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

Yorkshire Housing Limited (202417948)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417948

Yorkshire Housing Limited

29 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
    2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the presence of asbestos in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The landlord recorded that there were mental health vulnerabilities in the household. The property is a house, which was unoccupied prior to the start of the resident’s tenancy.
  2. The resident viewed the property on 3 May 2023 before void (empty property) repair work had started, and then again on 17 May 2023. The resident then approached the media and her MP about the condition of the property.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns as a complaint on 30 May 2023. It issued a stage 1 complaint response to her on 13 June 2023 which apologised for the condition of the property. The landlord confirmed it had met with the resident on 30 May 2023 to discuss the repairs needed at the property. It listed the repairs it would do to bring the property up to its lettable standard. The landlord specifically stated that it would complete repairs needed to stop damp, mould and condensation problems in the property.
  4. On 14 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say that certain repairs, which it had agreed on 30 May 2023 had not been included. She asked it to escalate the complaint to provide a final response. In the meantime, the resident subsequently started her tenancy on 10 July 2023. The landlord provided her with a revised stage 1 complaint response on 14 August 2023 which listed the work which was omitted from its original response. It listed 68 individual repairs which included works which were not within its lettable standard and landlord obligation, such as fitting floor coverings and decorating the property.
  5. The repairs were all completed by August 2023. Between 13 November 2023 and 29 February 2023, the resident reported repairs to the toilet, plasterwork and windows.
  6. The resident complained to the landlord on 31 May 2024 about its handling of the repairs. She said several repairs had been outstanding for many months and it had made errors in the handling of the repairs due to poor communication between its staff. The resident said the landlord’s online system for managing repairs was unclear and she was finding it “impossible” to chase the repairs.
  7. The landlord issued a holding response to the resident on 18 June 2024. On 20 June 2024 she asked it to escalate her complaint and questioned why it had opened a new complaint instead of escalating her previous complaint. The resident added that the landlord had not resolved damp and mould in the property, which was now affecting her son’s health. She said a bedroom wall was cracked and not weatherproof, and she had been exposed to asbestos which was disturbed by the landlord’s staff at the property viewing.
  8. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 21 June 2024 which acknowledged it had delayed completing the repairs. It offered her £500 compensation and said it would inspect the property on 8 July 2024. The landlord said it would send her a separate stage 1 complaint response about the outcome of the inspection. There is no evidence of this.
  9. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 23 July 2024 after inspecting the property on 18 July 2024. It listed work to window reveals, replaster a bedroom wall, repair skirting boards, and renew air bricks to address damp and mould in the property. The landlord also identified that work was required to a window hinge, the outhouse roof, chimney pointing, and the toilet flush.
  10. The landlord also said it would carry out work to clean algae, fit gravel boards to fencing, do pointing to brickwork, fit soffits to the roof, and provide asbestos reports. It said it would do these jobs despite them not normally being part of its reactive repairs. The landlord offered the resident a further £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience she experienced from the failures in its repairs service. £200 of this was to address increased heating costs from the faulty windows.
  11. The landlord provided asbestos reports to the resident on 2 August 2024. Its internal correspondence on 22 January 2025 recorded that:
    1. The window reveals repair was completed on 7 August 2024.
    2. Replastering and thermal boarding of a bedroom wall was done on 12 August 2024.
    3. Renewal of PVC to the hallways window was completed on 2 October 2024.
    4. Skirting was removed on 8 August 2024 and renewed on 2 October 2024.
    5. Work to an airbrick was done on 5 August 2024.
    6. Window hinge replacement was done on 7 August 2024
    7. Sloped roof sealing and pinning was done on 5 August 2024.
    8. Chimney pointing was done on 4 November 2024.
    9. The toilet syphon was repaired on 7 August 2024.
    10. Painting of the window reveals was done on 28 August 2024.
    11. Algae cleaning was done on 28 October 2024.
    12. The gravel board was fitted on 5 August 2024.
    13. Brickwork repairs were completed on 19 November 2024.
    14. Soffits were installed on 12 November 2024.
  12. On 9 September 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that the toilet was still not flushing properly. The landlord’s repair records showed that, on 7 November 2024, the resident reported the window reveals repair was incomplete and there was dispute between the landlord’s surveyor and workers on the work needed. She also reported that the repairs to airbricks and vents repair were incomplete.
  13. On 15 May 2025 the resident told us that she remained unhappy as work to the airbrick and vents remained unfinished. She was also unhappy with the standard of workmanship as the seals to the windows had deteriorated in 3 rooms and the thermal boarding and plastering in her son’s room had been carried out to a poor standard. The resident added that the landlord was still unclear on the remaining repairs needed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out 3 repair priorities:
    1. Emergency repairs, whose which pose an immediate significant risk to people or the property. These repairs should be completed within 24 hours.
    2. Urgent repairs, such as a partial loss of electrical power or water. These should be completed within 7 calendar days.
    3. Routine repairs, which should be completed within 28 calendar days.

