Hyde Housing Association Limited (202302504)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302504

Hyde Housing Association Limited

20 January 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:
1. Handling of asbestos in the property.
2. Handling of a decant.
3. Response to the resident’s request for compensation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. He lives at the property with his wife and 2 children. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident’s wife acted as his representative during the landlord’s complaint process and in communications with the Ombudsman. However, all dealings are described in this report with reference to ‘the resident’ given she was acting on his behalf.
In February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that his bath was blocked. This was causing water to flow back up through the bath and sink. The landlord attended the property to determine what work was required to resolve the issue. It agreed with the resident that he and his family would be decanted to a hotel while the works were ongoing.
It was initially envisaged that the decant would last for 3 nights, starting on 19 February 2023. However, while carrying out the works, the landlord removed a panel from a storage cupboard. The panel cracked in half and the operatives suspected it contained asbestos.. Given this, all works to repair the bathroom were halted. Air tests were carried out. The panel was tested and it was confirmed it did contain asbestos. The landlord therefore extended the length of the resident’s decant to allow time for an environmental clean to be carried out. Any items that may have come into contact with asbestos fibres were destroyed as a safety precaution. This included carpets, bedding, clothing and other personal items belonging to the resident and his family.
The decant lasted a total of 27 nights. The first 20 days were spent in a 5 star hotel where the family shared 2 interconnecting rooms. The landlord then proposed to move them to a budget hotel for a further week. This hotel did not have interconnecting rooms. The resident was unhappy about this and rang the landlord to complain. He explained the logistical difficulties this would cause given it meant his young children could not be left in a room to sleep alone. The resident also complained about the length of time the decant was lasting. He outlined the stress it was putting the family under. He was concerned about the level of expenses he was incurring due to the continued decant. He complained that the landlord was not providing the family with any support as required by its decant policy.
Further to this, the landlord moved the resident and his family to a vacant property. The resident was concerned that the property was in poor condition and unclean. He said that it was particularly unsuitable for one of the children who suffers a dust mite allergy. The family instead stayed with friends and family for 2 nights before being moved to the budget hotel that the landlord had previously proposed it would move them to.
The resident and his family moved back home on 18 March 2023. Asbestos specialists had confirmed it was safe for them to do so. On the resident’s return to the property, he found that the repair to the bath was not complete and water was leaking through the ceiling. The landlord said this was because it had been unable to complete the bath repair until the environmental cleansing was complete. He also found that the landlord had disposed of a significant amount of clothing and household items which may have come into contact with the asbestos. There were no carpets in the hall, stairs and landing as these had also been disposed of by the landlord. Having reported the leak, the landlord attended on the same day and carried out an emergency repair to stem it. It completed the remaining repair work to the bath 2 days later. Approximately a week after that, it fitted new carpets.
The resident was assured by the landlord during the decant that he would be compensated for any items that were disposed of. Once he returned to the property, he contacted the landlord to ask for payment. He was advised that he would have to put his request to the complaints team. Accordingly, he contacted that team and explained he wished to be compensated for the following:
1. All costs incurred during the decant. The landlord provided a £20 meal voucher for each person per day of the decant. However, this did not cover additional food costs (£63), fuel costs (£40), or the costs of 3 days out for the children during school strikes (£75).
2. The full value of all items of property that were destroyed. This included clothes, coats, curtains, towels, canvass pictures, toys and other household items. Some of the items were destroyed by the landlord and the resident valued these at £1,792. The resident also threw some items away after agreeing with the landlord that he should do so. He valued these additional items at £372.
3. The distress and inconvenience caused to the family due to “an avoidable error” on the landlord’s part.
The landlord indicated that it would only compensate him for items it disposed of. The resident submitted a formal complaint. The details of that complaint are not known as it was by telephone and the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with notes or a record of that call.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 April 2023. It apologised for the length of time it took to complete the repairs in the property and offered £300 compensation. This was for poor communications, time and trouble, distress and inconvenience, and for the delay in completing the bathroom repair. It said it would reimburse the resident £1,200 for the personal items that it had disposed of, but that it would not reimburse him for the items he disposed of.
