From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Brentwood Borough Council (202423316)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423316

Brentwood Borough Council

30 April 2025


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: 
    1. Request for repairs, including exterior doors, roof fascia and guttering, and external maintenance.
    2. Concerns about asbestos.

Background

  1. The resident has been the landlord’s secure tenant since 29 March 2018. The landlord is a local council.
  2. On 15 July 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to request repairs. He said the roof fascia and guttering was in disrepair and that his exterior doors did not close properly. He also queried why the landlord had been carrying out maintenance works in the area but not on his house.
  3. The landlord’s contractor inspected the fascia, guttering, and doors on 22 and 24 July 2024, respectively. They said there was no evidence of faults with the roofline and that the doors were in adequate working condition. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 July 2024 and said the contractor had told him that the fascia and guttering might contain asbestos.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 26 July 2024. He was dissatisfied that no further action was to be taken on the fascia and guttering and concerned that they could fall on someone. He also asked why the landlord had not done any maintenance on his property when it had done other resident’s recently, and said it felt like the landlord has something against him.
  5. The landlord responded on 8 August 2024. It said:
    1. The contractor had reported that the fascia and guttering were old and dirty but did not need any repairs.
    2. The doors were “doing their job” but the contractor recommended they go on the next planned works programme as they were old and slightly bowed.  
    3. Improvement work programmes were based on stock condition data and available funding. The landlord did not have stock condition data for the resident’s property but would carry out a stock condition survey to include the resident’s house by September 2025.
    4. The landlord had attempted to carry out an asbestos survey in 2022 but had not been able to gain access. It would have been better if the landlord had communicated this to the resident earlier but it had booked in a survey for 14 August 2024. It would contact the resident when it had the results.
    5. The landlord did not discriminate or have anything against the resident.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 the same day. He said his tenancy agreement stated that the landlord should keep the property in good repair and that it must ensure the house is up to a modern stage “at the 5 year stage”.  The landlord’s contractor carried out an external asbestos survey on 14 August 2024. The resident told the landlord that the contractor had not brought the correct equipment to complete an intrusive survey of the fascia and soffits.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 30 August 2024. It reiterated that recent inspections had found the fascia, guttering, and soffits in satisfactory condition. It also said:
    1. The landlord’s recent planned works programmes had been focused on compliance related works such as fire safety, which had caused a backlog of other programmes such as external refurbishments.
    2. It had recently begun a small external refurbishment programme and intended to continue this throughout the borough. It would carry out stock condition surveys over the next year to inform future works programmes, which would include the resident’s property. However, existing data for similar assets in the resident’s street indicated that external refurbishment should be considered in 4-5 years, subject to budgets.
    3. The contractor had not been able to carry out an internal asbestos survey as the resident had refused access. They would not complete an intrusive survey of the fascia and soffits but would carry out a refurbishment and demolition survey as part of any future refurbishment.
  8. The resident remains dissatisfied as, while the landlord has since completed the asbestos survey, it has not carried out any of the requested works. He escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman and said that, as a resolution, he would like the landlord to:
    1. Admit it has breached the tenancy agreement.
    2. Complete the necessary repairs.
    3. Pay compensation to acknowledge the breach of tenancy and stress the situation has caused him.
    4. Apologise in writing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident complained that the landlord had failed to carry out external repairs and maintenance and that this was a breach of the terms in his tenancy agreement. We have considered whether the landlord acted in accordance with its responsibilities under the tenancy agreement. However, we are not empowered to make legal findings related to tenancy breaches in the same way that a court would. We have advised the resident to seek legal advice if he wishes to pursue this particular point.

Request for repairs, including exterior doors, roof fascia and guttering, and external maintenance