Void repairs

  1. The landlord’s empty homes management policy states that it aims to ensure that its homes are “safe, secure and in good repair on relet”. The significant number of repairs identified through the initial stage 1 complaint process in May 2023 showed that the landlord had failed to keep to its policy as the property was not in an acceptable condition when it was let to the resident.
  2. However, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s initial complaint by meeting with her and agreeing the scope of repairs needed in the property. The landlord’s repair logs showed that the repairs were mostly completed by the end of July 2023, shortly after the resident began her tenancy on 10 July 2023. While this would have caused the resident inconvenience, this was not for a significantly long period. The repairs that were not completed by the end of July 2023 were flooring and external repairs. These were raised after the resident moved in and both jobs were completed within 4 weeks, which was a reasonable period in line with the landlord’s published timescale for routine repairs.
  3. There were 68 individual repairs listed in the landlord’s revised stage 1 complaint response, and this included work which was outside of its obligation. This included decoration and floor coverings which a landlord would not ordinarily be obliged to complete. Considering the landlord agreed to do this work outside of its obligations, this demonstrated that it was committed to resolving the repair issues. The decoration and floor coverings provided adequate compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s initial error in letting the property to the resident in an unfit state. Overall, its response to the complaint about void repairs was reasonable.

Repairs reported between May 2023 and May 2024

  1. The landlord provided limited evidence to the Ombudsman of its contact with the resident about repairs between her initial stage 1 complaint in May 2023 and her subsequent complaint on 31 May 2024. It provided repair logs but no contact logs for this period. In both her contact with us and her complaint on 31 May 2024 the resident said she had difficulty in communicating with the landlord about repairs and jobs were not done efficiently. The Ombudsman is unable to verify this due to the lack of evidence but we are satisfied that the resident was contacting the landlord during this period to request repairs as the landlord’s repair logs show it carried out repairs. This a failure of recordkeeping by the landlord.
  2. The Ombudsman understands that the resident used the landlord’s website for reporting repairs. Landlords are expected to keep records of all contacts with residents, such as emails, call logs, and online communication logs, to provide an audit trail. When events are disputed, the landlord is responsible for showing that it acted appropriately in line with its policies, legal obligations and industry best practice.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response on 21 June 2024, the landlord accepted its repairs service had been unsatisfactory. It was positive that it acknowledged its failings in carrying out and communicating about repairs and offered the resident compensation to recognise the inconvenience she experienced. It was also reasonable that it proposed to inspect the resident’s property since there had been no recent inspection. It carried out this inspection on 18 July 2024.
  4. The landlord’s final complaint response on 23 July 2024 was reasonable as confirmed its inspection had identified the repairs needed and offered further compensation to the resident. Compensation will be discussed in more detail below.

