Canterbury City Council (202403136)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403136

Canterbury City Council

4 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of damp and mould.
2. concerns about exposure to asbestos.
3. subsequent complaint.

Background

The resident has a joint secure tenancy of the property which started on 15 May 2017. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The landlord is a local authority. The resident occupies the property with his wife. The resident has health issues which includes a heart condition and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and his wife has fibromyalgia. The landlord said it was unaware of these health conditions prior to the involvement of this service.
The resident said he reported damp and mould in his property on 6 November 2023, which he said was affecting his property and the adjoining property. He believed the cause was a roof leak. The landlord said it would look into the issues and update the resident.
On 15 February 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that:
1. he had reported the damp and mould in November 2023 and the landlord had not taken any action during this time.
2. he had repeatedly contacted the landlord for updates and, despite being told he would receive a call back, no calls were received.
3. the landlord had completed work to the roof of the neighbouring property but it had not looked into the damp issues between the 2 properties.
On 7 March 2024 the landlord sent its complaint response in which it said its contractor had made an appointment to inspect the property on 12 March 2024 when it would go through all the outstanding works with the resident. The landlord apologised for the breakdown of communication between the resident and its contractor which it would address at its contractor meeting.
On 11 April 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. The landlord subsequently issued a further stage 1 response on 21 June 2024 in which it said:

Asbestos

it had installed a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit in the property which had involved the contractor having to drill into Artex to the ceiling.
prior to the installation the landlord had provided the contractor with the asbestos report for the property.
the work was conducted by an accredited asbestos contractor and in accordance with current Health and Safety Executive guidance.
the contractor had provided a statement of cleanliness and waste notice on completion of the works.

Damp and Mould

its operative had attended the property on 18 June 2024, as previously arranged with the resident, to assess the reported damp behind the washing machine.
on inspecting behind the washing machine there was minor mould at the low-level rear skirting area.
the mould could only be viewed when the washing machine had been removed and would not have been observed as part of a visual inspection of the kitchen.
the operative said he would apply a mould wash to the area, the resident told the operative that he did not want the work carried out. The resident states that the mould wash job in the kitchen was cancelled by the landlord.
the contractor had informed the landlord that the resident had been abusive towards the operative on arrival and during the visit. The resident denies abusing the contractor.
there had been previous reports of the resident being abusive to contractors which the landlord had previously addressed with the resident. The resident denies abusing the landlord’s contractors.
it reminded the resident that such behaviour was unacceptable and a breach of tenancy.
it would need to inspect the area again to identify the cause of the mould and it would be in touch to arrange a suitable date and time.

Following intervention from this service, the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 July 2024, in which it said:
1. it had failed to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within 20 working days, as per its complaint policy.
2. it had failed to log the resident’s complaint on 9 January 2024, as per its complaint policy.
3. it had not responded to the resident’s calls or provided updates on his repair works.
4. it had suffered a cyber attack which had affected its IT systems which meant that repair information had been difficult to access.
5. it offered an apology for not meeting the response timescales at stage 2 and for not responding to the resident’s telephone calls regarding his repairs.
In communication with this service the resident said he was unhappy with the communication from the landlord and its contractor in relation to his reports of damp and mould. He said there were times when the landlord made appointments, and no one turned up. On other occasions contractors turned up without the landlord giving prior notice of the visit. He said there was still damp and mould behind his kitchen units, which he said the landlord had refused to inspect. He had asked the landlord to disconnect the PIV unit because it was blowing cold air into his property. As a resolution he wanted his property to be free from damp and mould and if the landlord could not resolve this, he would like the landlord to move him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said the issues in his property have had a significant impact on his health, specifically his breathing. In March 2024 the resident said that he had been admitted to hospital with heart failure which he said was as a direct consequence of the stress caused whilst dealing with the landlord about the damp and mould issues at the property. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition that has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of independent medical evidence. This will often set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions on the cause of the resident’s health conditions, based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim or to legal liability insurers. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the condition of the property.
The resident said he would like the landlord to move him if it cannot resolve the damp and mould in his property. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

