Acis Group Limited (202303357)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303357

Acis Group Limited

21 August 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:
1. reports of garden fence repairs;
2. reports of kitchen floor repairs;
3. asbestos concerns;
4. staff conduct concerns;
5. associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy that began on 12 September 2016. The property is a 3 bedroom semidetached house, and the landlord is a housing association.
The landlord’s vulnerability record stated the health issues that the resident suffered with, and the resident described herself as disabled.
The landlord had a commercial subsidiary company that residents could use to undertake works that were not the responsibility of the landlord, and at the resident’s own expense. The subsidiary company ceased trading in March 2023, and for the purpose of this report is referred to as ‘the subsidiary’.
On 16 April 2013 (3 years prior to the start of resident’s tenancy) the landlord’s contractor completed an asbestos survey of the resident’s property, which noted the kitchen floor tiles, and the bare floor under the sink. It stated that a samples had been taken and analysed with no asbestos detected, and no further action required. It recorded that the sealed space under the cooker could not be accessed without causing damage. It stated that as such, “it must be presumed to contain asbestos until such a time as full access and inspection can be undertaken”.

Repairs policy

The landlord’s policy listed property elements that were its responsibility to keep in good repair, which included “floors and ceilings (not including floor coverings)”.

Complaint policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage process. It said that it would aim to provide complaint responses within 10 and 20 working days at stages 1 and 2 respectively.
The policy said that where a resident wished to escalate their complaint to stage 2, their request must provide details of how it meets 1 of the following criteria:
1. The stage 1 investigation and associated response were factually inaccurate.
2. The stage 1 response did not address the complaint.
3. Important relevant information was not considered at stage 1.
4. The landlord did not complete the actions agreed at stage 1 within a reasonable timescale.

