Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202335489)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335489

The Guinness Partnership Limited

7 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 response to requests to be decanted while asbestos work was carried out.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident held a secure tenancy with the landlord in a 3-bedroom house. She occupied the property with her 3 children one of whom was a newborn baby at the time of the complaint. The resident moved out of the property on 30 April 2023 and is no longer a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 4 August 2022 the landlord’s contractor carried out an asbestos survey of the kitchen where they found asbestos in the plasterboard ceiling. On 22 August 2022 the landlord asked its contractor to remove the asbestos. Subsequently, the resident asked the landlord to decant her while the work took place as she felt unsafe. Further, she explained that she would need access to a fridge for breastmilk. On 5 September 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. She said her ceiling was leaking and was concerned about the health and safety risk due to the asbestos. As such, she wanted the landlord to decant her immediately. On 13 September 2022, the landlord’s contractor conducted an asbestos survey of the entire property, finding textured coating asbestos throughout.
  3. On 14 September 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said that the asbestos was low risk and there was no risk of exposure to the household. The resident disputed this and felt that the bathroom and kitchen ceiling were unsafe and asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. On 10 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. In summary, it said the resident did not need to be decanted as it could safely remove the asbestos from the bathroom and kitchen ceiling with the household in situ.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord again on 18 October 2022. She was unhappy with the delay in removing the asbestos which she believed was due to the landlord’s failure to arrange a decant for her. She was also unhappy with the landlord’s communication with her and felt it was putting her family at risk. On 21 October 2022 the landlord agreed to provide the resident with a mini fridge in the property while the work took place. The resident declined this stating that she required access to running water, a countertop and a toilet and wanted the landlord to decant her to a house or flat.
  5. On 27 October 2022 the landlord issued another stage 1 response. It said it had paused the work as the resident was not at the property. It explained that while it could consider placing her in a hotel, the hotels it used would not provide a fridge or access to a kitchen. It repeated its suggestion to provide a mini fridge she could use in her lounge at home. Unhappy with this response the resident asked to escalate her complaint the same day. The landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 29 November 2022. It said it would take 2 days to complete the work and reiterated that the resident did not need to be decanted while this work took place. In addition, it offered £25 compensation for its poor communication during its stage 2 investigation.
  6. In the resident’s referral to this Service, she was unhappy with the landlord’s suggestion of a mini fridge and felt it should have decanted her to a house or flat. On 8 July 2024 the landlord reviewed the complaint and offered a further £200 compensation, comprised of £100 for its failures in the handling of the complaint and £100 for its poor communication.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to requests to be decanted while asbestos work was carried out