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. A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS. Landlords are also expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are found.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will:
1. aim to complete a property inspection within 5 working days of the initial report.
2. evaluate the results of the inspection and identify any factors which may lead to damp and mould growth.
3. if damp is found to be present and identified as a defect to the property, it will carry out repair works to areas that are the responsibility of the landlord.
4. where complex works are required it will keep the resident informed of the actions it would take to bring about an effective solution.
Once the landlord becomes aware of a repair, it would be expected to conduct the repair within reasonable timescales. The landlord has not provided its repairs timescales to the Ombudsman, however, in line with standards of best practice across the industry, it would be expected to conduct emergency repairs within 24 hours and any non-emergency follow-on repairs within 28 days.
The resident has been supported by his daughter in bringing these matters to the attention of the landlord. However, for the purpose of this report we shall refer to any communication between the landlord and the resident’s daughter as communication with the resident.
The resident reported damp and mould in his property on 6 November 2023. The landlord inspected the property on or around 23 January 2024. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its report, however, there is evidence to show the landlord raised the following repairs following the inspection:
1. external – rake out existing joints of brickwork 12mm deep and repoint brickwork in mortar to match existing and remove waste and debris.
2. surfaces – wash down existing surfaces of mould affected paper or plaster with a mould treatment.
3. walls – wash down, prepare and apply 1 mist coat and 2 full coats of anti-condensation insulating emulsion paint to previously painted walls.
4. bathroom – sheet flooring – take up any covering, clear away, supply and lay any type of approved non-slip vinyl sheet flooring with adhesive to and including supply and lay approved hardboard or plywood sheet sub-base, including all necessary cutting, all labours, upstands and clean off, clear silicone sealant jointing at all perimeters and remove waste and debris.
5. bathroom – sealant to perimeter – rake out existing and renew clear silicone sealant to perimeter of existing vinyl tile or sheet flooring or upstands.
The landlord’s policy says it will conduct an inspection within 5 days of a report of damp and mould. The landlord inspected the property on 23 January 2024 which was 54 working days after the resident first reported the damp and mould. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord said that it left a dehumidifier with the resident at the beginning of his complaint. The resident has indicated that the dehumidifier was not provided until 19 March 2024. The resident asked the landlord to take the dehumidifier away after a couple of days, as he had his own. While it appears that there was an initial delay in proving a dehumidifier and the resident decided he did not want it, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that it was appropriate of the landlord to provide this.
The resident contacted the contractor and the landlord on 9 and 12 February 2024 for an update. The resident said the landlord told him it would call him back, but no one did. The resident sent his initial complaint on 15 February 2024 due to the landlord not providing him with an update. In its complaint response dated 7 March 2024 the landlord said that its contractor would attend the resident’s property to go through all the outstanding repairs. The landlord initially scheduled this visit for 12 March 2024. The resident said that no one turned up on this date but then the contractor attended on 19 March 2024, without prior notification to the resident, which he found frustrating. This was an example of the problems the resident experienced with communication with the landlord throughout his complaint.
The resident states that a mould wash behind the cooker was completed on 20 March 2024. The landlord conducted a further inspection of the property on 21 March 2024 when it made the following observations:
1. Roof void
  1. there were no signs of damp in the roof void and there was adequate insulation.
  2. the party wall was dry with no indication of water ingress.
2. external
  1. the repointing to brickwork, verges and lead flashing to roof was in progress at the time of the visit.
  2. the air brick to the kitchen had been blocked with sealant – contractor to unblock.
  3. there was additional ventilation observed to the kitchen and there were no issues relating to damp and mould at the time of the inspection.
3. bedroom 2 (used as cupboard/wardrobe)
  1. the minor mould observed previously had been treated with mould wash and anti-mould paint.