Summary of events

On 21 January 2023 the resident sent the landlord photographs of her cracked and lifting kitchen floor tiles, which she said needed to be replaced. She said that she was disabled, and could trip on the tiles. The landlord’s response said that it would not attend to flooring issues, as they were the resident’s responsibility.
On 23 January 2023 the resident enquired about the services of the landlord’s subsidiary regarding her kitchen and bathroom flooring. The landlord called the resident on 26 and 31 January 2023, and discussed providing her a quotation for the works. The resident asked the landlord to call back in a week while she considered it.
On 1 February 2023 the resident resent her email from 21 January 2023, which she said that the landlord had requested. On 3 February 2023 the landlord raised an inspection of the resident’s kitchen floor, which also stated that it would “remove and screed”. The landlord’s second repairs record from a different system also referred to the inspection, but not to the floor works.
On 7 and 9 February 2023, the landlord called the resident regarding her subsidiary query but did not get an answer, and so closed the quotation enquiry.
On 2 March 2023 the landlord’s 2 operatives reported back that the resident had been unaware that they would be completing actual floor works, and that her white goods were all still in place. They further reported back that they could not have carried out the work anyway, as they did not have asbestos kit with them.
On 3 March 2023 the resident told the landlord that, after it had advised her that she was responsible for her kitchen floor tiles, she had enquired whether they contained asbestos. She said that the landlord had advised her that they did not, but that its operatives had attended the previous day, and had stated that they did. The landlord sent an internal email with an excerpt from its 2013 asbestos survey that stated that there was no asbestos in the resident’s tiles or their adhesive.
On 8 March 2023 the landlord raised a job to install 4 timber fence posts, and a chain link fence in the resident’s garden. It cancelled the job later the same day, and noted that it “exceeded the criteria for fencing work”.
On 4 April 2023 the resident provided photographs to the landlord of the kitchen floor screed it had laid in her property the previous day, which she said was uneven. The landlord’s record noted that the photographs showed the screed to be of a “decent standard”. It said that it had visited the resident prior to the works, and confirmed that she would be responsible for any floor coverings once the screed was laid.
On 5 April the landlord raised a job to install 4 fence posts in the resident’s garden, and 10 metres of wire fence.
On 6 April 2023 the resident made her complaint to the landlord. The key points were as follows:
1. She said that when she had enquired about asbestos in her kitchen floor, the landlord’s customer service advisor (CSA) had told her that its survey stated that there was none.
2. She said that this had turned out to be incorrect, and that the landlord had advised that an asbestos survey was now necessary. She said that the landlord had put her at risk with its false information, and by claiming that it already had a survey.
3. She detailed inappropriate and offensive comments, which she said had been made to her on a call and in person by the landlord’s named staff member. She said that she felt that the staff member had mocked her disabilities, and left her feeling humiliated and degraded.
4. She stated that the screed laid on her kitchen floor had bumps, dips, and cracks, but that the landlord had said it was satisfactory.
5. She asked that her kitchen floor be levelled, that the landlord replace her tiles rather than fit lino, that it apologises for its asbestos errors, and that the named staff member avoid ever contacting her again.
On 24 April 2023 the resident called the landlord and reiterated the points of her complaint. She further stated that her garden fence was broken, and that the named staff member had told her that a 5 foot wooden replacement would be fitted. She said that when the landlord had attended to complete the works on 20 April 2023, it had intended to fit a wire fence instead (the landlord’s record noted that the work had not been completed due to lack of materials). The resident emphasised the toll that all the works issues were taking on her mental health, and that she felt she was being badly treated because she had complained about the named staff member’s conduct. The landlord called the resident about her fence the following day, and said that there was “potential to install larger fence posts with chain link”.
On 25 April 2023 the landlord issued the resident its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord apologised for its service failings, which it committed to resolving and learning from. The key points were as follows:
1. It said that its visit to the resident 2 days earlier had established that the floor levelling was not of a satisfactory standard, and would be redone on 9 May 2023. It offered support with moving her cooker and white goods.
2. It reiterated the advice from its call to the resident 4 days earlier that floor coverings were tenant responsibility, and referred her to the policy on its website.
3. It said that an internal human resources investigation would be undertaken in relation to the resident’s complaint about the staff member’s comments. It said that it may be unable to advise the resident of the full outcome, but offered assurance that it would be fully investigated.
4. It said that with regards to the asbestos advice given to the resident, it would deliver retraining to all CSA to ensure their advice reflected the information on its systems.
5. It advised the resident of its policy’s criteria that must be met if she remained dissatisfied, and wished to escalate her complaint.
On 25 and 26 April 2023 the landlord raised a responsive job for an asbestos management survey of the resident’s property to be undertaken. It sent an internal email stating that the survey would assist in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord also completed the resident’s fencing job that it had raised on 5 April 2023.
On 3 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process. Her main points were as follows:
1. She stated that the landlord’s comment regarding retraining CSA did not address her asbestos complaint. She said that the CSA had told her that “I have the asbestos report in front of me and I can confirm there is no asbestos”, and in doing so had lied. She said that this was dangerous and unacceptable.
2. She detailed the efforts she had to go to for the landlord to recognise that the floor screed was substandard, and the “hassle and stress” of the landlord making everything such a fight. She highlighted the inconvenience caused by the work needing to be redone.
3. She provided a screenshot of her webchat on 26 April 2023 where the landlord had stated, it would replace her floor tiles if they were the landlord’s, but not if the resident had installed them. She highlighted that the floor tiles had been there when she had moved in, and her view that the landlord should either replace them or fit a specific lino floor covering.
4. She said that when the named staff member had attended for the flooring, he had agreed that her garden fence would be repaired. She said that since she had made her complaint against him, her fence had been replaced by a wire one. She highlighted the issues this caused with her autistic grandchildren who feared the neighbour’s dog.
On 9 May 2023 the landlord removed, and re-laid the resident’s kitchen floor screed. On 12 May 2023 the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response. The key points were as follows:
1. It said that at stage 1 it had apologised for the asbestos information it had given to the resident, and provided assurance regarding retraining. It said that it had not upheld that element of her complaint, as there was nothing further it could do to remedy the matter.
2. It quoted the stage 2 escalation criteria points of its policy. It said that as the resident’s lino floor covering was not part of her stage 1 complaint it did not meet the criteria, and therefore it did not uphold that element of her complaint.
3. It repeated the stage 2 escalation criteria points of its policy. It said that as the resident’s fence was not part of her stage 1 complaint it did not meet the criteria, and therefore it did not uphold that element of her complaint.
4. It referred the resident to the Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Summary of events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 22 May 2023 the landlord’s record stated that the resident had raised further concerns about cracks appearing in the floor screed. It said that the resident had also said she was unhappy that she had originally been told the floor would be retiled, to then be subsequently told it would not be. The landlord updated its record the same day. It stated that it had previously responded to the resident’s complaint, that her kitchen floor was now fit to be covered, that she was aware that the covering was her own responsibility, and that no further action was required.
On 5 June 2023 the landlord completed a routine review of its response to the resident’s complaint, which it said was its standard practice to identify learning. The review stated that it had responded correctly at stage 2, but that “it was also a very matter of fact response”. It noted the 2 matters that had not been considered or upheld due to them not meeting its escalation criteria. It concluded that where this occurred in the future, it would be better customer service to also advise residents that those matters had been passed to the relevant service area to progress. It said that it would look to amend its complaint procedure to reflect this.
On 7 September 2023 the landlord’s internal communications said that the resident had reported that asbestos had been identified in her kitchen floor around 5 months earlier, but that she was still awaiting an asbestos survey. The landlord’s internal response stated that its asbestos contractor had said that it had made unsuccessful attempts to contact the resident, and so had yet to book the survey. It said that no asbestos had been identified during its kitchen floor works, but that someone must have presumed the resident’s tiles were asbestos. The asbestos contractor made further attempts to contact the resident on 14 and 21 September 2023, but did not get an answer.
On 5 October 2023 the landlord raised a job to lay lino on the resident’s kitchen floor. Its record stated that it attended 5 days later but did not get access. During this investigation the landlord was asked to evidence why, and when it had reversed its decision to lay a floor covering in the resident’s kitchen, and whether this job had been completed. The landlord stated that it was unable to provide any evidence of why or when the decision had been made, but it believed it had been due to ongoing concerns regarding the standard of the second screed. The landlord laid the resident’s kitchen lino on 17 November 2023, but said that it had yet to gain access to complete its asbestos survey.

