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

Bristol City Council (202339015)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339015

Bristol City Council

17 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:
    1. Repairs to the property and the resident’s concerns of asbestos.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom ground floor maisonette.
  2. On or around 11 April 2023, the landlord recorded that repairs were required to the resident’s property. It carried out a pre-inspection of the property on 4 May 2023 and identified an asbestos survey was needed prior to any works starting. The asbestos survey was completed on 19 May 2023, and it was reported that asbestos containing materials (ACM) were present and would need to be removed if they were affected by the proposed works.
  3. On 15 November 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He said the repairs were scheduled to be completed by 3 October 2023 and had not been completed. The resident said a number of the repairs remained outstanding and damage had been caused to his carpet.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 April 2024 and apologised for the delay in replying to his complaint. It advised the works had been completed and it would instruct a surveyor to report on any damage or outstanding issues and would review any compensation that the resident might be owed.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord on 8 July 2024. He said the works had not been completed, despite him chasing the contractor on a regular basis and he had concerns about outstanding asbestos removal.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 25 September 2024 and said:
    1. There was no outstanding asbestos removal at the property, and it had booked an air test to address the resident’s concerns.
    2. Outstanding work identified from the survey had been booked to take place between 10 and 17 October 2024.
    3. A compensation form had been provided to the resident so it could consider any compensation owed for damage caused and financial implications of rescheduled appointments.
    4. It offered the resident £500 compensation for the delays experienced.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has informed us how the issues have impacted on his health. Where we find failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis and cause of any injury. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