  2. there was a ceiling extractor vent (previously unseen) – the vent appeared to be unworking on the date of the visit.
4. wet room
  1. the flooring to the wet room was split to the upstands – as the wet room was adjacent to bedroom 2 it was noted it may have been the root of the damp.
The report included the following recommendations:
1. a positive input ventilation (PIV) to be installed in the hallway.
2. the contractor to include pointing as directed by the surveyor at the time of the visit to the brickwork, verges and lead flashing to the roof.
3. reconnection of the existing ventilation to bedroom 2 to be conducted, including necessary remedial works to mechanical extract and flue.
4. rapid set floor levelling compound to be utilised by the contractor during replacement of the floor covering to the wet room.
The landlord said that it completed the mould wash, painting of the walls affected by mould in bedroom 2, repointing to the brickwork and replacement of the wet room floor covering around the third week of March 2024. There is no available evidence to show why this work took the landlord approximately 2 months to complete after the need for remedial works were first identified. The landlord also failed to reconnect the ventilation in bedroom 2 until December 2024. The landlord has failed to demonstrate it took reasonable steps to resolve the problems for the resident as quickly as it could.
On 1 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours number to report a leak to the toilet in the wet room. The landlord’s contractor attended within 24 hours and fixed the leak. This was appropriate and consistent with good practice.
The resident said that another contractor attended the following day for the same issue. The landlord has informed this service that this was during the time it was changing over to a new contractor which had resulted in some confusion around appointments. The Ombudsman understands that while this may have caused some difficulties around appointments, this should have been a seamless transition and should not have caused confusion for the resident. The landlord ought to have managed the resident’s expectations by letting him know what was happening.
On 2 April 2024 the resident informed the landlord that the contractors had not cleared up after completing the work to the wet room and the external brickwork. He reported that the contractors had left cement on the floor and windows, which the resident had cleaned up himself. He also reported there was an issue with the shower screen following replacement of the wet room floor. The landlord arranged to visit the same day to inspect the work which was reasonable.
The landlord sent an email to the resident following its visit to confirm the following:
1. the reported leak from 1 April 2024 had been resolved and there was no further evidence of a leak.
2. the shower pole was in place but had movement when pressure was applied – the landlord had instructed its contractor to rectify this to ensure the shower pole was robust and firmly in place.
3. mastic had been used on the wet room floor covering joints instead of weld – the contractor had confirmed there had been a problem with the layers weld machine and it had used sealant to avoid the wet room being out of use – the landlord said that while sealant was suitable for the purpose it lacked longevity and weld was required – it instructed the contractor to return and replace the mastic with weld.
The Ombudsman is of the opinion that it was appropriate of the landlord to provide an update to the resident on its visit on 2 April 2024. It was also appropriate that the landlord raised the follow on works to ensure that the repairs were effective and lasting.
With regards to the mess left by the contractors, the landlord explained that it had not been aware of this prior to its visit. The landlord agreed that it was not the resident’s responsibility to clean up after the contractors. The landlord recommended that the resident report any future issues to the landlord so that it could ensure its contractors completed any future works to a satisfactory standard. The landlord confirmed it had noted some mortar staining on the drive at its visit and confirmed it had instructed the contractor to return and clean the area.
While the Ombudsman can understand the resident’s frustration that the contractor had not cleaned up properly, the landlord can only act on what it is aware of. The Ombudsman has not considered the landlord’s actions to be unreasonable here as it was not aware there was an issue prior to the resident’s contact on 2 April 2024. When it became aware of the issue, it instructed its contractor to return and clean the affected area, which was appropriate.
On 3 April 2024 the resident reported finding mushrooms and mould behind a wardrobe in bedroom 2. The landlord’s surveyor conducted a further inspection on 8 April 2024. This was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s policy.
In its inspection report the surveyor made the following observations and recommendations:

Bedroom 2 (used as a cupboard/wardrobe)

it had conducted a visual inspection of the room and it did not see any evidence of mushrooms or mould.
it carried out moisture readings in the room which were low, indicating acceptable damp levels.
due to the restricted view to the side and behind the wardrobe, the landlord agreed that it would move the wardrobes and carry out a mould wash on the walls.

Wet room

the temporary sealant joints to the floor covering had been removed and replaced with welded joints.
the shower screen pole had been secured into position.
there were some screw holes in isolated locations in the shower area which were for grab rails.
there was 1 grab rail in place and the resident declined the landlord’s offer to reinstate further grab rails.

External

PVCu guttering had been added to the resident’s timber shed, the downpipe for which discharged at approximately 1m from ground level, the brickwork of the resident’s property and the adjoining property showed patterned staining likely from the discharge of water from the downpipe.
the downpipe should be extended to ground level and a shoe should be incorporated to enable discharge to be away from structures and the area immediately below to have a french drain fitted.
the resident’s timber shed was attached to the neighbour’s brickwork, the landlord had previously observed damp and mould on the internal face of the same wall, the landlord agreed that the shed could remain in place and the situation monitored.
a section of the floor to the rear of the property had been raised by paving which meant that the damp proof course was no longer at the required 150mm above the adjoining ground or paved level, the area affected was the lounge which, at the time of inspection, the landlord had not identified any damp and mould.
a recommendation was made that the area should be monitored and should damp and mould be found in this area, the affected section would need to be removed and replaced with a french drain.
there was a small section of channel drainage next to the paving at the rear of the property which was part blocked with leaves and debris and would benefit from regular clearance.
the mortar staining to the front pathway had been cleaned.