Repairs after the final response to the complaint

  1. The landlord’s repair logs showed that not all repairs raised in its final response dated 23 July 2024 were done promptly. It took over 2 months to replace PVC around the hallway window. The landlord also took over 2 months to complete work to the skirting boards after needing to reattend because the work was initially done to a poor standard.
  2. While the landlord did repair the toilet it was unreasonable that the resident needed to re-report the repair on 9 September 2024. The resident confirmed this is no longer outstanding, however it is unclear when the repair was completed. There was disagreement between the surveyor and the contractor over the scope of work to the window reveals and the resident reported that the work was still outstanding on 7 November 2024. The resident confirmed this is no longer outstanding but it is also unclear when the repair was completed. Similarly, the contractor and surveyor did not agree on the scope of work to the airbricks and vents which remain incomplete to date.
  3. The external repairs to the soffits, brickwork and chimney pointing took up to 4 months after the landlord’s final response to be completed. However, this is not necessarily a failing as scaffolding was required. It is reasonable for a landlord to exceed its normal repairs timeframes when specialist equipment is required for a repair. There was evidence that the landlord kept the resident up to date on the status of the repairs and managed her expectations.
  4. While it was reasonable that the landlord inspected the property and raised repairs, it was unreasonable that it did not complete all of these promptly and needed to reattend some of these due to poor workmanship.

Compensation for repairs

  1. It was positive that the landlord offered £1000 compensation in total to the resident in its complaint responses on 21 June and 22 July 2024. This was in line with our dispute resolution principles of ‘being fair’ and ‘putting it right’. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available to view on our website, says that awards of compensation over £1000 are appropriate when there has been a severe impact on the resident because of the landlord’s failings. This may be when there has been a series of failings by the landlord which have caused distress and inconvenience to a resident over a long period.
  2. On balance the landlord’s overall handling of the repairs amounts to service failure. It made a reasonable offer of compensation to address its failings up to the date of the final complaint response, but it demonstrated further failings afterward. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,300. This award replaces its previous offer of £1,000. We will also order the landlord to inspect the property to determine which repairs remain and complete the outstanding repairs within its published timeframes.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over asbestos in the property