Repairs

  1. On 11 April 2023 the landlord raised a pre-inspection to look at the ceiling condition in the resident’s property, to be completed within 21 days. The landlord carried out the inspection on 4 May 2023, within the agreed timescales. Its notes from the inspection recorded an asbestos survey was needed prior to any works starting, which included the removal of ceilings.
  2. The landlord’s contractor carried out an asbestos survey on 19 May 2023 and recorded that ACMs were present in the ceilings of the bedrooms, bathroom, toilet, and kitchen. It was also noted ACMs present in the kitchen cupboards and storage cupboards of the property. On 14 August 2023 the landlord raised a job for its contractor to remove the ceilings in the bathroom, toilet, kitchen, and main bedroom of the property that contained ACMs.
  3. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the repair obligations for both the landlord and the resident. The agreement states the landlord is responsible for repairs to the interior of the home such as floors, ceilings and fixtures fitted by the landlord.
  4. The landlord’s asbestos safety policy states that all residential properties must be surveyed prior to intrusive repair or refurbishment works. It further states the survey must locate and identify all ACMs before any structural work is undertaken. By carrying out a survey and arranging for the ACMs to be removed, the landlord was acting in line with its policy.
  5. The evidence shows the resident was informed the repairs would take place between 18 September and 1 October 2023. This did not happen. The full extent of the repairs scheduled is unclear from the documentation provided and the landlord has been unable to supply this information. However, the evidence shows that the repairs went beyond the removal of ceilings and included repairs to kitchen and bathroom fixtures and fittings.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 and 29 September 2023 to chase the repairs as he had arranged time off work to facilitate access. The landlord replied on 2 October 2023 and said it would remind its contractors to ensure “good housekeeping practices are maintained”.
  7. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 16 October 2023 and removed the ceilings from the cupboards, kitchen bathroom and toilet. It is unclear why the bedroom ceiling was not removed. This was 5 months after the asbestos survey had been carried out, and a month after the resident had been informed the work would start. The landlord has provided no evidence to suggest it chased the contractor during this time and the delays for the work getting started are unknown.
  8. The resident raised his complaint with the landlord on 15 November 2023. He said the ceiling had been removed a month earlier, damage had been caused to his carpet and his ability to use the affected rooms in his property had been reduced due to the outstanding repairs. It is unclear from the evidence provided, what, if any of the repairs had been completed by this point.
  9. The landlord’s repairs policy is silent on timescales in which it will complete a repair. In these circumstances, the resident could have expected the repair to be carried out in a reasonable amount of time. The landlord was obliged to wait for the ACMs to be removed before starting the works, albeit the reasons for the length of time this took are unknown. However, once the ACMs had been removed, and given the level of disruption caused to the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord carry out the repairs immediately as they had been reported in April 2023. The landlord’s failure to complete the repairs and communicate any delays in the works to the resident was unreasonable.
  10. When the resident chased his complaint on 13 December 2023, he reported there was asbestos still visible in the damaged ceilings and the contractor had pictures of it. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns.
  11. The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. It was introduced under the Housing Act 2004 and applies to residential properties in England and Wales.
  12. HHSRS identifies asbestos as a hazard in a residential property. It states that inhalation of asbestos fibres can cause damage to the lungs and in extreme cases, cancer.
  13. The landlord’s asbestos policy states it has an obligation to presume materials to contain asbestos until there are good reasons not to. It further states the landlord will ensure all reasonable steps are taken to prevent exposure to risks associated with ACMs. While the landlord was entitled to rely on the contractor’s certificate of removal dated 16 October 2023, the information provided by the resident on 13 December 2023 made clear he thought that asbestos could still be present. In these circumstances, given the presence of asbestos is a widely held worry due to the associated health concerns, it would have been a reasonable expectation for the landlord to confirm with the contractor, and to satisfy itself whether the resident’s concern was valid. The landlord’s failure to take any action was a significant failing.
  14. The landlord has been unable to provide evidence of completion dates for the work, with the exception of an email from the contractor stating the work was completed in June 2023. This is incorrect as the works could not start until the ACMs were removed later that year. When the landlord contacted the contractor in April 2024 about the resident’s complaint, the contractor stated all repairs had been completed on 6 December 2023. The contractor said it had not been made aware of any damage caused to the resident’s belongings or property.
  15. The landlord’s stage 1 response dated 24 April 2024 said the repairs had been completed. The landlord said it would arrange for a contractor and surveyor to attend the property to identify any issues that may be outstanding. While this was a reasonable step for the landlord to take, it should have been done much sooner to satisfy itself that the work had been completed. The response also failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns of asbestos remaining at the property. This was unreasonable.
  16. The landlord did carry out a survey of the property on 2 May 2024. It is unclear what outstanding work was identified from this visit. The landlord has been unable to provide this information.
  17. In his escalation request dated 8 August 2024, the resident told the landlord he had been trying to book in the outstanding repairs with the contractor since June 2024. He stated the contractor had failed to attend for appointments and despite asking repeatedly for the schedule of works, he had not received it.
  18. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on 12 August 2024 and set out the points of his complaint. The resident replied to the landlord the following day and reminded the landlord that his complaint was also about its handling of asbestos at the property.
  19. The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 July 2024 to report he was still unaware of what work was going to be carried out and when, and that its contractor had missed further appointments. He repeated one of the contractors had reported back to their manager regarding the potential asbestos. The landlord’s records from the same day show it identified the affected areas needed to be removed urgently and an air test was needed. Given the same information was available in December 2023, it is reasonable to expect that this action should have been carried out 7 months earlier when it was first made aware of the issue.
  20. The landlord raised a job to remove the affected areas and conduct an air test on 26 July 2024, with a priority timeframe of 5 working days. This was unreasonable given it had acknowledged the job was urgent only 4 days earlier. The affected area was not removed until 22 August 2024 and the air test was carried out on 16 September 2024. Both jobs exceeded the priority timescales set by the landlord and this was a significant failing.
  21. The landlord’s records dated 26 July 2024 confirmed that there were still outstanding repairs to the kitchen, storage cupboard and bedroom. The extent of these repairs was not noted.
  22. The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 25 September 2024 said it was unable to comment on the resident’s concerns of asbestos until it had received the results of the air test from its contractor. However, it signposted the resident to its insurers if he wished to make a claim regarding asbestos exposure.
  23. While the results of the air test could indicate the likelihood of the resident being exposed to asbestos, there is an expectation the landlord should have reviewed its handling of the issue complained about against the service levels required by its policies and the relevant legislation. This expectation was not affected by waiting on the results of the air test, and as such, the failure to do so was inappropriate.
  24. The response also confirmed a number of repairs had been scheduled to take place from 10 to 17 October 2024. These were:
    1. Bedroom ceiling and walls repairs and redecoration.
    2. Toilet flooring replacement, repairs, and redecoration.
    3. Bathroom fixtures, extractor fan and decoration.
  25. The landlord asked the resident to fill in a compensation form it had previously provided, so it could assess any compensation that may be due for damage caused to his belongings and loss of earnings. It also offered the resident £500 compensation for the delays to the repairs and the level of service received. The landlord has not provided a copy of its compensation policy.
  26. In relation to the failures identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies. 
  27. The evidence shows landlord was unable to start the repairs until its contractor had removed the ACMs, 5 months after the asbestos survey took place. The landlord has provided no evidence as to why the work was not carried out sooner. Therefore, we are unable to confirm this delay was reasonable.
  28. Once the ceilings had been removed and the property was certified as safe the landlord should have arranged for the repairs to be completed within a reasonable timeframe. The resident was originally informed the repairs would take 2 weeks to complete. He could have expected the repairs to be completed by the end of October 2023. The contractor informed the landlord the repairs had been completed on 6 December 2023. The landlord’s failure to check up on the works conducted and required until April 2024 was unreasonable and delayed resolution for the resident.
  29. When the landlord completed a survey of the property and identified that repairs were still outstanding, it failed to act quickly to resolve the issue for the resident. The repairs were arranged to be completed 5 months after the survey, and almost a year after the resident could have reasonably expected them to be completed. The landlord has informed us some repairs, such as the kitchen floor and the extractor fan, remain outstanding.
  30. The landlord’s failure to address the resident’s concerns regarding asbestos in his property was significant. The resident’s first concern was raised in December 2023 and the landlord only acted 7 months later. When the landlord acknowledged the urgency of the situation it failed to arrange for the works to be carried out within the priority timescales.
  31. The landlord’s records of the repairs are incomplete. It is therefore unclear which repairs were completed by the contractor in December 2023. However, the resident’s communication with the landlord after this point evidences the distress and inconvenience he was experiencing while the repairs remained outstanding. It is clear that significant repairs to the bathroom had not been completed prior to October 2024.
  32. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, we are unable to conclude it acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time. The failure to keep accurate records has caused the resident inconvenience and time to get his complaint resolved. Furthermore, the landlord’s poor standard of record keeping is likely to have undermined the resident’s confidence in its ability to have a competent complaints process and the general delivery of its services.  
  33. These combined failings lead to a determination of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and the resident’s concerns regarding asbestos. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £1,500 to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for serious failings where there has been a long-term impact to the resident. This is made up of:
    1. £1,000 for distress and inconvenience caused.
    2. £500 (rounded up) for the limited use of his bathroom from 1 November 2023 to 17 October 2024. This amount of compensation is based on an equivalent amount of 10% of the rent paid by the resident for the period. The equates to:
      1. Weekly rent for 2023 to 2024 is £95.16, 10% is £9.51 (22 weeks x £9.51 = £209.22).
      2. Weekly rent for 2024 to 2025 is £102.49, 10% is £10.24 (28 weeks x £10.24 = £286.72).