In conclusion the surveyor said that, on the balance of probabilities, any mould to the property had occurred due to condensation forming and mould subsequently taking hold. The surveyor said that the humidity had been affected by the added moisture with the shower floor leaking, external downpipe to the shed discharging onto the brickwork along with normal moisture produce.
The landlord fitted a PIV unit in the property on 15 April 2024. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that a PIV unit is an energy-efficient method of ventilating the home. It pushes out and replaces stale unhealthy air with drier fresh air by gently introducing filtered air into the home and increasing the circulation around the property and improving the indoor air quality. By introducing this, the landlord would be able to remove the root cause of condensation and mould within the home. If a property has high levels of moisture left untreated, mould may form causing further issues.
Shortly after the landlord fitted the PIV unit the resident contacted the landlord because he felt the air being blown into the property was too cold. The landlord arranged for its contractor to reattend and check if the PIV needed adjusting. At the resident’s request the landlord disconnected the unit as he felt it was blowing too much cold air into the property. The landlord has not shown that it explored solutions to the cold air issue until it replaced the unit in November 2024. The resident has reported that the cold issue remains.
While the resident decided to have the PIV unit disconnected, the Ombudsman considers this was a reasonable approach by the landlord to minimise condensation that could potentially cause mould. Further to this, the time taken to install the PIV unit was appropriate because it was within 28 days of the landlord’s inspection on 21 March 2024 and therefore consistent with good practice.
On 17 June 2024 the resident reported finding mould behind the washing machine in the kitchen. The resident said he believed the mould was also behind his kitchen units. The landlord’s contractor attended on 18 June 2024 and found minor mould at the low level behind the washing machine. The mould could only be seen once the washing machine was removed and therefore it was reasonable that the surveyor did not see this during the inspection of 8 April 2024. The contractor said it would complete a mould wash to the affected area, which was appropriate. The contractor alleged the resident became abusive and told the contractor that he did not want them to complete the mould wash. The resident denies this version of events. He explains that he told the contractor that completing a mould wash behind the washing machine only was ‘a waste of time’ as there was likely mould behind the kitchen units too.
In its complaint response dated 21 June 2024 the landlord said it required the resident to provide it with access for it to conduct the required works in the kitchen. It said it would contact the resident to arrange a date to complete the mould wash and insert a passive air vent behind the washing machine which would aid air circulation to the affected area.
The landlord also referred to the report it had received from its contractor about the resident using abusive words towards its operative on 18 June 2024. It reminded the resident this had not been the first time issues of this nature had been reported and referred back to a previous incident in April 2024.
The Ombudsman has not sought to determine whether or not the resident used abusive language towards the landlord’s contractors, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the allegations appropriately and in accordance with its policies and procedures. It is part of the resident’s tenancy agreement that he should not engage in abusive behaviour towards employees or contractors of the landlord. The tenancy agreement sets out that such behaviour may include swearing and using offensive language. The landlord said that it had received reports from its contractor that the resident had used abusive language towards it. It is therefore the Ombudsman’s opinion that it was reasonable of the landlord to address this with the resident.
The landlord said that it completed a mould wash behind the washing machine on 3 September 2024. Although there was a delay from when the resident first reported this issue, the landlord had first attended to complete the mould wash behind the washing machine within 3 working days of it first being reported. There is a difference of opinion of who cancelled the mould wash job in June 2024. With no independent evidence to confirm, it is not possible to determine if the landlord acted unreasonably by not completing the mould wash when first identified. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that the air vent was to be fitted at the same time as the mould wash in the kitchen. This did not happen. The inspection report dated 25 November 2024 shows that the surveyor found that the previous ventilation (the airbrick) remained blocked. A new vent was fitted in the kitchen to allow air flow.
In its complaint response dated 21 June 2024 the landlord said that it would inspect the kitchen to find the source of the damp and mould. The resident said that there was evidence of mould behind his washing machine and cooker and the landlord had completed mould washes in both areas. He has told the landlord that he is concerned there may be mould behind the kitchen units between these 2 appliances. The resident has informed this service that the landlord has refused to inspect behind the kitchen units. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence in relation to the landlord’s inspection of the kitchen, however this service is of the opinion that the resident’s thoughts that there may be mould in this area are reasonable. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order below that the landlord carry out an inspection of the kitchen to establish if there is evidence of damp and mould behind the kitchen units and carry out any required works.
The resident has said that communication with the landlord was difficult throughout his complaint. The resident said that he made multiple telephone calls to the landlord, both before and during his complaint, when the landlord promised it would call him back, but did not. The resident felt the landlord was not responding to him because he did not have internet access and he felt discriminated against as a result. There is however evidence that the landlord was in contact with the resident’s representative via email in March 2024, April 2024 and July 2024, which was reasonable. The landlord apologised for not responding to the resident’s telephone calls within its complaint responses. The Ombudsman understands the lack of response to the resident’s calls would have likely made the resident feel frustrated and that his concerns were not being listened to. It is important that landlords ensure they are accessible to all their residents via all contact methods.
The airbrick in the kitchen was found to be blocked in March 2024. The surveyor recommended it was cleared. In June 2024, the landlord agreed to install a new air vent in the kitchen. Both of these repairs were to improve air ventilation and prevent damp and mould. The recent inspection in November 2024 confirms that the air brick was not cleared as previously recommended and the new vent was not installed until about 5 months after it was agreed. As the new vent is fitted, the clearing of the air brick is now unnecessary. As part of its agreed remedial works following the inspection in March 2024, the landlord confirmed it would reconnect the ventilation in the storage room (bedroom 2). The landlord failed to complete this repair until December 2024. Both these repairs indicate an unreasonable delay in completing remedial works. These represent further shortalls in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
In conclusion, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in that it:
1. unreasonably delayed in inspecting the property following the resident’s first report in November 2023.
2. unreasonably delayed in conducting the works identified during the inspection in January 2024.
3. failed to manage communications with the resident about the progress and timescales associated with some of the repairs which resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for updates.
4. unreasonably delayed the installation of the air vent in the kitchen.
5. unreasonably delayed the reconnection of the ventilation in the storage room (bedroom 2).
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £50 and £100 when there is evidence of a service failure by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order that the landlord pay the resident £350 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about exposure to asbestos

