooding from a neighbouring property.

The landlord’s repairs policy states reported repairs will be prioritised as follows:
1. Emergency – responded to within 4 hours to make safe and prevent danger.
2. Priority 1 – complete within 24 hours.
3. Priority 2 Urgent – complete within 3 working days.
4. Priority 3 Routine – complete within 20 working days.
The landlord acted promptly, appropriately, and in accordance with its own timescales during its initial response to the leak by attending on the same day as the report and stopping further water ingress. However, given the severity of the leak and the nature of the circumstances leading up to the incident with the resident’s neighbour, it is concerning that the resident had to contact the landlord herself to request an inspection to assess flood damage and what works were required to repair the property. This is a failure of the landlord to fully appreciate the impact of the flooding and to take a proactive attitude towards reassuring the resident that it would put things right in her home, not just her neighbour’s property.
A thorough examination of the landlord’s repair response times beyond the initial flooding have been hampered, as copies of the repairs records provided do not show when a repair has been first logged. Records instead show the target date for a repair, when the landlord attended to do the work, and whether the landlord considered works to be done within timescale.
Based on the evidence provided, it is clear that repeated attempts were made by the landlord’s contractors to repair the flood damage to the resident’s bathroom from 20 July 2021 until 12 November 2021. Contractors visited the resident’s property at least 10 times to carry out a variety of repairs, although some of these repairs were ineffective and required remedial work by other contractors.
This Service has assumed that repairs were fully completed on 12 November 2021 as this is the last entry in the repairs records for work related to flood damage and as the resident told the landlord on 4 May 2022 that works had been finished to a good standard by October 2021. Although this Service appreciates that unavoidable delays occurred after asbestos was found in areas which needed work, this still presents a delay of 100 working days from the first report of flooding to fully repairing the flood damage. This is a failure of the landlord to carry out repairs within published timescales and to act quickly to put things right.
The severity of delays in carrying out repairs in this case were compounded by the reasons behind the flooding and the resident’s attempt to rescue her neighbour. The resident has told this Service that she suffers from sleepless nights and nightmares about what happened on the day of the flooding and that her youngest daughter fears flooding will happen again in her new home. Delays in repairs meant that the resident and her children lived with a daily reminder of a very difficult situation, presenting a barrier to a return to living life as normal. Delays also meant that the resident and her children lived with disrepair to the bathroom for an extended period of time despite the resident’s best efforts to get repairs arranged.
In summary, the landlord did not take a proactive approach to resolving issues caused by flooding from the neighbour’s property. The resident had to ask for an inspection of her property, despite it being evident from the incident on 25 June 2021 that an inspection of the resident’s property would be required to check if it had been affected and repairs were required. The progress of repairs was excessively slow and relied on the resident chasing for updates, with many visits by contractors which did not adequately resolve issues, and poor-quality repairs which required further work to address. This had a significant impact on the resident and her children. Due to these cumulative failings, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs following flooding from a neighbouring property.

The landlord’s handling of the removal of asbestos from the resident’s property.