The resident was not satisfied with the complaint response and asked the landlord to escalate it. He said it had misunderstood what his complaint was about. He explained that his main complaint was about the “incompetency of the workmen” who damaged and removed the asbestos panel. He said that once they realised the panel might contain asbestos, proper health and safety procedures were not followed. The resident said that it was as a direct result of this that he and his family has suffered “considerable distress and upset” due to the lengthy decant and loss of property.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 20 April 2024. It said it was satisfied that it had fully responded at stage 1 to all the issues raised by the resident. It apologised that the resident had been given incorrect information about being refunded on all personal items that had to be disposed of. It said that its initial confirmation to the resident was that it would only refund items it disposed of. The landlord therefore remained of the view that the resident had been fairly compensated for the loss of personal items. It referred to the escalation request and said it contained, “no new information about your complaint to consider, which is why we won’t be changing our decision.”
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. He explained that the landlord had not addressed his concerns regarding health and safety in its handling of the asbestos. He also wanted the compensation offered by the landlord to be reviewed by the Ombudsman. He did not feel it reflected the family’s experience during the decant, nor did it cover the cost of replacing all the items of personal property that were destroyed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property

Asbestos is identified as a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This requires landlords to identify if asbestos is present in a property. If it is present, this does not automatically mean that the property is in disrepair. Asbestos can sometimes be safely managed by landlords in situ provided it is covered, in good condition and unlikely to be damaged or disturbed. Landlords must however keep accurate records in relation to all locations of the asbestos and keep its condition under review. They are required by various statutory provisions to ensure that tenants, staff and contractors are protected from exposure to asbestos fibres. Where work is required and it is known or suspected that asbestos is present, only individuals with sufficient competency and training should be involved in carrying out the work.
To ensure compliance with the HHSRS and other relevant legislation, the landlord has an Asbestos Management Plan (AMP). This contains key controls to minimise asbestos exposure and sets out the processes to be followed in the event that asbestos is damaged or disturbed. Part of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord erred in exposing the property to asbestos in the first instance and that it thereafter did not follow the correct health and safety processes as per the AMP. As will be considered in more detail below under complaint handling, the landlord did not address this aspect of the complaint in its stage 1 or stage 2 responses. The landlord has however provided the Ombudsman with information on its subsequent health and safety investigation into the incident.
As per the landlord’s investigation notes, its contracts manager and supervisor met the morning of 23 February 2023. During the meeting the contracts manager stated that ‘the boxing around the pipework is presumed asbestos and must not be disturbed’. The landlord’s investigation notes state that after a review of the pipework, the supervisor and plumber decided to re-route the waste pipe. The wastewater pipe ran through an airing cupboard and into a boxed in soil stack. The supervisor instructed the plumber to unscrew one of the panels of the boxing. The panel broke off in the plumber’s hands and both realised at this point the material could be asbestos.
The resident has told this Service that he reminded the operatives about the possibility of asbestos prior to their attempt to remove the panel and suggested they may be best to leave it. The landlord states that the operatives deny this conversation took place. The resident advised the landlord when escalating his complaint that he gave this warning. It is also clear that the contracts manager and supervisor were aware that there was asbestos around the pipework prior to unscrewing the panelling. However, the landlord did not address this in its complaint response. It is therefore not known if the landlord accepts that the operatives ought to have had a reasonable suspicion that the panel contained asbestos prior to their attempt to remove it. On receipt of the resident’s complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made such enquiries with the operatives to seek clarification. This is because process 4 of the AMP makes clear that work must stop where suspect material is found and may only continue following consultation with the asbestos register and relevant surveys. Making such enquiries with the operatives would have allowed the landlord to satisfy itself that appropriate action had been taken, or to identify failings and take steps to put things right.
Once the panel was broken, the landlord accepts that one of the operatives carried it in two parts downstairs and through the house. He sealed and bagged it outside. This did not comply with process 5 of the AMP which requires that once it is suspected asbestos has been disturbed or damaged, all persons should be excluded from the immediate area. The area should only be cleared of the asbestos by a licenced asbestos removal contractor. The operative who brought the panel outside and then bagged it was not a specialist asbestos contractor. The landlord therefore failed to comply with the AMP in its removal of the panel from the property.