Assessment and findings

Fence repairs

The landlord did not investigate the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of her fence repairs as part of its formal complaint process, on the basis that it did not form part of her original complaint. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme).
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
The complaint handling assessment below details the landlord’s failure to handle the resident’s ‘fencing’ complaint in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that, despite the landlord’s lack of investigation, the resident’s complaint about its handling of her report of fence repairs is within our jurisdiction.
The landlord’s use of 3 wires and fence posts is common practice in the social housing sector, and is considered a cost effective means to delineate boundaries. Nevertheless, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it appropriately communicated with the resident about the matter, nor that it managed her expectations. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of garden fence repairs.
The landlord originally raised the job to install a chain link fence in the resident’s garden on 8 March 2023, but cancelled it the same day noting that it “exceeded the criteria for fencing work”. The resident’s tenancy agreement, and the landlord’s repairs policy, both confirmed that the landlord was responsible for boundary fences. However, neither document specified the materials or type of fencing the landlord would provide.
As such, during this investigation, the landlord was asked to evidence the “criteria for fencing work” that its repairs record had said was exceeded. The landlord’s response only referred to its previously provided documents, and confirmed that the resident’s fence was a boundary for which it was responsible. The landlord has therefore failed to demonstrate why it cancelled its original job to install a chain link fence in the resident’s garden. Nevertheless, as above, it is standard practice for landlord’s to delineate boundaries with wire fences.
It was unclear why the landlord then failed to act in a timely manner when it took a further month to reraise the resident’s fencing job, this time specifying the use of wire. The landlord attended the resident’s property to carry out the work on 20 April 2023, but did not have the necessary materials to complete it. It is reasonable to conclude from the resident’s call to the landlord on 24 April 2023, that it was only during its attendance that she became aware of its intention to use wire fence. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with this, as she said that the landlord had previously promised her a wooden fence.
The landlord called the resident back the following day, and its record stated that it had told her that there was “potential to install larger fence posts with chain link”. The landlord installed the resident’s wire fence the following day, but has provided no record of any other contact with the resident about the matter.
The resident expressed her continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her fence repair in her stage 2 complaint escalation request. The landlord’s failure to handle the matter in line with the Code has been considered in the complaint handling assessment below. However, the landlord has also failed to demonstrate that it managed the resident’s expectations with regards to the type of fence to be installed, or that it appropriately communicated with her about the matter. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of service failure.

