Torus62 Limited (202345588)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345588

Torus62 Limited

30 May 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 resident’s complaint is regarding the landlord’s:
1. Response to her concerns that works were not carried out in line with asbestos regulations and guidelines.
2. Management of asbestos removal, subsequent clean up and associated repairs.
3. Response to her request to replace her upstairs carpets.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to concerns that works were not carried out in line with asbestos regulations and guidelines.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.”
Companies that remove asbestos must be licensed and registered with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). If there are concerns that the landlord’s asbestos contractor breached relevant regulations relating to asbestos removal, these should be reported to the HSE, who have the power to investigate the conduct of their licensed practitioners. The Housing Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the company or determine whether works were carried out in line with the requirements of their HSE licence. However, we can investigate how the landlord responded to the concerns the resident raised.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has lived with her daughter at the property, described as a 3-bedroom, semi-detached house, since 2008.
The landlord has advised it is unaware of the resident or her daughter having any vulnerabilities. However, the resident has advised this Service that she, her daughter and mother have suffered physical and mental health issues following the removal of the asbestos and her displacement from the property.
On 7 September 2023, the landlord’s asbestos contractor attended the property to carry out a survey, as requested by the landlord. They recommended that asbestos was removed from the front bedroom and encapsulated in the rear bedroom. An appointment was later agreed for 3 October 2023 when works were completed.
The resident submitted a complaint on 5 October 2023. She said she had been “traumatised” by the asbestos removal works and raised concerns including:
1. The operatives had been due to remove asbestos from the ceiling and walls but said they were only “down” to do the ceilings.
2. The rooms were not sealed property, doors were not taped up properly and asbestos dust was “everywhere up and down stairs”.
3. The operatives made more mess than the ought to have done as they were “hammering the walls” by hand as they didn’t have relevant machinery/tools.
4. She said the operatives acted like “cowboys” when compared to previous asbestos removal work that had been carried out in her home and were “running up and down stairs…carrying the bags of waste” which further spread dust around.
5. Her back bedroom had been painted and she was unsure why.
6. She planned to arrange for asbestos dust to be removed privately as she no longer trusted the landlord’s contractors.
Records indicate the landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
The resident later raised further concerns about asbestos in the ceiling of the rear bedroom. The landlord raised an order for this to be removed. The works were booked in for its asbestos removal contractor on 22 November 2023.
On 19 November 2023 (although the letter appears to have been dated 2024), the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It understood the complaint to be about how asbestos works were carried out at her property on 3 October 2023. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
1. It had discussed the situation with the resident on 9 October 2023 and offered an apology for any distress caused by the works. It had passed on concerns she raised over cleanliness with its asbestos removal contractor and it said they also passed on their apologies “if their works was not up to the required standard on this occasion”.
2. On 9 October 2023, it spoke to the resident and offered an air test for reassurance, which she accepted. It also offered a deep clean of the property. The resident declined this as she had already arranged one.
3. In a further phone call on 13 October 2023, it said the resident had requested for the air test to be cancelled and she did not feel it was necessary. It said she had agreed for the complaint to be closed.
4. Further unspecified issues, which were “outside the remit” of the original complaint, were being addressed separately.
The day before the rear bedroom ceiling was due to be removed, the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns about the dust that was present in the room and whether she could touch furniture or personal items where it had settled. The landlord responded the same day to advise it did not believe the dust was anything to be concerned about and it had likely formed due to the fact she had not been residing at the property since the previous works.
Following the landlord’s complaint response, the resident contacted her local MP regarding her outstanding concerns. There followed correspondence between the landlord and the resident’s MP over subsequent months which was parallel to the landlord’s complaint procedure.
On 7 December 2023, the landlord wrote a response to the resident’s MP. It addressed her concerns regarding how the contractor carried out the works, the lack of cleanliness after works were completed, the reported cracks in the second bedroom (which was then removed in November 2023), the removal of affected belongings and her belief that her family’s life had been put in danger. Within its response, it advised it would reimburse the cost of the cleaning the resident had arranged to be done privately and asked her to submit an invoice and certificate of cleanliness. It also said it was willing to reimburse her for personal items that had been disposed of, including her daughter’s bed.
On 24 January 2024, the resident contacted the landlord again via her MP. She raised concerns over the landlord’s “lack of accountability” and reiterated many of her concerns about how the asbestos removal had been carried out. She also reiterated that her property had been left in an unclean state following the removal works which took place on 3 October 2023.