The landlord has an asbestos policy which states that:
1. It will ensure that any asbestos containing materials identified as being damaged or at risk of damage are repaired, protected or removed by a competent person in line with regulations and best practice.
2. It will ensure that any asbestos containing materials that are high risk are removed or encapsulated to reduce their risk. In doing so, ensure that sufficient records of asbestos removal and remedial works are kept. Effective contractual and technical monitoring of contractors performance will take place.
3. Where asbestos surveyors recommend remedial action, these will be appropriately arranged. The asbestos manager or asbestos contract manager are responsible for reviewing the recommended actions arising from surveys, and arranging remedial works. The asbestos manager is responsible for providing technical advice and guidance to residents.
4. Any incident involving the uncontrolled release of asbestos will be subject to a full internal investigation.
The presence of asbestos in a property alone does not constitute disrepair or mean that a property is unfit for human habitation. According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the UK, asbestos is not dangerous for occupiers if asbestos-containing material (ACM) is in good condition. The Ombudsman notes that ACM can be left in place if it is in good condition and is likely to not be damaged, as long as its condition is monitored and managed to ensure it is not disturbed. However, damaged or deteriorating ACM which poses a risk of asbestos dust is likely to fall under a landlord’s obligation to carry out repairs and/or its obligation to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation throughout a tenancy.
A landlord must carry out risk assessments on ACM before work is carried out at a property where ACM is present, although a landlord has no legal obligation to inform residents of where ACM is located in a property.
The resident’s concern and anxiety about ACM in her property is understandable, particularly as some areas with ACM were affected by the flooding and given issues with the progress of repairs. The landlord should have considered the resident’s distress and been mindful of the impact on her wellbeing.
The landlord responded appropriately at first to concerns that ACM may be present in the resident’s home, arranging an asbestos survey within 20 days of the landlord’s initial inspection of the flood damage which identified there were no high risk materials present. As the initial recommended works were to the hall ceiling and a boxed in area on the ceiling, it should not have delayed repairs to the rest of the property. Removal works took place on 29 September 2021, 42 working days after the initial survey. Although this work was done some time after the survey and is in breach of the landlord’s policy of carrying out routine repairs within 20 working days, the Ombudsman appreciates that ACM removal requires specialist contractors who may not be available within the timescales set out for routine repairs. As the ACM identified was classed as very low risk, the impact of delays to ACM removal in the hallway would have been minimal on the resident.
It is of concern that further asbestos surveys which took place on 29 September 2021 and 27 May 2022 picked up on more areas of the resident’s property which contained ACM, including in the bathroom. This indicates that the landlord did not comprehensively survey the property for ACM during the first survey. Picking up the presence of ACM in the adhesive under bathroom tiles led to delays in completing repairs to the bathroom as ACM removal work had to take place before the bathroom floor could be repaired. Although both surveys identified that there was a very low overall risk posed by the presence of ACM, repeated visits by specialist surveyors which uncovered more ACM would have been distressing for the resident. Evidence provided by the landlord shows that all identified ACM was removed from the resident’s property appropriately and in accordance with its policy.
The resident is adamant that she was in to allow access for a further survey on 4 April 2022. Delays in rearranging this survey led to further delays in removing ACM by the immersion heater in the resident’s property. As this ACM had not been disturbed or affected by the flooding, delays to inspecting and remedial works would not have posed any additional risk to the resident. However, as the resident had become very distressed about ACM by this point, delays and issues with surveyors missing appointments would have affected her emotional wellbeing and contributed to a sense that the landlord was not taking ACM removal seriously.
In assessing and acting upon ACM in the resident’s property, the landlord acted in line with its policy and its legal obligations. However, delays in identifying ACM in all relevant parts of the property did cause delays to other works to repair the flood damage and causes the resident distress. Due to this, this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the removal of asbestos from the resident’s property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint process. At the time of the resident’s complaint, Stage 1 complaints were responded to within 15 working days and Stage 2 complaints were responded to within 20 working days.
The Stage 1 response addressed most of points raised by the resident in her initial complaint, apart from the resident’s distress at the incident with her neighbour. It was provided 19 working days after the initial complaint, which is a minor breach of the landlord’s complaints policy. It did not address the resident’s distress and did not seek to address the resident’s concerns about ACM in her property, other than stating that there were no medium or high risk materials that needed to be removed. It also did not address how the resident’s former housing officer handled concerns about the neighbour. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to explain its approach to ACM, why the resident was not at risk while ACM was present in her property, and to address what failings may have occurred when the resident raised concerns about her neighbour’s vulnerabilities.
Although the resident’s escalation request was accepted quickly and acknowledged by the landlord, there were significant delays in providing a Stage 2 response. Escalation was requested on 19 June 2022 and the Stage 2 response was given on 12 April 2023, 208 working days later and significantly beyond the timescale set out in the complaints policy. No extensions of deadlines were agreed between the resident and her landlord. This delay led the resident to chase the landlord for a complaint response, with the landlord apologising for delays but not providing a revised timescale for a response. This would have been frustrating for the landlord and given her the impression that her concerns were not being heard or acted upon.
The resident raised additional points on 1 July 2022 which she asked to be considered in the Stage 2 response, including an issue with the installation of a fire door directly over her front door, which remained in place. Although this Service has seen evidence that the landlord investigated the issue with the doors and committed to reviewing this, the resident was not informed whether it would be included in her Stage 2 complaint. This would have created confusion over whether the landlord would consider additional points at Stage 2 and if all her concerns would be tackled via the complaints process.
The Stage 2 response did discuss the emotional distress caused to the resident by the flooding and that this was not acknowledged at Stage 1, although it stated that ‘[we] apologise if you feel we did not handle this correctly.’ It did not apologise for any distress caused by ACM removal or missed appointments, noting that the resident moved to a new property on 25 July 2022. The significant delay in providing a Stage 2 response was also acknowledged.
It is positive that £150 compensation was offered at Stage 2, although the wording of the offer implies that this is purely due to the resident’s distress rather than any failings on the part of the landlord. This is a failure of the landlord to explain why it was offering compensation and identify what this was supposed to put right.
Due to the landlord’s failure to fully consider the points raised by the resident in her complaint and escalation request, the significant delay in providing a Stage 2 response without agreement of any extensions or giving the resident an idea of when a response would be provided, and failure to make clear why it was offering compensation, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the handling of the resident’s request to be transferred to be moved to suitable alternative accommodation is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs following flooding from a neighbouring property.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the removal of asbestos from the resident’s property.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a head of service for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £950 compensation directly, less any compensation already paid to the resident, comprising of:
  1. £600 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs. This is based on 25% of the resident’s weekly rent at £117.47 for a period of 20 weeks while the property was in disrepair, rounded up to the nearest hundred.
  2. £100 for distress caused by the landlord’s handling of removal of asbestos.
  3. £250 for time, trouble and distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. Contact the resident to discuss her vulnerabilities, update its records, ensure it is in effective communication with any agencies supporting the resident and her children, and offer any appropriate support. Notes from contact with the resident, as well as follow on contact with other supporting agencies, must be provided to this Service as evidence of compliance.

Recommendations

The landlord should self-assess against the recommendations within the Ombudsman’s report titled Spotlight on attitudes, respect and rights – relationship of equals (available via this link: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/ARRRoE-22012024-FINAL.pdf)
The landlord should review its approach to repairs where the need for such work has triggered by an incident or incidents which are traumatic for a resident or residents. The landlord should consider whether a resident needs extra support during the repairs process, establish effective communication with any supporting agencies, and consider expediting repairs if appropriate.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss concerns about her new tenancy and, if appropriate, raise a fresh complaint.
The landlord should review how it explains its approach to asbestos to residents who are having ACM removal works in their properties. This review should take account of the findings and learnings from this report.
The landlord should review its safeguarding policy and ensure that all staff are aware of correct processes to follow if concerns are raised about a resident. The landlord should also take steps to publicise the steps which residents can take to raise concerns about the welfare of other residents with relevant agencies – this can include information on its website, updating its tenants handbook, and by providing this in newsletters.