The landlord proceeded to take some appropriate follow up action. In line with its AMP, it secured the site and arranged for specialists to test the panel for asbestos and carry out air monitoring. The property passed the initial air test but the panel was confirmed to contain asbestos. The landlord arranged for an environmental clean to be carried out and extended the resident’s decant to enable this to happen. The incident was referred to a health and safety manager who instigated an internal post-incident investigation into how the asbestos was disturbed in the first place. A serious incident report form was completed and senior management was notified.
While the landlord undertook a post-incident investigation, the evidence does not demonstrate that it gathered statements from all witnesses. A witness statement was obtained from one of the operatives. However, the landlord should also have obtained statements from the other operative and the resident. The investigation notes make no reference to the fact the resident was even present. This meant that while the landlord may have investigated the incident, it was only informed about the sequence of events from one perspective. The resident has however advised the Ombudsman of the events as he saw them unfold. A number of the points he raised are concerning and would, had the landlord taken a witness statement from him, have reasonably warranted further investigation and a landlord response. For example:
1. The resident said he warned the operatives prior to the removal of the panel that it may contain asbestos. He says they ignored him and removed it anyway.
2. The resident said that after the operative brought the broken panel outside, he went back into the house. While inside, he moved coats from the hallway and into the living room. This would be a further serious breach of the AMP as it meant he was entering an area that should have been off-limits. He was also risking further spread of asbestos fibres by moving exposed items.
3. The resident said that the day after the incident, the landlord advised him he and his family could return home. He said that he “pushed back” on this and told the landlord that cleaning would be required. The landlord then agreed to an environmental clean which uncovered there were asbestos fibres in the hallway carpets.
That a witness statement was not sought from the resident is a significant failing. It meant a thorough post-incident investigation was not carried out and serious concerns raised by the resident were unaddressed. A further post-incident failing was that the landlord put nothing in writing to the resident. The AMP provides that where asbestos is disturbed, the landlord must write to the tenant and any other exposed person to inform them of the event and any significant findings of the investigation. The resident received no such written information.
The landlord had a second opportunity to engage with the resident given he specifically raised concern about health and safety compliance during the complaint process. However, as will be considered in more detail below under complaint handling, the landlord failed to address this aspect of the complaint. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and considering whether the resident’s view of events warranted further investigation.
Asbestos legislation, policies and procedures are designed to protect everyone. They should be strictly adhered to. Any deviation must be taken seriously and thoroughly investigated. The landlord’s initial failure to follow its processes, coupled with its failure to then investigate the incident thoroughly, amounts to severe maladministration. Its failure to engage with the resident on the issue of health and safety compliance, even when specifically asked to do so during the complaint process, demonstrated a lack of transparency and accountability.
With regard to the impact on the resident, he said when escalating his complaint that the landlord’s failure to follow its processes led directly to his decant being extended. It also led to a substantial loss of personal property. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to this in its complaint responses, but in the Ombudsman’s view, it is a reasonable conclusion. The landlord’s initial handling of the asbestos in the property was the catalyst for the series of events that followed. Had it not been disturbed in the first place, there would not have been a need for an environmental clean and the decant would not have been extended. The resident and his family would have been spared the stress and inconvenience they suffered due to spending almost a month in confined hotel rooms with 2 young children. They would not have returned home 27 days later to a leaking ceiling, no carpets, no towels, limited bedding and limited clothing. The resident would not have had to go to the time and trouble of pursuing the associated complaints, addressed below, regarding the decant and compensation. He would not have been financially disadvantaged due to having to pay money upfront to replace essential items, pending the landlord’s decision on his compensation request and his subsequent challenge to this. Accordingly, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £1,000 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the severe maladministration.
The landlord is also ordered to conduct a thorough post-incident review of the asbestos incident, ensuring that witness statements are obtained as part of this from the resident and anyone else present at the property on the day of the incident . A member of the senior management team should be involved in this process. The landlord should then write to the resident to advise him of the findings of the review.