In an email to the MP on 8 February 2024, the landlord clarified it would reimburse her for personal items that were disposed of. These included the bedframe, cushions and pillows, a vacuum cleaner and her daughter’s make up brushes. It did not include the carpets to either bedroom or the landing area.
Following an inspection carried out on 15 March 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident the same day to outline the orders that had been raised to address outstanding repair issues. These included for a radiator to be refitted in her daughter’s bedroom and for both bedrooms to be redecorated.
The resident contacted this service on 25 March 2024 to advise the landlord had now reimbursed her £985 to cover personal items outlined above.
On 26 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and stated she wanted the contact to be treated as a complaint escalation request. She raised concerns over issues she considered outstanding, which included:
1. Her daughter’s bedroom did not have a radiator and this was not scheduled to be resolved until an appointment on 15 May 2024.
2. Bedroom redecorations had not begun until 26 April 2024.
3. The landlord had not reimbursed the resident’s mother for the cost of asbestos cleaning, which she said amounted to £500 and she had been “assured” would be covered.
4. Neither the landlord nor its contractor had offered her mother compensation to reflect the fact she and her daughter had been living with her for the past 6 months (since the first asbestos removal)
5. She wanted the landlord or its contractor to agree to replace the upstairs carpets, including those on the landing and stairs. She believed these had been exposed to asbestos dust and “suffered due to (the contractors’s) lack of Health and Safety compliance”.
6. The landlord should provide an unspecified amount of compensation to recognise the distress she and her daughter had been caused.
7. The landlord should provide responses to witness statements she had submitted, which related to the contractor’s alleged lack of compliance with Health and Safety guidelines.
On 23 May 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It summarised its understanding of the outstanding issues and advised it had reviewed all relevant correspondence and discussed her concerns with its contractor. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
1. While it acknowledged there had been “challenges and repairs”, it was satisfied there was nothing stopping the resident from living at the property.
2. It accepted her daughter’s bedroom did not have a radiator. However, it said there was “heating throughout the rest of the property”, including in the 2 other bedrooms. It said it could have arranged for an electric radiator to be provided, or another alternative heat source, if the resident had been living in the property. However, it understood this would not have been ideal.
3. It upheld the resident’s complaint about the headboard of a bed being removed by the contractor, despite this supporting the rest of the bed. It apologised and said it had implemented new processes with its contractor to ensure a similar situation did not happen again when items were removed.
4. It apologised for the delayed repair to re-hang the radiator in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom and to redecorate the 2 other bedrooms and partially upheld this aspect of the complaint.
5. It agreed that the contractor’s service had been “below the required standard” and upheld this aspect of the complaint. But it said this was for “a different reason other than site quality” and only related to their failure to take before and after pictures as they had been asked to do. The landlord said the contractor was otherwise confident they completed “all works correctly and in line with (the licensed contractors guide)”. It said the contractor would be providing additional training to its staff internally.
6. It upheld the complaint about the resident’s mother not being refunded for the cost of asbestos cleaning and confirmed it would do so. However, it was “only agreeing to pay this out of courtesy”. It had arranged for a clean up but the resident had refused this as she had already made other arrangements. It also noted that the “statement of cleanliness” the resident had now provided was not completed by a licenced asbestos removal contractor. It said that “no asbestos dust was cleaned”, otherwise the company would have had to remove the carpets for health and safety reasons.
7. It did not agree to pay to replace the upstairs carpets in the property and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. It stated, “if the carpets were exposed to asbestos, then they would be removed by the asbestos contractor as it would be unsafe to leave them”. They could not be cleaned. It noted that both contractors (its own and the company the resident arranged to carry out asbestos cleaning) had “left (the carpets) down in situ” and vacuumed them off for plaster dust.
8. Regarding the witness statements, it said there had been “a lot of to and from”, with statements being provided by both the resident and contractor. It reiterated its disappointment that they contractor had not taken before and after photos during their attendance. It proposed that one of the contractor’s Contract Managers meet the resident at her property to discuss her concerns and “come to a resolution”. It could confirm an appointment later once the resident had considered the offer further.
9. It clarified that 4 aspects of the complaint had been upheld. It apologised for the inconvenience the resident had been caused and said it was prepared to offer £700 compensation. This consisted of £500 to reimburse the cost of the asbestos cleaning and £200 to reflect the distress and inconvenience the resident and her family had been caused.

