Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202109735)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109735

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

21 July 2023

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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s Freedom of Information (FOI) requests;
2. response to the resident’s concerns about various repair issues, including:
  1. her flooring;
  2. her window;
  3. the lifts in the building;
  4. other repair issues in the property;
3. response to the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB);
4. response to the resident’s request for a management transfer;
5. response to the resident’s request for compensation;
6. complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

k) fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has jurisdiction to investigate complaints relating to FOI requests.
It is not disputed that throughout the period of the complaint, the resident made multiple FOI requests relating to, among other things, her initial transfer to her property, the lifts at the property, and the availability of further properties.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses to these requests and she had concerns about both the delays to the documents being provided and the contents of the documents. She subsequently raised a number of complaints in relation to this.
As part of its responses, the landlord signposted the resident to the ICO if she remained dissatisfied. The resident has advised this service that she has not formally referred a complaint to the ICO but that she understands she has the option to do so.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s FOI requests is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority.
The property is a flat within a block of flats. There are approximately 88 stairs to reach the property. There is also a lift to the property.
The resident is affected by medical conditions that affect her mobility. She has also notified the landlord of her sensitivity to chemicals and noise.
The tenancy agreement notes that the landlord will conduct an asbestos survey prior to the tenancy beginning and will manage any asbestos discovered. The tenancy agreement also notes that floor coverings are the resident’s responsibility.
Prior to the resident moving in, the landlord completed an asbestos survey, which determined that the tiles used in the flooring at the property were made from asbestos. The landlord’s asbestos contractor addressed this by securing the tiles and covering them with a sealant.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. It defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction regarding its service. A stage one response will be provided within 15 working days and a stage two response within 20 working days.
The landlord operates a decants policy. The policy in use throughout the period of the complaint was approved in April 2020. The policy notes that “tenants moving as a decant shall be assumed to be undertaking the move on a permanent basis.” They may then have the option to return to their original property, unless it is determined to be permanently uninhabitable. The policy makes reference to a list of rates for disturbance payments; however, this has not been provided to this service.
The landlord operates a management transfer policy. The policy notes that a management transfer may be offered where a tenant is “suffering extreme social factors, which make it impossible for them to carry on living in their current home on a permanent basis.”
The landlord operates a lift maintenance policy. The policy notes that the response time for call outs is two hours and that thorough examinations of the lifts are carried out every six months.
The landlord operates a repairs policy. The policy notes various response times for different repairs, with window repairs being responded to within 20 working days. The policy also notes that tenants will be given job numbers for repairs and will be given a text to confirm appointments.
The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that the landlord will maintain regular contact with tenants that report ASB. It also notes that for noise complaints, updates will be given within five working days. Following reports, the landlord will seek to have an interview with the tenant and set out an action plan. If the landlord cannot take action, it will inform the tenant in writing. It may also consider mediation for low level noise nuisance or lifestyle differences.