  1. When a resident raises a concern with a landlord, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to consider this, and provide a timely clear response, setting out its position.
  2. The landlord’s decant policy states that it will rehouse residents as an emergency if their home is uninhabitable or if the condition of the property poses a significant threat to health and safety and a temporary solution cannot be put in place.
  3. The policy states that it might need to arrange temporary rehousing in situations where there is no immediate emergency, but repairs are required, and it is not safe to do the repairs while the resident is still living in the property. It lists asbestos removal where access restrictions cannot be accommodated as an example of this. In these situations, it states it has more time to find suitable alternative accommodation and will seek a similar landlord property in the local area. If there is nothing available, it will consider other options. It adds that it will discuss rehousing options and preferences where there is a choice so that it finds a solution that best meets the resident’s needs.
  4. On 24 August 2022 the resident advised the landlord that its contractor had told her that she would need to be decanted due to asbestos in the property. In response, the landlord acted appropriately by checking with its contractor. They advised the landlord that if the resident could access a fire exit without having to enter the kitchen, they would be able to undertake the asbestos work with the resident in the property. They added that if this was not the case the resident would need to be out of the property for the duration of the works but could return to the property the same day on completion.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again at the beginning of September 2022. She repeated her wish to be decanted as she believed it was unsafe for her to be in the property while the work took place. She added she would need access to a fridge for breast milk for her newborn baby. In response, the landlord advised that the relevant team would assess her request and get back to her. This was reasonable.
  6. While it is acknowledged that the resident believed this was an emergency that was a risk to her health and safety, there was no evidence that this was the case. Indeed, the asbestos surveys carried out on 22 August and 13 September 2022 assessed the asbestos risk in the property as low. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to allow itself time to fully consider the resident’s decant request. Nevertheless, it should have reassured her of this. Further, the landlord missed opportunities to discuss her concerns directly with her to ensure it appropriately addressed them.
  7. It was not until 21 October 2022 that the landlord responded to her concerns over access to a fridge. While it should have responded these concerns sooner, its solution to provide a mini fridge was reasonable. It was also in line with its policy which indicates that it will explore temporary solutions to a decant where the situation is not an emergency. However, the resident raised further concerns. She said that she needed access to a countertop to make bottles and access to the steriliser unit in the kitchen. She added that she would also need access to a toilet and advised that she was told that the work would take 2 days to complete. Yet there was no evidence that the landlord fully addressed these concerns until its 29 November 2022 final response, over a month later. This was a communication failure on the landlord’s part that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who likely felt that her concerns were being ignored.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s responses to the resident’s requests to be decanted were reasonable. It considered her requests and responded to her concerns clearly setting out its position. Further, its decision-making was fair and in line with its policy and demonstrated that it considered if it should provide temporary housing in the circumstances. In doing so it considered whether hotel accommodation was appropriate and managed the resident’s expectations around the amenities a hotel could provide. Further, the landlord indicated that this option was possible should the resident wish. This was reasonable in the circumstances and particularly given the length of time the work was likely to take.
  9. Nevertheless, it failed to set out its position in a timely manner and its communication with the resident was unsatisfactory at times. Furthermore, there was little evidence that the landlord had any meaningful discussion with the resident about her housing options, other than in its formal responses. This was contrary to its policy and its communication should have been better to understand the resident’s needs.
  10. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord apologised for its communication failures in its July 2024 complaint review and offered £100 compensation in recognition. Its findings and the solutions offered outside its complaints process met this Service’s expectations and guidance for appropriate resolution and redress. This Service also acknowledges that the landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from its failings to prevent this from happening again.
  11. However, this Service expects the landlord to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2. Had the landlord done so, it would have identified its failings sooner and had the opportunity to put things right through its complaints process. It appears to this Service that the landlord only undertook a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. Had the landlord offered this compensation during the complaints process it likely would have been satisfactory in putting things right. As it did not, however, this Service has determined that there was service failure in its response to requests to be decanted while asbestos work was carried out.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident first complained to the landlord on 5 September 2022. In the complaint, she said she ‘should be decanted immediately’. While the landlord set out in proportionate detail the low risk associated with the asbestos it failed to respond to her request to be decanted. it was not until the landlord’s 10 October 2022 final response that it addressed this request, which it failed to do adequately. The evidence indicated that the landlord was aware of her concerns about having access to a kitchen to meet her child’s needs. However, the landlord did not provide a direct response to this. This would have caused frustration to the resident who likely felt the landlord was not listening to her concerns.
  2. Further, had the landlord fully addressed these points, this may have prevented it from having to raise a new complaint about the same issues on 18 October 2022. In fact, it is not entirely clear why the landlord provided new complaint responses as many of these issues were connected and related in part to the resident’s requests to be decanted. In addition, the landlord’s formal responses failed to identify or address its poor communication despite the resident raising this as an issue throughout. While the landlord’s 29 November 2022 response offered £25 compensation for its poor communication at stage 2, it did not provide an adequate explanation for this. In any event, the landlord should pay this amount to the resident if it has not done so already.
  3. The landlord’s July 2024 complaint review identified most of these failings and offered a £100 compensation. Further, it identified learning such as staff training. Overall, its compensation offer was broadly in line with this Service remedies guidance which suggests awards of up to £100 should be considered where there have been fallings that have caused frustration to the resident but may not have affected the overall outcome. Nonetheless, the landlord should have recognised these complaint handling errors sooner and within its complaints process. As such, this amounts to service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to requests to be decanted while asbestos work was carried out.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
  1. Pay the resident compensation of £225 comprised of:
    1. £25 as offered in its 29 November 2022 final response if it has not done so already.
    2. £100 as offered in its July 2024 review for its poor communication if it has not done so already.
    3. £100 as offered in its July 2024 review for its complaint handling failures if it has not done so already.
  1. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.