The landlord’s handling of a decant

The resident and his family were initially decanted from the property for 3 nights while the bathroom repair was ongoing. This was extended once the asbestos was exposed to enable an environmental clean to be carried out. The decant was approved by the landlord in line with its decant policy. It provides that there will be a decant where water will not be available for a prolonged period of time, or where the building is unsafe or hazardous. It was therefore appropriate that the resident was decanted.
In a phone call to the landlord on 2 March 2023, 11 days into the decant, the resident complained. It was known at this stage that the decant would last at least another 2 weeks. The landlord proposed to move the family from their current 5 star hotel, which had interconnected rooms, to a budget hotel that did not. The resident was not happy with this. He explained that due to him and his wife working shifts, the interconnected rooms worked well as they could come and go without disturbing sleeping children. Having unconnected rooms would mean the children could not be left in a hotel room alone. He also complained about the length of the decant and a lack of communication from the landlord. He said the situation was putting his family under significant stress, with one of the children who had additional needs finding it particularly difficult. He pointed out that the landlord’s decant policy required it to support residents who were decanted. He said that he and his family had received no such support.
The landlord considered the request not to move the family to the other hotel. It instead sourced a vacant house that it believed would be suitable. However, the resident advised us that he was assured by the landlord that it would be thoroughly cleaned given one of his children had dust mite allergies. The resident and his family were moved into the house on 12 March 2023. The resident advised us that upon arriving there, the house was extremely dirty, covered in animal hair and had mouldy food in the fridge. The landlord refutes this and states that it offered to complete an additional clean, which the resident refused. The resident said that as it was unsuitable, the family moved in with friends and family. The landlord then moved the family to the budget hotel on 13 March 2023 where they stayed for 5 nights before returning home.
The landlord told the resident that it was moving him from the original hotel due to a lack of available rooms. The resident however has advised this Service that the hotel manager confirmed to him that there was no issue with availability in the hotel. He said he told the landlord this. The resident’s comments are not disputed. However, the landlord indicated in its internal correspondence that cost was also a factor. It said, “as per policy we should be offering a budget hotel.”
While the landlord was correct that the decant policy refers to budget hotels being used where a hotel stay is required, it does not appear to have considered other aspects of the policy. For example, the policy also states that hotel stays should be for 14 days or less. It requires the landlord to liaise with the resident to attempt to find suitable accommodation based on their needs and personal circumstances. The resident was not wishing to stay in the hotel they were in as it was 5 star rather than budget. He wanted to stay in it because the room set up enabled him and his wife to best care for their children in what was already a stressful situation. While the landlord attempted to accommodate this by sourcing a vacant property, once it was evident that was unsuitable, it reverted to its original plan. It has provided no evidence that it made reasonable attempts to source other suitable alternative accommodation.
The resident advised this Service that during his conversations with the landlord, it did not take his concerns about the interconnecting rooms seriously. He said it was dismissive and suggested the children, both aged 8, could be left in a hotel room alone. The landlord’s view on this is not known as it did not address the support provided during the decant in its complaint responses. It has not provided the Ombudsman with written records of telephone conversations with the resident. Its record keeping is considered below under complaint handling and an order is made that it reviews its approach to telephone records.
During the time the family were decanted, the landlord provided an allowance of £20 per day per person for meals in line with its decant policy. It also gave the resident a £50 voucher as most of his clothing was in the cupboard where the asbestos was discovered. The resident asked the landlord for some vouchers to buy the children toys as the family had only packed for a 3 day decant. They were unable to get back into the property to get more due to the ongoing asbestos investigations. The resident explained to the landlord at the time, and subsequently during the complaint process, of the additional stress the limited clothing and toys placed upon the family. He also asked the landlord to compensate him for £75 spent on 3 days out with the children during school strikes. He said that the trips out would not have been necessary if the children were at home.