  1. The resident was understandably concerned about the presence of asbestos in her property. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concerns. We understand this has been a very difficult time for her. It is widely accepted that asbestos can pose a risk to health if it is disturbed and not removed appropriately. However, it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine if a resident’s health was negatively affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. Nor is it our role to award ‘damages’ in the way that a court or liability insurance claim might. Our role is to assess whether the landlord acted reasonably, and in line with its policies and legal obligations. If we find that the landlord has shown failings in its handling of a matter, we may order it to compensate the resident for her general distress and inconvenience. If the resident feels that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction and she wishes to make a claim against the landlord, she may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim.
  2. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to identify and minimise potential hazards in its properties. Asbestos is one such hazard described in the HHSRS. When a landlord is aware of, or suspects the presence of asbestos in its property, it has a duty to reduce the potential risk it poses.
  3. The landlord carried out an asbestos survey on 4 April 2023 which found that floor tiles in several rooms contained asbestos. The resident attended for viewings of the property on 3 and 17 May 2023 where on one occasion she reported that its staff member had disturbed the asbestos roof and the floor tiling. While the landlord did not know at this point that the roof contained asbestos (it only discovered this on 23 May 2023), it was aware of asbestos in the floor tiles. If the landlord disturbed asbestos in an uncontrolled way, despite having information that it was present, this would be a significant failing.
  4. The resident voiced her concerns to the landlord on 20 June 2024 about being exposed to asbestos. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine whether not the resident was exposed. This is because there was no objective third party evidence that it did so. However, when the resident reported this to the landlord, it should have investigated and responded to the resident. However, the landlord’s final complaint response on 23 July 2024 did not acknowledge her report of its staff member disturbing asbestos. It only said it would provide her with the reports from the asbestos testing. This was unreasonable as it did not directly address her concerns.
  5. After its final stage complaint response, the landlord provided further details to the resident on 24 July 2024 about how it had dealt with the asbestos. However, it again failed to directly address her concerns, which were that its actions may had led to her exposure to asbestos. When the resident reported her concerns, she said that she had sought medical advice for asbestos exposure. This showed that her concerns over asbestos exposure had caused her distress. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord did not carry out an investigation which may have involved interviewing the staff member present at the viewing or seeking advice from qualified professionals regarding the risk.
  6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over asbestos amount to maladministration. While it was reasonable that it tested for and removed asbestos at the property as part of its void repair work, it did not investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns appropriately.
  7. To recognise the likely distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident resulting from the landlord’s inappropriate response, it must pay her £300 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance, mentioned above. This sets out that awards between £100 and £600 are appropriate when the landlord’s failings have had a negative effect on the resident that may not be permanent. This award considers that the landlord’s inappropriate response likely led to the resident continuing to experience distress and uncertainty over the potential effect on her health. As above, it is outside our remit to determine if there is any permanent health impact from asbestos exposure. Therefore, we would not award compensation for this as the resident may be able to pursue a legal claim for compensation instead.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s customer feedback policy sets out a 2-stage internal complaints procedure. This says it should acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days. The procedure also says, at stage 1 of its complaints procedure, it should provide a written response to the resident within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. At the final stage, the procedure says the landlord should respond within 20 working days. These timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which all landlords who are members of the Scheme must comply with.
  2. The Code states that a landlord must accept a complaint, or complaint escalation, unless there is a valid reason not to. When a landlord decides not to accept or escalate a complaint, it must explain its reasoning to the resident.
  3. The landlord first acknowledged the resident’s concerns as a complaint during its meeting with her on 30 May 2023. It then issued its stage 1 complaint response to her on 13 June 2023. This was within the timeframe set out in its procedure and the Code. The resident then escalated her complaint on 14 June 2023 as she considered that the landlord had missed repairs from its response. The landlord did not acknowledge this as an escalation request and did not provide a final stage complaint request to her. It did not explain why it did not escalate the complaint, nor why it considered that issuing an amended stage 1 complaint response on 14 August 2023 was appropriate rather than issuing a final response. This was a failure to comply with its own complaints procedure and the Code.
  4. The resident then complained to the landlord on 31 May 2024 about her difficulties in pursuing repairs, which it acknowledged as a new stage 1 complaint. On 20 June 2024, in response to its holding response, she questioned why it had not escalated her original complaint. It would have been reasonable for it to do this as her concerns related to work addressed in her previous stage 1 complaint. There was no evidence that the landlord responded to this. It was unreasonable that it did not respond to the resident to explain why it had chosen to handle her complaint this way.
  5. Also, on 20 June 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. It issued her with a stage 1 complaint response on 21 June 2024 which said that it would provide a separate stage 1 complaint response about some of the repair issues. There is no evidence of this separate stage 1 complaint response. The landlord then acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 26 June 2024 before providing its final complaint response to her on 23 July 2024. This was an unreasonably confusing sequence of events which misdirected the resident.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint responses displayed different complaint reference numbers. Its final stage complaint acknowledgment and response displayed different complaint reference numbers. While it explained in its final response that it had implemented a new format for these, this added to the confusion arising from its handling of the complaint. The Code states that the “landlord must make it easy for residents to complain” and its confusing handling of the complaint went against the spirit of this.
  7. The landlord’s overall handling of the complaint amounts to service failure. Its lack of clear communication with the resident about its handling of the complaint, and the confusing information about the complaints, likely led to uncertainty and distress for the resident. To recognise this, it must pay her compensation of £100.
  8. Our award of £100 compensation is in line with our remedies guidance, mentioned above. This takes into account that, despite the confusion and lack of communication, it did ultimately provide a final complaint response to the resident so that she could escalate her complaint to our service.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s property
    2. Maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns over asbestos in the property.
    3. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the following orders:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £1,700. This is made up of:
      1. The £1,000 the landlord offered the resident in its complaint responses for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs and an additional £300 for this.
      2. £300 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience resulting from its response to her asbestos concerns.
      3. £100 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
    2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. This must come from a senior member of staff at director level or above and comply with the guidance for apologies contained in our remedies guidance.
    3. Investigate the resident’s report that its member of staff may have caused the resident to be exposed to asbestos and write to her to set out its findings.
    4. Inspect the property to determine what repairs remain. It must provide a schedule of repairs to the resident and complete the outstanding repairs in accordance with its published timeframes.