Scope of investigation

As noted in the background section above, in her correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident has reported that her family experienced health issues because of the events which followed the removal of asbestos from her property. While the resident’s concerns regarding their health is noted, we will not consider this aspect of the complaint.
This is because the courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury/illness. Independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence, and oral testimony can be provided. We would also be unable to assess whether there is any potential detriment caused by events that have not yet occurred, such as the resident’s son’s employment opportunities.
We can, however, consider any distress or inconvenience that was caused because of any inaction or failings by the landlord.
Similarly, we are not able to determine whether the resident’s upstairs carpets have, or have not, been exposed to asbestos fibres, or determine that the carpets need to be removed for health and safety reasons. What we can assess is how landlord responded to those concerns, and how they communicated their findings or investigation of the issue with the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s management of asbestos removal, subsequent clean up and associated repairs

From the evidence seen, the landlord responded appropriately when the resident raised concerns regarding Asbestos in August 2023. Records showed that surveys in previous years had confirmed the presence of asbestos in the property and now she raised concerns about some cracks and dust that had appeared. The landlord appropriately arranged for a new survey to be carried out by its asbestos removal contractor.
The contractor recommended the removal of asbestos from the resident’s front bedroom, and “encapsulation” in the rear one. Works were appropriately raised, including reinstatement plastering repairs to take place the following day. The landlord’s response was reasonable and timely.
However, soon after its contractors attended, the resident raised a complaint as she had concerns with how the works had been done. She was particularly unhappy with how the property had been left after works were completed. The contractor had also allegedly not adhered to health and safety guidelines.
The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s complaint and contacted her the same day to try and allay her concerns about the dust present in the property. In further contact with her over the next few days, it acted reasonably by offering to arrange a clean of the property and an air test, which it hoped would provide her with reassurance. These were reasonable steps for it to take. Following further contact, after the resident initially declined an air test as she had already had the property cleaned, an air test was rearranged for 23 October 2023. Again, this was reasonable and arranged promptly. It is noted the air test found the “measured airborne respirable fibre concentrations” were below the limit of detection and indicated the room was safe for occupation.
When the resident raised further concerns about cracks that had appeared in the rear bedroom, and dust that had fallen on her daughter’s bed, the landlord again attended promptly. A further survey was carried out by its asbestos contractor and an order was raised to remove the rear bedroom ceiling. This was completed on 22 November 2023, again in a timely manner.
In its complaint responses, the landlord accepted that the asbestos contractor had not taken before and after photos of the property when it attended in October 2023. It acknowledged this made it difficult to refute the resident’s claims regarding the condition of the property when the contractors left. In its stage 2 response, it accepted the contractor’s service had been “below the required standard” and upheld this part of the complaint. However, it stressed this did not relate to the repair works carried out themselves, only to the site quality. It had fed back the resident’s concerns to the contractor and said it had been advised they would be providing additional training to staff.
Regarding the asbestos removal works, this was a reasonable response. Records show the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously from the time she first raised them and discussed the case with the contractor. It had offered a reassurance air test and to clean the property, although the resident had already arranged this privately. The landlord later agreed to reimburse the resident for the cost of this (£500). The available evidence indicates the resident’s concerns were appropriately investigated. She was provided with evidence of the contractor’s licence and registrations. The contractor’s operatives provided witness statements regarding their attendances at the property, while the landlord also considered witness statements the resident provided which outlined concerns over health and safety practices. It took the concerns seriously and gave them due consideration.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord reasonably acknowledged there were differing versions of events. It attempted to allay some of the resident’s concerns raised by, for example, stressing that had the contractor’s operatives not been wearing appropriate PPE, they would have been putting both their health and practicing licences at significant risk. While it did not categorically say this had not happened, it highlighted that it had spoken with the contractor to obtain their version of events and that there did not appear to be a reason for them to have breached health and safety guidelines in this manner.
Overall, we have not seen evidence that suggests the asbestos removal works themselves were done inappropriately. The repairs appear to have been raised and attended to in a timely fashion. In its complaint response, the landlord set out its position that the resident’s home was habitable and there was no need for her to have self-decanted. While we acknowledge the distress the works and their aftermath appear to have caused the resident, we have not seen evidence that suggests this position was unreasonable. The landlord was therefore entitled to decline to pay any compensation relating to disturbance payments, or any additional expenses incurred by the resident or her mother.