Floor repairs

The landlord did appropriately manage the resident’s expectations with regards to her responsibility for her floor coverings, and its advice to her was in line with its policy. The landlord did also demonstrate a somewhat resolution focused approach when its original screed was not of the required standard. However, its apparent lack of organisation meant that neither the resident, nor its own operatives were appropriately prepared for the original works. This meant that the resident experienced an undue delay and, when the works did proceed, she experienced further time, trouble, and distress as a result of the poor workmanship. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of kitchen floor repairs.
The resident reported her lifting kitchen tiles via email to the landlord on 21 January 2023. The landlord advised the resident that floor coverings were her own responsibility, which was in line with its policy. Over the following days the landlord’s subsidiary responded to the resident’s enquiries in a timely manner. The resident initially agreed for the subsidiary to attend for the purposes of providing her a quotation for the works. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the resident understood that she was responsible for her floor coverings.
It was unclear from the information provided what prompted the landlord to ask the resident to resend her email and photographs of her kitchen tiles, but she did so on 1 February 2023. The landlord again acted in a timely manner when it raised a job 2 days later. However, 1 of the landlord’s repair records stated that the job was for an inspection, while its other record said that it was for actual floor works. It is reasonable to conclude that this discrepancy may have contributed to the fact that when the landlord attended for the job in early March 2023, the resident was unprepared for the works.
In either case, the landlord’s operatives that attended the resident’s property appeared to presume the presence of asbestos. As is further considered in the assessment below the landlord had an asbestos survey, and it is unclear why the operatives did not arrive appropriately prepared. The landlord’s failure to ensure that both the resident, and its operatives were prepared led to the works being postponed for a further month. This would have been frustrating and inconvenient to the resident. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
The resident’s floor screed was laid on 3 April 2023, and the resident raised her concern to the landlord with the standard of workmanship the following day. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to post-inspect its works, rather than declare them to be of a “decent standard” based only on the resident’s photographs. Had it done so the resident may not have felt it necessary to make her formal complaint 2 days later, which added to her time and trouble.
Following the resident’s complaint and further contact, the landlord did then post-inspect the floor screed on 23 April 2023, and found it to be substandard. The landlord arranged for the screed to be re-laid in a timely manner, and it was reasonable for it to offer the resident support with moving her white goods in readiness of the works. Nevertheless, it was understandable that the resident later referred to the inconvenience of the work needing to be redone, and of the “hassle and stress” that she felt had come with getting the landlord to act. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of service failure.
The resident raised further concerns with the standard of the second floor screed around 6 weeks after the conclusion of her complaint. It appeared that over the following months the landlord took a customer focused approach when it agreed to install a floor covering for the resident, which was beyond the requirements of its policy. However, this has been somewhat undermined by the landlord’s inability to evidence how, why, or when it made the decision to do this.