The landlord declined the resident’s request for vouchers for toys and compensation for the 3 days out. In declining these requests, it does not appear to have considered the provision of its decant policy which states that on a case by case basis it may provide additional disturbance payments to tenants who need additional support, such as “those with young children”. The Ombudsman cannot say that had it considered this, it should have agreed to the requests as it would have been a discretionary decision for the landlord to make. However, it was unfair on the resident and his family that the landlord did not at least consider the requests with reference to the aspects of its policy requiring it to provide support. Even if it did not agree to cover expenses, it should reasonably have had a conversation with the resident to see if there was anything else it could do to relieve the pressure of the decant. Instead, it simply told the resident it did not agree to cover the expenses. This was an unsympathetic and unsupportive approach.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the decant. The landlord failed to acknowledge the impact of the decant on the resident and his family. This was despite the resident advising the landlord on a number of occasions of the stress the family were under and specifically asking for more support. Accordingly, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £450. This is to cover the cost of the additional expenses incurred by the resident while decanted, and also for the stress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation

Many items within the property were thrown away for health and safety reasons due to potentially being exposed to the asbestos. In addition to carpets, which were appropriately replaced by the landlord at its expense, clothing, toys, towels, bedding and other household items were disposed of. The resident asked the landlord to reimburse the full cost of these items which he estimated to be £2,164. Of this, £1,792 worth of items were disposed of by the landlord, with the remaining £372 worth of items thrown out by the resident in consultation with the landlord.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response that it would only reimburse the resident for items it had disposed of. It had taken photos of these items. The landlord has not provided evidence of an itemised list. It calculated the cost of replacing the items as being £1,200. Given the disparity between this and the resident’s £1,792 estimate, he queried how the landlord had calculated this figure. The landlord advised it ‘Googled’ to find a comparable price. In response, the resident said that a significant proportion of the items destroyed were specialist sizes and so could only be purchased from a specific online retailer. They could not be bought for less through other retailers as they did not offer those sizes. The resident provided a detailed list aligning each item with the relevant photograph and setting out where it was purchased from and its replacement cost. As most of the items had been bought for recent birthdays and Christmas, he was able to provide some receipts.
When escalating his complaint, the resident asked the landlord to reconsider the value it had placed on the items. He also asked the landlord to reconsider its decision not to reimburse him for the items he had disposed of. He said that he had only thrown out items that the landlord advised him should be destroyed and that he was, “reassured throughout this dreadful process that everything would be replaced.”
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it gave the resident conflicting advice. It apologised for giving incorrect information that it would provide a refund for all personal items disposed of. It then said that “the initial confirmation was that we would only reimburse for the items that our contractors had to dispose of due to contamination.” It said it would not change its mind on its position and that the resident had been compensated fairly.
Having reviewed the evidence, there appears to be a number of shortcomings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation. These include the following:
1. By the landlord’s own admission in the stage 2 response, it gave the resident conflicting advice about what its approach to compensation would be. It referred in that response to providing the resident with “initial confirmation” about what items would be reimbursed. However, it has not provided the Ombudsman with any written or phone records to demonstrate that it did make its position clear at the outset. Having acknowledged the conflicting advice provided, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether it should offer any redress in addition to an apology. It did not do this.
2. The landlord has not provided a fulsome explanation to either the resident or the Ombudsman as to why it distinguished between items it disposed of and items the resident disposed of. In it stage 2 response it simply stated that the decision was made in line with its policy. It is not clear what policy that is. Having reviewed the landlord’s ‘Compensation Procedure’ and ‘Decant, Home Loss and Disturbance Payments Procedure’, neither document appears to specifically address this issue. If it was contained in policy elsewhere, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide a fuller explanation of the policy in its complaint response. By simply saying its decision was based on policy, the landlord shut down that aspect of the resident’s complaint without fully engaging on it. This will be considered further below under complaint handling.
3. The resident did not throw the additional items out entirely of his own volition. He threw them out having discussed and agreed with the landlord that it would be best to do so for health and safety reasons. The landlord accepted that this discussion took place. It was reasonable that the resident relied and acted upon the landlord’s guidance. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to recognise this and instead made what appears to be an arbitrary distinction between who physically disposed of the items.
4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not acknowledge that it would cost the resident more to replace the items than its search engine calculation had accounted for. It did not indicate whether it had reviewed the receipts he had spent time and effort of collating and sending. This was unreasonable.