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints: 
    1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded. 
    3. It will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. 
  2. The resident raised his complaint with the landlord on 15 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged his complaint the same day in line with its policy and told the resident he would receive a response by 6 December 2023.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 December 2023 and 10 January 2024 to chase his complaint. The landlord did not respond, which was unreasonable. On 18 April 2024 we wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide the resident with a response.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 April 2024. This was 95 working days later than it told the resident he would receive it and 100 working days later than its policy timescales.
  5. In its response, the landlord apologised for the delay. However, no other form of redress was offered for its failures in complaint handling. This is despite the landlord’s records, dated 19 April 2024, which acknowledged compensation would be appropriate.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord on 8 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the request on 12 July 2024 and informed the resident he would receive a reply by 6 August 2024, in line with its policy.
  7. On 6 August 2024 the landlord contacted the resident and informed him it was unable to meet the timescale and would respond to his complaint by 20 August 2024. This holding response was in line with its policy.
  8. On 24 September 2024 we wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident as its previous commitment to respond by 20 August 2024 had not been achieved. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response the following day. This was a delay of 25 working days from the landlord’s last update to the resident.
  9. The evidence shows the landlord was initially quick to respond to the resident’s complaint. However, there was a prolonged delay in issuing both complaint responses. And when the resident tried to chase the matter, he received no reply and asked us to intervene on 2 occasions.
  10. The cumulative delays and failings in its process lead to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £150 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings where the resident has been adversely affected.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlords’ handling of repairs and the resident’s concerns of asbestos.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology from a chief executive officer for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay £1,650 compensation to the resident, made up of:
      1. £1,500 for its failing in handling the repairs and concerns of asbestos.
      2. £150 for its failings in complaint handling.
    3. Complete a survey of the resident’s property and prepare a schedule of outstanding repairs to the kitchen and bathroom, including timescales. The schedule must be provided to us and the resident.
  2. The landlord must reply to us with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.