The resident’s concerns about the contractor disturbing asbestos materials within his home are duly noted. However, the Ombudsman’s role is not to investigate the level of asbestos, or the risks involved, but rather, it is to provide an independent review of the landlord’s actions in its response to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord has a ‘duty to manage’ asbestos, as specified by regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. It requires the landlord to take reasonable steps to identify, maintain records of, protect residents to exposure from, and execute a management plan for asbestos.
The landlord’s website confirms it has an asbestos register which holds information on all known areas of asbestos and the condition of the materials in its properties. The landlord has provided this service with a copy of its asbestos management plan and asbestos policy. This is appropriate and in line with the regulations.
On 17 June 2024 the resident raised concerns with the landlord about exposure to asbestos when it had replaced the wet room floor and installed the PIV unit in the hallway. The most recent asbestos report for the resident’s property dated 19 February 2021, shows the areas of the property where asbestos is located and the risk level.
With regards to the replacement of the wet room flooring, the asbestos management survey report confirms that this area was not accessed during the inspection. It says that the area should be inspected for asbestos prior to any disturbance. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show that the landlord inspected the bathroom floor for asbestos prior to or during its works to replace the wet room floor. This was not appropriate because the landlord failed to inspect the area for the presence of asbestos before removing the flooring, which was recommended in the asbestos report.
The wetroom floor covering was replaced on 27 March 2024. This was a like-for-like vinyl replacement. The repairs log indicates that hardboard/plywood sheet sub-base was fitted beneath the vinyl. It is not possible to determine from the landlord’s photographs of the vinyl replacement whether there was asbestos present in the floor below the vinyl and what condition the floor was in below the vinyl. However, it is clear that the act of removing vinyl and any sub-base could potentially disturb asbestos if the flooring was in poor condition.
It is important to underline that asbestos in the property’s flooring is unconfirmed, but the asbestos report suspected it and advised assessment prior to undertaking work. This does not appear to have taken place. The landlord therefore failed to follow its asbestos management plan. Although asbestos is unconfirmed, the landlord’s failure to complete an assessment of the floor prior to replacing the wetroom vinyl is a serious failure. This is exacerbated by the landlord’s failure to acknowledge its error or make any attempt to put things right within its complaint responses.
With regards to the installation of the PIV unit in the hallway, the asbestos report confirms that asbestos was identified in the textured coating on the hallway ceiling with a very low risk level. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) website sets out what is licensed and non-licensed work in relation to asbestos. Drilling of textured decorative coatings for installation of fixtures and fittings is considered as non-licensed work. However, the HSE states that a risk assessment must be conducted before any work is undertaken. It also says that non-licensed works must be conducted with appropriate controls in place and those carrying out the work must have had the correct level of information, instruction and training to protect themselves and others in the area.
In this case, the landlord instructed an accredited asbestos contractor and provided it with a copy of the resident’s asbestos report before installing the PIV unit, which was appropriate. This service has seen evidence that the contractor completed a risk assessment before starting the work and provided the landlord with a statement of cleanliness and a waste notice after it completed the work. This was appropriate and consistent with the regulations and HSE guidance.
In summary, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about exposure to asbestos in that it did not complete an assessment of the wet room floor for the content of asbestos before conducting the work. Had it followed the recommended process, the resident would not have had cause for concern. The landlord also failed to address this shortfall within its complaint responses.
It is ordered that the landlord completes an updated asbestos management survey (including an inspection of underfloor coverings if practicable). This will aim to:
1. provide information on the location, amount and condition of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs).
2. assess the level of any damage or deterioration of the ACMs and whether remedial action is required.
3. provide information to update the asbestos register (including the risk assessment) and asbestos management plan for the property.
The landlord is therefore expected to update the asbestos register and asbestos management plan once the survey is completed. The landlord should also review the fitness of its existing communications policies and procedures for sharing asbestos management plan information with its staff and contractors.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £50 and £100 when there is evidence of a service failure by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order that the landlord pay the resident £100 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about exposure to asbestos.