5. When sending the resident an acknowledgement that his initial complaint had been received, the landlord stated in the covering email that its “position stands” that the resident should make a claim on his home contents insurance policy. It said that if the resident was uninsured and believed the landlord was legally responsible for paying, then he would need to submit a letter of claim. It is unclear from the email whether the landlord was advising the resident at that stage to make a claim for all the items or just the items he had disposed of. Either way, as per the Ombudsman’s guidance on complaints involving insurance, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether there was any evidence that it was at fault for the loss of the resident’s belongings. The guidance states that if a landlord accepts that it was or may have been at fault, it may not be reasonable to ask residents to claim on their own contents insurance policy. Doing so will likely require the resident to pay an excess and may increase future premiums. Instead, in this case, the landlord placed the onus on proving it was at fault with the resident. This was unfair.
6. Despite the complaint acknowledgement email purporting to cite the landlord’s position on insurance, no reference was made to insurance in either of the complaint responses. Instead, by the end of the complaints process, the landlord’s position on insurance was unclear. The fact that it had paid for some items, albeit not all, indicated that it accepted some level of responsibility for the damage occurring in the first place. However, it failed to explain to the resident whether it accepted it was at fault even though the resident specifically asked it to address this when escalating his complaint.
In light of this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £300. This payment is to recognise the amount of time and trouble spent by the resident in itemising the destroyed belongings and pursuing this aspect of the complaint with the landlord.
The landlord has not provided a reasonable explanation as to:
1. Why it would not reimburse the resident for the items he disposed of under the landlord’s advice.
2. Why it would not accept the resident’s valuation of the items it disposed of.
Given this, the landlord is ordered to refer the resident’s claim for compensation for all items of personal property, regardless of who disposed of them, to its insurers. It should ask the insurer’s loss adjustors to assess the value of the claim. The landlord should then ensure this amount is paid to the resident, although it may deduct from this the £1,200 compensation it has already paid for loss of personal property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

As outlined above, the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the decant during a phone call on 2 March 2023. This was responded to informally by the landlord rather than progressed through the internal complaints process. The resident appears to have been in contact with the landlord on a number of other occasions to express dissatisfaction with the handling of the asbestos and the decant. He also complained when he returned home that the repair to the bathroom was not yet complete, there was a leak and carpets had been removed. As the landlord has not provided records of its telephone conversations with the resident, the Ombudsman is unable to assess whether it should have formalised the resident’s complaint sooner than it did. A record of the conversation that did lead to the landlord formalising a complaint had not been provided to the Ombudsman either. However, there is reference in the landlord’s correspondence to this conversation taking place on 20 March 2023. It is ordered that the landlord reviews its approach to keeping records of phone conversations. It should ensure that where relevant, these are copied to its complaint files when progressing a formal complaint.
The evidence suggests that the landlord may have accepted the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint on 20 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged receipt 4 working days later. It issued a stage 1 response 7 working days after the acknowledgement. The escalation request was made on 5 April 2023 and the stage 2 response was issued 9 working days later. Both responses were therefore issued within the response timeframes set out in the landlord’s complaints procedure and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord’s policy and the Code require that complaint responses address each aspect of the complaint. The stage 1 response addressed the length of time it took the landlord to complete the repairs in the property and the compensation request. As the contents of the phone conversation that instigated the formal complaint are not known, it is not possible to assess whether this response fully addressed all aspects of the initial complaint. However, in an email on 5 April 2023 in which the resident asked that the complaint was escalated, he said that there had been a “significant misunderstanding” about what his complaint was about. He outlined that it was not about the length of time it took to complete the work, but was about, “the workmanship/incompetency of the workmen” at his home. He said:
1. The operative should have known that the board he was removing was asbestos and he should have taken precautions before removing it.
2. When the asbestos board was broken, proper procedures were not followed which was a “very serious breach of health and safety.”
3. The removal of the board and follow up actions, “led directly to my family having to leave home and have the dreadful decant experience we have had. This is at the crux of our complaint.”
In a further email sent on 19 April 2023, the resident explained again that the main focus of his complaint was that health and safety procedures had not been followed.
The landlord made no reference in its stage 1 response to whether correct procedures had been followed when the asbestos was exposed. It provided no view on whether it believed it was responsible for the lengthy decant and loss of belongings that then followed. Despite the resident making it very clear that he wished this to be addressed during the complaint review, the landlord failed to engage on this issue in the stage 2 response. Instead, it said that the escalation request contained “no new information” and therefore it would not be considering the complaint further.