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will carry out routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
  2. The tenancy agreement says that the landlord will “carry out repairs within the current 5-year planned maintenance cycle and repairs will be carried out within a reasonable time, giving consideration to the urgency of each repair and published planned maintenance cycle”.
  3. This means that the landlord will prioritise requested repairs based on urgency alongside carrying out general maintenance works in line with a 5-year plan. It does not mean that it will carry out maintenance works to all properties every 5 years. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that it decides which maintenance works to carry out within each cycle based on the address, stock condition data, and available funding. This is a reasonable approach. Additionally, the government’s Decent Homes Standard states that roof structures and finishes have a lifetime of 50 years before they are considered old.
  4. The tenancy agreement also says that the landlord will “decorate the exterior of the premises and those parts of the building being used in common with other tenants (if any) at least every 5 years”. This means it will carry out cosmetic decorations every 5 years rather than works such as replacing fascia and guttering.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident’s initial repair requests of 15 July 2024 within the appropriate timeframe. It carried out an inspection, communicated its findings to the resident, and responded to his query about maintenance works within 9 calendar days, which was reasonable.
  6. The stage 1 response explained why it had not agreed to carry out the requested repairs, which was reasonable. It also explained why it had not carried out maintenance work on the resident’s property and promised to carry out a stock condition survey by September 2025. This was appropriate in regard to fascia and guttering, however, it did not acknowledge that exterior decoration works were overdue. This was not appropriate.
  7. The resident raised the terms of his tenancy agreement in the stage 2 complaint. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to clearly explain what its tenancy obligations were. The resident believed it was obligated to carry out maintenance every 5 years. Failing to clarify this led the resident to feel stressed and frustrated.
  8. The stage 2 response explained why other properties had had external maintenance to soffits, fascia, and guttering while the resident’s had not. It promised to survey his property in the next year and then review when maintenance works were required. It also managed the resident’s expectations by warning that current data suggested it may not consider it necessary for 4-5 years. This was positive. However, the landlord failed again to acknowledge that it had not carried out exterior decorations during the 6 years, as of that date, that the resident had lived in the property.
  9. For this reason, we have made a finding of maladministration. The landlord was reasonable in its response regarding the doors, fascia, and guttering but has not acted in accordance with the tenancy agreement in relation to exterior decorations. The resident has spent time and trouble complaining about the issue which has caused him distress and inconvenience.
  10. We have made orders for the landlord to remedy this including an order to pay £100 compensation. This is in the recommended range in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration causing non-permanent adverse effects, including distress and inconvenience.
  11. While the landlord responded reasonably to the request for door repairs, the resident has since reported holes in both exterior doors. We have ordered the landlord to respond to this report in line with its repairs policy if it has not already done so.

Concerns about asbestos

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says that when it cannot complete the work on the first appointment the operative will agree a date and time for a second appointment with the resident.
  2. The resident first raised concerns about asbestos on 24 July 2024 and the landlord’s contractor attended for a survey on 14 August 2024. This was a reasonable timeframe, in line with the policy for routine repairs.
  3. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s stage 1 response was also reasonable. The landlord followed up by carrying out an asbestos survey on 14 August 2024, 21 calendar days after the resident first raised concerns. This is in line with the appropriate response time for a routine repair. Within the next few days, the resident told the landlord that the contractor had not brought the right equipment to survey the soffits and fascia. The landlord made enquiries with the contractor about this and explained its findings in the stage 2 response on 30 August 2024.
  4. The contractor said that it did not need ladders to survey the soffits as they would usually be able to do so from a first floor window, but the resident had not allowed them inside the property. The resident later disputed this. As there is no evidence to confirm either party’s account, we cannot determine what actually happened.
  5. Either way, the contractor or the landlord should have arranged a follow up appointment with the resident in accordance with the repairs policy. Even if the resident had refused access to inside the property, the contractor later said in an email to the landlord that it was willing to return with ladders to access the soffits. The landlord did not act on this suggestion.
  6. The stage 2 response was reasonable but it would have been better if it offered a new appointment to complete the asbestos survey. The landlord did complete the survey on 7 October 2024 and did not find any asbestos that needed to be removed. It also confirmed it would carry out intrusive surveys of soffits and fascia prior to any maintenance works.
  7. In conclusion, the landlord arranged an asbestos survey promptly when the resident raised concerns. While it was not completed at the first appointment, we cannot find any evidence to indicate that the landlord, or the resident, was at fault for this. It would have been better if the contractor or landlord had arranged a follow up appointment at an earlier stage. However, these were minor shortcomings and did not affect the overall outcome for the resident.
  8. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about asbestos. As such, we have made a finding of no maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
    1. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs, including exterior doors, roof fascia and guttering, and external maintenance.
    2. There was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the identified failures. The apology should come from a senior member of staff and be in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation in relation to the failure to complete external decorations.
    3. Complete external decorations to the resident’s property.
    4. Inspect the resident’s exterior doors and complete any necessary repairs. If repairs are not considered necessary it should explain its reasons to the resident in writing.