Hyde Housing Association Limited (202319405)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319405

Hyde Housing Association Limited

13 February 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:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos works.
   2. Complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
3. Prior to June 2023, the landlord agreed to re–level the resident’s living room flooring. Given that there were asbestos tiles beneath the floor covers, a specialist asbestos contractor was used to level the floor and make it safe.
4. The contractor attended on 26 June 2023 and ground down the flooring. The initial intention was to relay the existing floor covers; however, these needed to be disposed of due to asbestos contamination. The contractor was supposed to seal the remaining asbestos floor tiles; however, the resident’s position is that this did not take place.
5. The resident reported concerns that the floor had been left unsealed on 27 June 2023. He chased up this concern on 28 June 2023. The landlord attended on 30 June 2023 and added a latex covering to the flooring, which sealed it.
6. The landlord raised a formal complaint on 3 July 2023 and advised it would provide a response by 17 July 2023.
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 July 2023. It acknowledged that repairs should have been completed sooner and offered £300 compensation. This included £50 for complaint handling failures, £50 for the resident’s time and trouble, £50 for delays, and £150 for distress and inconvenience. It also offered £776.59 towards new underlay and carpeting.
8. The landlord initially advised that it would credit any compensation against rent arrears; however, the resident disputed this was fair in the circumstances. The landlord subsequently agreed to pay him the compensation directly.
9. In its response, the landlord noted that the floor was sealed during works on 26 June 2023 (incorrectly noted in the response as occurring on 25 May 2023). The resident disputed this and expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not considered the distress this had caused him. He resubmitted photo and video evidence, which he considered demonstrated that no sealant had been used.
10. It is evident that the landlord discussed the concerns with the asbestos contractor, who “confirmed that a sealant was definitely applied to the flooring, and it was not left in an unsafe condition.”
11. The landlord escalated the complaint on 21 August 2023. At this time, it noted it had previously closed the resident’s stage 1 complaint, to which the resident expressed dissatisfaction given that he had not been notified of this step.
12. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 1 September 2023. It reiterated its position that, based on its investigation, it considered that sealant had been applied. It also increased its offer of compensation for poor complaints handling to £150.
13. The resident has advised this service that as of June 2024, he was still yet to receive the compensation payments offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

14. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues he reported and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted his health.
15. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on his health, he has the option to seek legal advice.
16. The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.

Asbestos

17. The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that an ‘emergency repair’ will be attended to within 24 hours. An emergency repair includes repairs where there may be an immediate risk to the health and safety of a resident.
18. It is not disputed that the resident reported on 27 June 2023 that he considered that the floors had been left unsealed. At this time, he expressed concerns about the safety of the property and specifically noted potential asbestos dust particles in the air. He also provided photographic evidence related to his concerns.
19. It is not evident that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports within 4 hours, as required by its policy. Given the nature of the reports and the safety concerns raised, the landlord should have considered whether an emergency response was required; however, there is no evidence that it did so. This led the resident to expend time and trouble chasing the matter on 28 June 2023.
20. As part of its response, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out a reasonable investigation about its repair responsibility. While it is evident it consulted its records, which indicated that a sealant had been applied, it is not evident it considered the resident’s photographs at this time. This is further demonstrated by the fact that the landlord later had to ask the resident to provide them again. In the circumstances, it should have considered an in-person inspection of the property. This would have allowed it to either take urgent repair action or otherwise provide an informed position to the resident. Its failure to do so would have caused significant distress for the resident.
21. While it is evident that it applied latex on 30 June 2023, this action was nevertheless outside of the timeframes for an emergency repair. Its failure to adequately investigate whether an emergency repair was required means that this subsequent action cannot be determined to have been within a reasonable timeframe.
22. Following the resident’s formal complaint, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out a reasonable complaint investigation. In this case, it consulted again with its contractor, who reassured it that a sealant had been applied. However, it is not evident that it provided the contractor with the resident’s photos for their comment. Additionally, the landlord had the opportunity to question its operative who laid the latex for their perspective, but once again, it did not do so. This failing was compacted as it missed the opportunity to take these steps at both stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process. Given these missed opportunities, the landlord’s investigation was not sufficiently thorough.
23. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord was proactive in offering to reimburse the resident for new carpeting and underlay. This step was positive and was in line with this service’s dispute resolution principle of ‘putting things right’. However, the resident has noted there was a delay in the payment of this money. A recommendation has therefore been made below for the landlord to make this payment, if it is still outstanding.
24. In summary, the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports was not in line with its policy. It also subsequently failed to carry out a sufficiently thorough investigation of its actions. While the landlord recognised there had been delays, time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience, its offer of £250 was not proportionate in the circumstances. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made, as has an order for £500 compensation. This is made up of £100 for the resident’s time and trouble and £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This order replaces the landlord’s offer of £250.

Complaints handling

25. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. The policy notes that a stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The policy also notes that the resident will be informed when a case is being closed.
26. Given the resident’s concerns, it was appropriate that the landlord raised a formal complaint on 3 July 2023. It committed to providing a response by 17 July 2023. It did not, however, provide its response until 20 July 2023. While this was only 3 days late, it is not evident that it informed the resident that there would be a delay. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged there had been failings and offered £50 compensation to reflect the delay.
27. It subsequently closed the complaint without informing the resident. While it appropriately reopened the complaint when an escalation was necessary, it was nevertheless a departure from its policy. Once again, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings and increased the offer of compensation for complaints handling to £150.
28. In summary, there were some delays and a lack of communication. However, the landlord offered compensation for the impact this caused, which was in line with this service’s remedies guidance for instances of service failure where there has been no lasting impact. A finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made.

Determination (decision)

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos works.
30. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

31. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £500 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings relating to the asbestos.
32. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £250. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

33. The landlord is to reiterate its offer of £150 for poor complaints handling, if this is yet to have been accepted.
34. The landlord is to reiterate its offer of £776.59 for new carpet and underlay, if this is yet to have been paid.