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

At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1, the landlord said it would acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days of being made and provide its response within 14 working days of receipt. At stage 2, the landlord said it would acknowledge escalation of the complaint within 3 working days and provide its response within 28 working days of receipt.
In June 2024 the landlord made changes to its complaint handling policy to reflect the changes to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2024). Its new policy states it will:
1. acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days
2. respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days
3. respond to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 February 2024 setting out his complaint which he sent by recorded delivery. The Royal Mail tracking service confirmed that it delivered the letter to the landlord’s offices on 16 February 2024 at 12.41pm. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and responded within the same letter, dated 7 March 2024, which was 15 working days after the complaint was received. This was 1 working day over the landlord’s timescale set out in its policy. While the Ombudsman understands this was frustrating for the resident, the Ombudsman would not consider this delay to have adversely affected the resident.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 April 2024 asking that it escalate his complaint to stage 2.
The landlord said that it sent an acknowledgement letter to the resident on 17 June 2024 and sent a second stage 1 response on 21 June 2024. The subject of the complaint related to the ongoing issues of damp and mould in the property and also the resident’s concerns about exposure to asbestos following work by a contractor, which the resident had raised on 17 June 2024. Paragraph 6.8 of the Code (2024) states that where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord added the resident’s concerns of exposure to asbestos to his complaint.
Upon not receiving a stage 2 response, the resident contacted this service for help. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 25 June 2024 ordering it to provide the resident with a response to his escalation by 2 July 2024. The Ombudsman sent a final notice to the landlord on 19 July 2024 ordering it to provide its stage 2 response to the resident by 26 July 2024.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 July 2024. In total, this was 70 working days after the resident’s escalation of the complaint. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s policy and the Code (2024).
The landlord missed several opportunities to recognise the complaint escalation and as a consequence, has in effect followed a 3-stage complaint process which has unnecessarily and unreasonably delayed the resident’s ability to seek redress through this service.
In summary, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint in that it:
1. sent a second stage 1 response rather than escalating the matter to stage 2 the first time around.
2. unreasonably delayed in providing the resident with a stage 2 response.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £50 and £100 when there is evidence of a service failure by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order that the landlord pay the resident £100 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about exposure to asbestos.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. pay the resident £550 in compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about exposure to asbestos.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
2. complete an inspection of the resident’s kitchen, including behind the kitchen units, to identify if there is evidence of damp and mould.
3. within 10 days of completing the inspection, provide the resident and this service with a copy of its report, including timeframes on when it will complete any works or recommendations identified in the report.
The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and should not be offset against any outstanding arrears or financial arrangements.
The landlord must, within 56 days of the date of this determination:
1. Complete an updated asbestos management survey (including an inspection of underfloor coverings if practicable).
2. within 10 days of completing the asbestos management survey, confirm it has updated the asbestos register (including the risk assessment) and asbestos management plan.
3. Review the fitness of its existing communications policies and procedures for sharing asbestos management plan information with its staff and contractors.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord is to:
1. Contact the resident to arrange a further assessment of the PIV unit to identify if actions can be taken to tackle the uncomfortable cold air from the unit.
2. Contact the resident to confirm that it has logged his recent complaints and let him know when he can expect a stage 1 complaint response.
3. Confirm that it has recorded that the resident’s preferred method of contact is via post.
4. Implement a vulnerable person policy with a particular focus on addressing how it identifies and records vulnerability. The landlord should consider the BSI’s consumer vulnerability standard: ‘Requirements and guidelines for the design and delivery of inclusive service’ (BS ISO 22458).