Asbestos concerns

It was unclear from the information provided precisely when the resident had raised her initial asbestos query to the landlord, but her subsequent complaint and comments indicate that it was prior to the attendance of the landlord’s operatives in early March 2023. The day after the operative’s attendance, the resident complained that she had been put at risk by what she felt was the incorrect asbestos advice that the landlord had provided in response to her query. From that point onwards the landlord had numerous opportunities to explain to the resident what was stated in the existing asbestos survey of her property, clarify the rationale of its operatives that had attended, and provide her with the safety assurances that she sought. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it did any of this, and the Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with its handling of the resident’s asbestos concerns.
The landlord had a survey that confirmed that the resident’s floor, except for the inaccessible sealed area under the cooker, was free from asbestos (the area under the cooker was ‘presumed to contain asbestos’ until it could be established otherwise, which is standard practice). The survey had been done 3 years prior to the start of the resident’s tenancy, but the resident had confirmed that her kitchen floor covering had been in place when she moved in. The survey also included photographs of the floor that could have allowed the landlord to confirm whether it had been changed in the intervening period.
The landlord’s contacts and visits with the resident provided opportunities for it to offer her a clear explanation of this. Aside from being in the landlord’s own interests, it could have allayed the resident’s concerns, and offered her appropriate assurance. It is unreasonable that the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took any of these opportunities to reassure the resident.
The resident’s formal complaint was made 1 month later, and the landlord’s handling of it has been separately assessed below. However, the complaint expressed the resident’s belief that the landlord did not have an asbestos survey, and that its CSA had lied to her. This again provided the landlord with an ideal opportunity to clarify the matter, and provide safety assurances to the resident.
Instead, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response only referred to retraining the CSA. The landlord then again failed to take the opportunity to offer an appropriate explanation and assurance at stage 2. Indeed, the landlord’s records indicated that the resident was still under the belief that her kitchen floor had contained asbestos some 7 months later. The landlord’s failure to provide the resident with a clear explanation and assurances caused her undue worry. As such the landlord acted unreasonably, and a finding of maladministration with its handling of the resident’s asbestos concerns has been made. The landlord has further stated that it has yet to complete its intended asbestos survey of the resident’s property, and the Ombudsman has made a recommendation to this regard.