Summary of events

Throughout 2020, the resident discussed with the landlord her desire to move to a new property. This was due to a number of factors, including medical issues that were exacerbated by her current property. She advised that she had a sensitivity to noise and required a property with step free access.
The resident moved into her current property in or around November 2020. The resident has advised that this was initially intended to be on a temporary basis, but that she later agreed to move on a permanent basis.
It is evident that shortly after moving into the property, the landlord began repair works to the lifts, during which they were out of action. This meant the resident was forced to use the stairs to access her property, which caused her inconvenience and discomfort.
In early 2021, the resident raised concerns about the works to the lifts and the noise caused by the works. She also requested that she be transferred due to the inconvenience caused.
It is evident that around this time, the resident reported her concerns to the landlord, which were discussed either in person or on the telephone. The resident followed up on her concerns about the lifts with the landlord in writing on a number of occasions throughout February and March 2021; however, it is not evident that the landlord replied in writing at any time.
In April 2021, the resident noted that she had reported a number of repair issues at the property to the landlord, including issues with the radiators and washing machine. She noted she had been promised a call back, but this had not occurred.
On 30 April 2021, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to visit the property. The surveyor raised works for the repair issues raised by the resident. At this time, the parties also discussed that a window in the property was leaking. The resident also raised concerns about the sealant used to cover the asbestos tiles. She expressed concern that the sealant was causing her to itch and requested more information about it.
In May 2021, the resident reported concerns about ASB in the building, including that an alleged knife attack had occurred in the area, which caused her alarm. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident also reported various instances of loud music and shouting in the building.
On 21 May 2021, the landlord confirmed a list of works it would carry out to address the various repair issues raised by the resident. Regarding the ongoing window leak, it advised that it had engaged a window specialist. It also noted that the resident had reported that the area of floor covered by the sealant was uneven. It agreed to address this in order to make it suitable for carpet to be laid.
The resident replied that she had concerns about chemical fumes in the property from works to the sealant. She noted that carpet specialists had informed her that the sealant used on the floor was not appropriate for flooring and that it could not be safely drilled into when laying carpet. She also queried if the landlord would offer any compensation in relation to her move into the property, such as a disturbance payment.
On 9 June 2021, the landlord advised that it had spoken with its asbestos team, who assured it that the sealant used was safe for laying any floor covering and that there was no risk of the tiles giving off asbestos fibres.
On 10 June 2021, the resident reiterated her request for the landlord’s position regarding a disturbance payment and requested a copy of the landlord’s policy in relation to this. She remained dissatisfied with the sealant and requested further information. She also reported that the lift had frequently broken down and that the contractors hadn’t attended until the next day, which caused her inconvenience. She further reported that a replacement window pane had been due to be fitted, but that the operative did not show up.
On 25 June 2021, the resident reiterated her concerns and noted she wanted a formal response. She also raised concerns that the asbestos inspection had not addressed the ducting in the kitchen, and she had concerns about the white dust in that area. The landlord replied that the ducts were part of a building wide ventilation system and that they should not be covered over.
On 15 July 2021, the landlord advised that it had ordered the wrong sized window, and these works were being rearranged. Regarding the lift, it advised that its investigations determined the lift was deliberately being damaged, causing multiple failures. It advised that it had now been fixed and that it was continuing to closely monitor the situation. Regarding her request for a formal complaint, the landlord indicated that it may be appropriate to raise the complaint straight to stage two of its internal complaints process.
Following this, the resident made multiple requests for updates without a response. On 6 August 2021, the landlord advised that it had registered a formal complaint and would respond by 25 August 2021. The resident expressed her concern for this timeframe, as she had originally raised a complaint in June 2021. She also noted that while the landlord had issued noise abatement notices, the issues with ASB noise were continuing, and she wanted this included in the complaint response.
Throughout August and September 2021, the resident made multiple requests for an update on her complaint. The landlord did not reply until 23 September 2021, when it advised that its response would be delayed until 15 October 2021.
On 29 September 2021, the landlord apologised for the delays to its response and explained this had been due to the resident raising some concerns through her local councillor, which it considered to be ‘councillor enquiries’, which were outside of its complaint policy. It also advised that she had been misinformed that the complaint could go straight to stage two, and that it must first investigate the complaint at stage one. The resident subsequently requested that the landlord’s complaints handling be addressed in its response.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 18 October 2021, which included the following:
1. Regarding its complaints handling, it accepted that the resident had been raising issues since April 2021, which it should have taken to be a formal complaint. It noted, however, that it had nevertheless been attempting to resolve the issues from this period in good faith.
2. Regarding the lift, it reiterated that the issues were caused by deliberate damage and that the lifts were now up and running. It also noted that while its contractors would endeavour to respond to reports within two hours, they may not always be able to carry out necessary repairs immediately.
3. Regarding ASB, the landlord noted the resident had concerns about a knife attack in the building. It advised that it had investigated this incident and taken appropriate action. It noted that her reports of noise were between 9:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. and that they were sporadic. It also noted that it had not received any recent reports, so no further action was being taken, but encouraged her to report any further issues.