It is difficult to understand how the landlord overlooked that it had not addressed the main aspect of the resident’s complaint. It is concerning that it did not do so when a serious concern regarding failure to comply with health and safety procedures had been raised. Given the landlord had carried out a post-incident investigation, as outlined above, it would have been reasonable to share the findings of this with the resident. It would have demonstrated good complaint handling practice to acknowledge where it had made mistakes and the steps it was taking to learn from these. By not doing this, the landlord displayed a lack of transparency and accountability.
There were other issues raised by the resident in the escalation email that were not addressed by the landlord in the stage 2 response. These included:
1. Why a decision was made to pay compensation for items the landlord disposed of, but not items the resident disposed of. It referred only to this decision being made based on its policy. It did not say what this policy was or explain how it applied to this situation.
2. Why the landlord would not accept the resident’s valuation of the items based on the actual replacement value, as opposed to a search engine calculation.
3. The resident’s “truly awful” experience during the decant. He said in the escalation request that the landlord did not keep him informed and failed to support him and his family. He said, “the period of time we had to be out of our home was not our fault and consequently, we would have expected to have been supported and assisted more positively rather than the experience we had which was to be made to feel a problem because of our requests. The whole experience has been deeply difficult and distressing.”
That the landlord did not address these aspects of the complaint in its stage 2 response was unreasonable and unsympathetic.
There were also some procedural failings by the landlord in its complaint handling. These were as follows:
1. The landlord did not advise the resident in its stage 1 response that it had a 2 stage process. It did not explain how the resident could request that his complaint was escalated.
2. When the resident asked to escalate the complaint, the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with no evidence to indicate that it acknowledged the escalation request.
3. Instead, what followed was an email to and fro between the resident and the complaint handler who issued the stage 1 response. The same complaint handler then purported to issue the stage 2 response by email on 19 April 2024. The email set out that the landlord had not changed its position in relation to compensation. It advised the resident that if he was unhappy with the decision or how the complaint had been handled, he could contact the Ombudsman. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s complaint policy or the Code which require a stage 2 review to be undertaken by a different member of staff than the one who dealt with the stage 1 complaint. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction at the initial stage 2 response and asked to speak to a manager. The next day, a further stage 2 response, written officially in letter format, was issued by a manager. This could understandably create the impression that an independent review of the stage 1 complaint response had not been undertaken.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord did not fully comply with its complaints policy or the Code. It failed to address all aspects of the complaint, even when this was clearly pointed out to it on at least 2 occasions by the resident. Its stage 2 response did not demonstrate that it had undertaken a thorough review of the complaint. It offered limited sympathy to the resident and missed the opportunity to acknowledge its mistakes and to put things right. Accordingly, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £300. This is to reflect the time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing his complaint and explaining to the landlord what the focus of it was.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of a decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It should be made by the Chief Executive.
2. Pay the resident £2,050 compensation for distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble, due to the failings identified in this report. The amount is broken down as follows:
  1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the severe maladministration in its handling of asbestos in the property.
  2. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of the decant.
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its response to the resident’s request for compensation.
  4. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its complaint handling.

If the landlord has already paid the resident the £300 compensation it offered in its stage 1 complaint response, this amount may be deducted from the compensation of £2,050 ordered above.

Refer the resident’s claim for compensation for all items of personal property, regardless of who disposed of them, to its insurers. It should ask the insurer’s loss adjustors to assess the value of the claim. The landlord should then ensure this amount is paid to the resident, although it may deduct from this the £1,200 compensation it has already paid for loss of personal property.

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Conduct a thorough post-incident review of the asbestos incident, ensuring that witness statements are obtained as part of this from the resident and anyone else present at the property on the day of the incident. A member of the senior management team should be involved in this process. The landlord should then write to the resident to advise him of the findings of the review.
2. Review its approach to keeping records of phone conversations. It should ensure that these are copied to its complaint files where relevant when progressing formal complaints.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should carry out a senior manager case review in relation to the failures identified by the Ombudsman. The review should be carried out within 12 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should share the findings of its review with its senior leadership team and the Ombudsman.