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

Salix Homes Limited (202007611)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007611

Salix Homes Limited

10 February 2021


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 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:
    1. The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s asbestos removal works’ planning, necessity, and completion without his permission.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to make good the damage in his toilet room following asbestos removal works.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s asbestos removal works’ planning, necessity, and completion without his permission.
  1. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that: “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
  2. The resident has complained to this Service about a lack of planning for asbestos removal works, their necessity, and the completion of the works without his permission. However, there is no evidence that these aspects of his complaint have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and so they are outside of our jurisdiction to consider in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme above.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.

Summary of events

  1. On 16 October 2018, the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident. This confirmed an appointment on 17 October 2018 with the resident to discuss asbestos removal works. This work was required as planned investment work to the property was scheduled, and the landlord noted that asbestos located within the resident’s property “could or would be disturbed by the works”.
  2. On 23 May 2019, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the schedule of works to the property. This included confirmation that the asbestos removal works were arranged for 4 June 2019.
  3. On 4 June 2019, the property was inspected following the completion of the above works and was certified to be suitable for return to normal occupation. 
  4. On 17 February 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to find out what was happening regarding damage done to paintwork while removing the asbestos. To assess this damage, the landlord arranged to visit the resident’s property.
  5. The landlord emailed the resident on 4 March 2020, with reference to a visit on the previous day. It confirmed some surface damage to the paintwork on the edge of the hall wall and on the toilet room wall following the asbestos removal works. It did not consider that the damage to the wallpaper by the front door to have happened as part of the works. To address the resident’s concerns, it was able to offer two options:

a.     A £30 disturbance/decorating credit.

b.     The landlord would attend to repaint the wall edge and rectify and paint the section of wallpaper behind the WC.

  1. The resident did not feel that either option was satisfactory for the following reasons, and requested the escalation of the complaint on 4 March 2020 because:

a.     £30 did not cover paint and labour, with the resident being unable to do this himself due to health reasons.

b.     Repairing the two damaged areas would have made the rest of the hallway look “out of place”, and would require repainting at the resident’s expense.

  1. The landlord responded with its formal stage one complaint response to the resident on 6 March 2020. It confirmed the outcome of its investigation into the complaint, which is summarised below:

a.     It acknowledged that the resident’s ideal resolution was for the hallway and bathroom to be fully repainted by the landlord. However, it was unable to offer this.

b.     In line with its compensation policy, it would only repaint the damaged area, matching the current décor as closely as possible, and it was satisfied that the damage to wallpaper by the front door was not caused by its asbestos removal works as this was not part of the working area.

c.      It also confirmed that it had increased its alternative offer of a decorating voucher from £30 to £40; however, the resident had declined this increased offer, as well as its offer to repaint the damage area, over the telephone.

d.     It “fully sympathise[d]” with the resident’s situation, and understood that this was an inconvenience to him. However, it was satisfied that it had followed its compensation policy, and offered an alternative resolution to address the resident’s concerns, with kitchen and bathroom decorating having only been carried out in other flats when kitchens or bathrooms had been replaced.

  1. On 17 March 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation of the complaint, which was due to the resident feeling that the previous complaint response contradicted itself. It confirmed that it would provide a written response to this by 27 March 2020.
  2. On 23 March 2020, the landlord issued its stage two final complaint response to the resident. Its findings were as follows:
    1. On review of the stage one complaint response issued on 6 March 2020, it was satisfied that it had clearly set out its position in relation to the damage that had occurred from its asbestos removal works. It also highlighted that it had provided remedies by way of partial redecoration to the affected area or an increased decoration voucher.
    2. In respect of damage to the resident’s wallpaper by the front door, the landlord had reviewed this and it reiterated that it was satisfied that this was not caused during the asbestos removal works, as it was not part of the working area.
    3. It further explained that that some flats had a full kitchen or bathroom decoration due to them having full kitchen or bathroom replacements. As this work was not undertaken in the resident’s property, the resident did not qualify for this level of decoration.
    4. It did not see the contradiction in the complaint response of 6 March 2020, and remained satisfied that it had provided a clear and fair response to the complaint.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 October 2020 to summarise a meeting held on 30 September 2020. During this meeting, it was highlighted that it had not received a response from the resident to the above £40 decoration voucher offer, and requested this from him.
  4. The resident subsequently complained to this Service that the landlord’s asbestos removal works had caused damage to his toilet room’s decorations that had left this looking a mess, affecting his mental ill-health as his home did not feel like a home. He stated that this would not be restored by its offers of partial redecoration or a decorating voucher that he said would not be enough to cover the necessary paint or labour costs. The resident therefore requested that the landlord repaint his toilet room and offer him a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience of this.