4. Regarding repairs, the landlord acknowledged that some repairs and general deep cleaning should have been completed during the voids period. It also noted that it had now addressed the issues raised with the radiators and the washing machine.
5. Regarding the windows, the landlord noted that it had replaced the windows in August 2021 but noted that the resident continued to report ongoing leaks. It had since carried out an external inspection of the windows and found no faults. It would now arrange a further internal inspection. It also advised that it would carry out redecoration works once the leak was solved.
6. Regarding her floors, the landlord reiterated the position of its asbestos team that the floors were safe and that adding a covering did not pose a risk. It also noted that in July 2021, it had offered to remove the sealant and add a new one, but that the resident had declined this due to concerns about chemical fumes and the need to decant. It instead offered to manually remove the sealant without the use of chemicals, but advised that this would also require the resident to decant.
7. Regarding compensation for her move into the property, the landlord advised that it considered this move to have been a management transfer. As such, no disturbance payment would be applicable. It advised that it would only offer compensation to help with floor coverings for temporary decants. It further advised that it currently did not have a written policy in relation to this but would provide one once it was written.
8. The landlord noted the resident’s desire for a permanent move but advised it did not consider there to be grounds for a further management move given it was seeking to resolve the issues.
9. In summary, it acknowledged there had been failings, particularly in relation to its responses regarding the flooring and windows. It offered £550 in compensation.
The resident subsequently requested an escalation of her complaint. Regarding her desire to move, the resident reiterated that the period without a lift had caused her significant inconvenience given her medical condition and that the works leading to either chemical fumes or dust would also exacerbate her condition. The landlord subsequently requested medical evidence to support her reports and provided her with the relevant assessment forms.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 22 November 2021, which included the following:
1. It reiterated its acknowledgement that the issues experienced with the lift would have caused the resident inconvenience but that it had since been working well.
2. Regarding ASB, it noted that the resident had requested a noise monitor but had not received a response. It advised that these were typically only used in complex cases and apologised for not giving this response sooner. It also advised that it was preferable for its team to witness the noise in person and encouraged her to continue to report any issues to its noise team. It also advised that it had sent letters to residents about noise and smoking in communal areas.
3. Regarding the windows, it apologised for the ongoing delay to a resolution and assured her its contractor was looking into it.
4. Regarding the floors, it noted it had set out its position on what it could do to address the issue and was waiting for the resident to make a decision about how to proceed.
5. Finally, it noted it had now provided the resident with its decants policy and was assisting her with the medical assessment form to support a transfer.
Following the stage two response, the parties continued to liaise about the floor, and the resident continued to express her concerns about the proposed works causing asbestos dust.
On 7 December 2021, the landlord provided a further update, which included the following:
1. It reiterated that it did not consider there to be any risk from the asbestos tiles and that the sealant was not toxic.
2. It also advised that any works would be carried out in line with all health and safety rules.
3. It provided her with an information booklet about asbestos removal.
4. It confirmed that the resident would need to be decanted during the works but that her health needs would be catered for in the temporary decant property.
5. It advised that if she wished to proceed with the works, it would provide her with a detailed written plan and schedule for the works.
6. It confirmed that an inspection was carried out on the dust in the kitchen vents, which determined it was not asbestos.
7. Regarding the windows, it advised that further repairs had now been completed.
On the same date, the resident expressed concerns that the inspection of the dust in the vents had only included a small amount of dust collected from the floor. She therefore disputed that this inspection was sufficient.
On 9 December 2021, the landlord advised that its medical assessment team had determined there was no medical need for a transfer given that the lift was now working.
The resident provided her position on the flooring works on 15 December 2021. She disputed that the asbestos tiles could ever be safe and reiterated her concern that carpet would eventually cause damage to the tiles given that the sealant was not intended for flooring. She advised that, due to her present medical condition, she was not in an immediate position to make a decision over the proposed works. She also requested that the landlord provide its position on compensation given the delays she had experienced. Finally, she advised that the windows were still leaking.
The landlord responded that its stage two response was its final response and referred her to this service. It also noted that since its offer of £550 compensation, it had taken positive steps to address the issues and would not offer any further compensation.
It is evident that the landlord continued to assess the resident’s case, and in early January 2022, it agreed to offer the resident a management transfer.
In or around March 2022, temporary floor coverings were laid at the property.
Throughout 2022, the landlord and resident continued to explore potential new properties. The resident has advised that, so far, this has been unsuccessful. This has been due in part to the limited availability of properties that meet the resident’s needs. The resident has also advised that she has experienced some errors in the landlord’s allocations system, which meant she missed out on some suitable properties.
As of July 2023, the resident has reported she is still searching for a suitable property. She has also advised that the windows continue to leak but that further works have been arranged. She further notes that the floor issue was not resolved and that there is still temporary flooring at the property.