Staff conduct concerns

The resident’s complaint to the landlord made serious allegations regarding comments made to her by its staff member, which the landlord addressed in its stage 1 response. The overall lack of empathy in the landlord’s complaint responses has been separately considered in the complaint handling assessment below. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to assure the resident that it took the matter seriously, and that it would complete a full investigation. It was also reasonable for the landlord to ensure that responsibility for the resident’s various repairs matters was passed to a different member of its staff.
It would have been further reasonable for the landlord to briefly explain to the resident why she may not be told the outcome of its investigation, rather than to assume that this was self-explanatory as its stage 1 response appeared to do. Nevertheless, as the resident did not refer further to the matter in her complaint escalation request, it is reasonable to conclude that she understood the confidentiality reasons for the landlord’s advice.
The landlord provided the Service with its human resources records of the matter. The Ombudsman can confirm that the landlord’s investigation was appropriately thorough, and has therefore found no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s staff conduct concerns.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in a reasonably timely manner, and took a resolution focused approach to some aspects of it. However, it failed to handle the complaint in line with the Code, its final response lacked empathy, and, despite accepting that there had been service failings, it failed to offer any redress. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response to the resident did offer appropriate apologies for its “poor service”, and commitment to learn from the outcomes. However, as above, having accepted that there had been service failings it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make efforts to put things right by offering the resident redress, which it failed to do.
The stage 1 response acknowledged that the screed it had laid in the resident’s kitchen was “not to a satisfactory standard”. The landlord demonstrated a resolution focused approach in stating how it would address this. While it was not welcome information to the resident, it did also clearly explain its policy with regards to floor coverings, which it had discussed with the resident ahead of sending its response. The landlord’s handling of this aspect of the resident’s complaint was therefore reasonable.
As is considered in the assessments above, the landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident’s staff conduct concerns was also reasonable, but its response to her asbestos concerns was not. The landlord’s stage 1 letter devoted just 1 sentence to the resident’s asbestos concerns, which only referred to retraining for its CSA. As above, the landlord failed to take the opportunity to offer a reasonable explanation, nor appropriate assurance for the resident’s asbestos concerns.
The day before the landlord issued the resident its stage 1 response, she had raised her dissatisfaction with her fence repair. The Code at that time stated that, “where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are relevant and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint”.
The landlord was at the edge of the timeframe stated in its policy to issue the resident its stage 1 response, which was likely near to or already finalised. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain to the resident why her fence complaint had not been addressed in its stage 1 response. Nonetheless, given the closeness in time between the resident raising the matter, and the landlord’s issuance of its response, it was reasonable for the landlord to avoid a delay. The landlord did also call the resident the same day that it issued its stage 1 response, and separately discussed her fencing concerns.
However, 1 week later the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process, and her request further detailed her dissatisfaction with its handling of her fence repair. The landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response the following week, but only stated that it had “not upheld” the fencing element of her complaint, as it had not formed part of her stage 1 complaint. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it logged the resident’s fencing concerns as a new complaint, nor that it advised her that she could. The landlord’s actions were therefore neither reasonable, nor in line with the Code.
It was appropriate for the landlord to review its handling and response to the resident’s complaint the following month, which was in line with its standard process. The review noted that where elements of a resident’s escalation request did not meet the criteria of its policy, and as such were not considered, it should advise the resident that it would still deal with the matter separately. This did demonstrate the landlord’s willingness to learn from the outcomes. However, it would have been further appropriate for the landlord to consider whether it was reasonably applying the seemingly stringent escalation criteria of its policy. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation to this regard.
The landlord’s review also noted that its stage 2 response to the resident had been “very matter of fact”. While this did again demonstrate a degree of reflection and learning, it is the view of the Ombudsman that it significantly understated the abrupt, and unempathetic nature of the landlord’s response.
The resident had described the danger that she believed that the landlord’s asbestos information had put her in, and the distress and inconvenience of getting the landlord to firstly recognise, and then put right its substandard floor screed. Having accepted that there had been service failings at stage 1, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with an empathetic stage 2 response, which could have been used to rebuild trust. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to make the resident an offer of redress that recognised her time, trouble, and distress.
Instead, the landlord’s stage 2 response somewhat bureaucratically twice quoted the escalation criteria of its policy, declared that no element of the resident’s complaint had been upheld, failed to offer redress, and was wholly lacking in empathy. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling, and ordered compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of garden fence repairs.
2. service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of kitchen floor repairs.
3. maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s asbestos concerns.
4. no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s staff conduct concerns.
5. maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to demonstrate that it communicated effectively with the resident regarding her fencing repair, nor that it appropriately managed her expectations with regards to the type of fence it would provide.
The landlord’s advice to the resident regarding floor coverings was in line with its policy. However, its lack of preparedness meant that when its operatives attended to undertake the resident’s floor works, neither they nor the resident were ready for them. The resident then experienced undue time, trouble, and distress in getting the landlord to recognise its substandard works, and further inconvenience while they were redone.
The landlord’s CSA responded to the resident’s initial asbestos query based on the information in its asbestos survey. The landlord’s failure to ensure that its operatives were prepared for the resident’s kitchen floor works in part led the resident to believe that the landlord did not have an asbestos survey, and that its CSA had lied to her.
The resident’s complaint and other contacts provided the landlord with ideal opportunities to clearly explain its position regarding its existing asbestos survey, its reasoning for seeking a further one, and to allay her safety concerns with assurances. The landlord’s failure to take those opportunities caused the resident undue worry.
The landlord offered assurances to the resident that it took her staff conduct complaint seriously, and went on to complete an appropriately thorough internal investigation.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in a timely manner, and took a resolution focused approach to some aspects of it. However, it failed to handle the resident’s fencing complaint in line with the Code. Its final response was blunt, lacked empathy, and, despite accepting that there had been service failings, failed to offer any redress.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified.
2. Pays the resident £375 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £50 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failings identified in its handling of her fence repair.
  2. £75 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failings identified in its handling of her kitchen floor repair.
  3. £125 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failings identified in its handling of her asbestos concerns.
  4. £125 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling.
Additional compensation ordered by the Ombudsman is to be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears on the resident’s rent account.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Incorporate a review of its complaints policy stage 2 escalation criteria, and its application of it, into the work it is already doing to comply with the Ombudsman’s statutory Complaint Handling Code.
2. Writes to the resident to explain why it intends to complete an asbestos survey of her property, and to make the necessary arrangements.