However, there are concerns regarding a lack of clarify over some of the follow-on works that remained outstanding for a lengthy period. The landlord’s stage 2 response reasonably included an apology for the delay in rehanging a radiator in her daughter’s bedroom and with redecorating both bedrooms but it did not provide an explanation for why the delays occurred. This was not reasonable. From the evidence seen, in contrast to how it investigated concerns over the asbestos removal works themselves, the landlord did not carry out the same level of enquiries to establish why follow-on repairs were delayed.
Records show the resident first raised concerns about plaster being taken off a bedroom wall and the need to remove a radiator on 24 November 2023. She followed this up via her MP on 24 January 2024. It remains unclear whether the landlord properly investigated these issues in a timely manner. Comments in the stage 2 response that it “could” have provided alternative heating had the resident been living in the property appeared to infer that repairs were delayed because she was staying elsewhere. This was unreasonable as we have not seen evidence that the resident’s absence from the property stopped the repairs being progressed in a timely manner. Whether the resident had self-decanted or not, the landlord should have been more proactive in ensuring the repairs were completed in a reasonable timeframe. Eventually, a survey was completed in March 2024 and works were raised to rehang the radiator and redecorate the bedrooms in May and April 2024 respectively, some 4 and 5 months after the resident’s contact in January 2024. That the landlord had failed to progress the repairs for this length of time was a service failure and, in the circumstances, warranted further redress than just an apology.
It responded to the MP in February 2024 and asked if the resident had chased up the repairs herself, which placed an unreasonable onus on her. While the landlord stated that a different department was responsible for those works, it remained part of the same organisation. It is reasonable to expect that different departments could liaise with each other and share relevant information, particularly when dealing with a service complaint. That it appeared unable to do so indicated it did not have proper management of any follow-on works. This was unreasonable and was a service failure.
The landlord’s complaint responses – and its communication with the resident’s MP – also failed to provide clarity regarding why plaster had been stripped from the rear bedroom wall. The original work orders only mentioned ceilings and, once the resident raised concerns that this had been done in error, the landlord should have done more to investigate and provide clarity. That it did not do so meant it failed to address all the resident’s concerns and would have left her feeling unheard.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the follow-on works was not appropriate. Its records are lacking in detail, in contrast to the comprehensive summary of the case provided by its records relating to the asbestos work. The Ombudsman finds that the redress offered related to the asbestos removal works was reasonable. However, the landlord should have further acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in arranging the follow-on repairs. It also failed to provide an explanation for why these had not been done in a timely manner. We have therefore made a finding of service failure and order the landlord to pay an increased amount of compensation, above the £200 it already offered for distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace her upstairs carpets

Within the complaint process, the landlord acted reasonably by agreeing to reimburse the resident for the cost of the private cleaning and the personal items that had been disposed of. However, it declined to replace her upstairs carpets or agree to reimburse her for the cost of new ones. It did not accept that the marks shown in photographic evidence had been caused by the contractors, and did not accept that the dust seen on the carpets was caused by asbestos. It therefore did not agree that the carpets had been contaminated and needed to be disposed of, unlike other personal items.
As above, we cannot determine whether the carpets have been contaminated or not. However, the landlord’s position that there was no evidence the needed to be disposed of was reasonable. It stated that, had that been the case and the carpets had been exposed to asbestos dust, its contractor would have removed them as they could not be cleaned. It noted they did not do so.
It also noted the cleaning company the resident contracted after the initial removal also did not consider the carpets needed removing. Although the landlord’s reliance on this as evidence was undermined when it highlighted the fact the company were not registered asbestos removal specialists, it was not an unreasonable position to take. While the landlord could have considered arranging for further tests of the carpet, or the dust fibres in it, to put the resident’s mind at ease, the fact it did not do so was not a failing.
The landlord showed willing to put things right for the resident when it agreed to reimburse her for cleaning costs and items that were disposed on “to err on the side of caution”. It was however entitled to decline to replace the carpets if it did not consider they had been exposed to asbestos dust in the same way that other items may have been. We find the landlord was entitled to decline the resident’s request and it communicated its decision reasonably and consistently. We have made a finding of no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace her upstairs carpets.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure regarding the landlord’s management of asbestos removal, subsequent clean up and associated repairs.
2. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace her upstairs carpets.
In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint regarding concerns that works were not carried out in line with asbestos regulations and guidelines is outside of jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, pay the resident an additional £200 compensation to reflect the delays in arranging works to rehang a radiator and redecorate her bedrooms.