Assessment and findings

  1. Following the resident’s report on 17 February 2020, it was acknowledged by the landlord that there was some surface damage to the paintwork on the edge of the hall wall and the toilet room wall at his property following the asbestos removal works there on 4 June 2019.
  2. The landlord’s customer feedback and complaints procedure details the following:

Time limit for making complaints

  1. “A complaint will not normally be considered if it is made more than six months after the point at which the issue became known to the customer. This is because complaints that happened more than six months ago are often difficult or impossible to investigate in a full and fair manner. However, [the landlord] will consider complaints exceeding this timescale in exceptional circumstances.”
  1. In view of the fact that this matter was not highlighted to the landlord for eight months from 4 June 2019 to 17 February 2020, it was under no obligation under the customer feedback and complaints procedure to consider this complaint. However, the landlord agreed to review this, and attempt to address the concerns of the resident, which was reasonable given its acknowledgement that its asbestos removal works had damaged his paintwork and his dissatisfaction with this.
  2. On receipt of the resident’s above report, the landlord arranged for an inspection of his property on 3 March 2020, and agreed that there was some damage following the asbestos removal works there. It did not, however, consider that the wallpaper damage by the front door to be from the removal of asbestos following its inspection.
  3. It provided the resident with two options: a £30 decoration credit or that the landlord would arrange for the damaged areas to be repainted. The resident declined both, at which point it was treated as a formal complaint by the landlord from 4 March 2020.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy in dealing with formal complaints details the following:

Decoration Allowance (Responsive Repairs)

  1. “In the event that a customer’s decoration is damaged following a responsive repair to their home, [the landlord] will make this good, in the area of repair only, matching the existing decoration to the best of our ability.
  2. Alternatively, the customer can be offered an allowance to contribute towards their costs in carrying out any subsequent decoration following the repair. The amount will be calculated based upon an allowance of £20 per wall or ceiling affected by the work, up to a maximum of £100 per room.”

Gesture of goodwill payment

  1. “At the sole discretion of [the landlord’s] Managers and following a full investigation of the circumstances, a gesture of goodwill payment of up to £100 can be made in recognition of the time, trouble or inconvenience caused by our actions, or lack of action. This payment is not intended to recover lost earnings.”
  1. In response to the escalation to the formal stage one complaint on 6 March 2020, the landlord increased its decoration credit offer to £40, and continued to offer to repaint the damaged areas. This was in line with its compensation policy as highlighted above. The resident declined this, and ultimately this resulted in the referral of his complaint to this Service.
  2. The landlord has not offered a gesture of goodwill payment to the resident. In considering the suitability of this, the following has been considered:
    1. The time taken to identify the issue.
    2. Whether the landlord’s offer of redress is suitable in addressing the issues, and whether it returns the resident to the position he was in before the issue occurred.
    3. The discretion available to the landlord to offer a goodwill gesture to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  3. Taking the above into consideration, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not feel that consideration of such compensation was warranted.  
  4. In identifying whether there has been a failure in service, the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.
  5. While it is acknowledged that the resident has found the situation distressing and upsetting, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord ultimately took reasonable steps to meet its obligations to the resident in relation to the damage caused by its asbestos removal works. It offered to either undertake the necessary work to remedy this or to credit the resident in accordance with its compensation policy to do so himself, which was within its remit.
  6. There was damage following the asbestos removal works which constituted a failure in service, but the landlord subsequently took the opportunity to fully investigate the reports, formally confirm its position and adequately redress those failings by offering to complete the necessary repairs or offer appropriate compensation.
  7. However, the landlord did not identify that its works had damaged the resident’s property at the time, despite its inspection on the same date as the works on 4 June 2019, and it did not do so until its subsequent inspection on 3 March 2020 following his report of this. This and the fact that it did not consider exercising the discretion available to it under its compensation policy to offer him a gesture of goodwill payment to recognise the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to him by its actions in the form of the damage and its lack of action in failing to identify this was inappropriate. This also meant that the landlord’s above offers did not fully put things right in the resident’s case and so it has been ordered to do so below.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to make good the damage in his toilet room following asbestos removal works.

Reasons

  1. The landlord evidenced a desire to resolve the resident’s concerns in agreeing to review the complaint when it was under no obligation to do so due to the length of time since the damage occurred.
  2. It acted swiftly in responding to the resident’s concerns. In the five weeks following the concerns being raised, it arranged for the property to be inspected, and provided an informal complaint response along with its formal stage one and final stage two responses.
  3. The landlord followed its compensation policy in respect of the offer of repainting works or a decorating voucher for the damage caused by its asbestos removal works. Its offers were fair and reasonable to address the damage as its proposed remedies allowed for the resident to be returned to the position he was in before the issue occurred. However, there was no gesture of goodwill payment offered by the landlord under the compensation policy to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the damage and its failure to identify this at the time.

Order

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation within four weeks of this determination to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused to him by its asbestos removal works’ damage to his toilet room and its delay in identifying this.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Re-offer the resident works to repaint the areas of his property damaged by its asbestos removal works or a £40 decorating voucher for him to arrange to do so himself.
  2. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks of this determination to confirm that it has complied with the above order and to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendation.
  3. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.