Assessment and findings

Repairs – Flooring

Prior to the resident moving into the property, the landlord carried out an asbestos inspection as per its obligation in the tenancy agreement. This inspection identified that the tiles used in the structural flooring were made of asbestos. The Ombudsman understands that in certain circumstances, it is appropriate to manage areas that include asbestos instead of removing it. In this case, the landlord’s asbestos team covered the tiles in a sealant that was intended to prevent any asbestos dust from escaping.
Following the resident moving in, she raised concerns that the flooring was uneven. The landlord then appropriately agreed to carry out works to ensure the floor was even in order to lay carpet on it.
Given her sensitivity to chemicals and her concerns that the sealant was causing her to itch, the resident first requested more information about the sealant. It is also evident that she consulted with carpet layers, who raised concerns about drilling into the sealant. Having researched the sealant, the resident raised concerns that the sealant was not appropriate for use on floors.
In response to these concerns, the landlord carried out a reasonable investigation by consulting with its asbestos team as to the suitability of the sealant. Given that the asbestos team were appropriately qualified experts, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely upon their advice. The asbestos team reported that there was no risk from drilling into the sealant. They did not, however, specifically address whether it was appropriate for floor use, which would have been helpful given the resident’s concerns.
It is evident that in July 2021, the landlord proposed that it remove the sealant and add a new sealant. This would be achieved by using chemicals to remove the existing sealant and would require the resident to be decanted for three days. The resident declined this approach given her concerns about her sensitivity to chemicals.
There was subsequently a significant delay in the progress of this issue as the landlord did not return to it until its formal response in October 2021, despite the resident requesting multiple updates. The landlord’s complaints handling is discussed further below; however, the Ombudsman does not consider that outstanding repair works should be delayed until after a formal response is provided, especially where that response is delayed. The landlord knew that the floors remained uneven and that the resident had reported ill effects from the sealant. Additionally, the resident had continued to repeat her concerns and desire for a resolution on multiple occasions. The landlord’s failure to continue to explore repair options in line with its repair obligations unreasonably prolonged the period the resident spent without a resolution to the issue.
In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately set out its position that the floors were safe and that there was no risk posed by adding a covering. It once again missed the opportunity to specifically address whether the sealant was intended for floor use, but it was reasonable that it concluded it was nevertheless safe. Given the resident’s concerns about its previous proposed works, it also appropriately set out alternative works that manually removed the existing sealant to avoid using chemicals. This demonstrated a genuine attempt to take the resident’s vulnerabilities into account and find a reasonable solution.
Both of the landlord’s proposed solutions required the resident to be decanted. The landlord’s internal communications show it explored the possibility of works without the need for a decant, but given either the chemical fumes or dust created by the works, this was not possible. The resident has advised that, given her health issues, a temporary decant would cause her too much distress. While this is understandable, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord nevertheless explored every option available and presented the only possibilities. In its communication in December 2021, it also went to great lengths to reassure the resident about the safety of the works, and committed to providing a detailed plan of the works if she chose to proceed.
Given that the resident declined these options and that she had concerns about any asbestos in the property being 100% safe, the landlord also appropriately took this into consideration when agreeing to offer a management transfer, which is discussed further below.
The resident has also reported that the landlord’s staff have at various times reintroduced the idea of securing carpet to the existing sealant, which the resident had expressly ruled out. The Ombudsman has identified this has been caused by multiple members of the landlord’s staff taking over the issue at various points without a clear record of what had already been discussed. This failure to keep accurate records has added to the frustration caused to the resident.
In summary, while the Ombudsman notes that the floor remains unfinished and that it presently has a temporary plastic sheet covering it, following its stage one response, the landlord made a reasonable attempt to resolve the issue, which took into account the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, prior to its stage one response, there were significant unreasonable delays to the progress of any resolution, which caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience.
In the circumstances, the delays in exploring other resolutions to the issue amounted to maladministration. While the landlord identified in its stage one response that there had been failings in its response, it is not clear how much of its proposed compensation was intended for the flooring issue. Based on the lack of progress between July 2021 and October 2021, an amount of £450 in compensation has been ordered, being £150 for each month progress was delayed.

Repairs – Window

The landlord’s repairs policy notes it will attend to issues such as window repairs within 20 working days. Following the resident raising concerns that a window was leaking in April 2021, the landlord arranged for works in May 2021. This was broadly in line with the timeframes noted in its repairs policy.
Given that the landlord was initially unsuccessful in its attempts to repair the window, it appropriately referred the works to a window specialist. The specialist subsequently arranged for the window to be replaced, and it is evident that a new window pane was ordered. These works did not go ahead, which the landlord later explained was due to the wrong size pane being ordered. While it appropriately re-raised these works, it did not inform the resident of the delay, causing her to have to expend time and trouble chasing up the works.
It is evident that the window was replaced in August 2021, but this did not solve the issue. The Ombudsman notes that it can take multiple attempts to solve a repair issue, and this is not necessarily indicative of service failure. However, following the resident’s further reports, it is evident that the landlord failed to provide any updates to the resident about how it would further address the issue. It later advised it had carried out an internal inspection, but it did not advise the resident of this, causing her to expend further time and trouble chasing updates.
In its stage one response, the landlord noted that its external inspection had not uncovered the cause of the issue and that it would now arrange further works. It did not, however, provide a timeframe for these works, which would have been frustrating given how long the issue had been going on. The landlord noted that this was due to it changing contractors and that it was unsure of their availability. The landlord appropriately offered compensation of £50 specifically for the added delay this would cause.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged that the length of time the windows had been ongoing would have caused frustration to the resident and offered compensation to reflect this. As noted above, aside from the £50 due to the anticipated further delay, it is not clear how the compensation was divided between the delays to the windows and the delays to the floor works.
It is evident that following its stage one response, multiple further works were attempted, but each time they were unsuccessful. The resident has advised that the issue is continuing as of July 2023, some two years after she initially raised the issue. The Ombudsman notes, however, that this is in part due to a period of time passing between an attempted repair and the issue recurring. While it is not evident that the various repair attempts following its stage one response have been unduly delayed, and while it was appropriate that the landlord referred these works to its specialist window contractor, given that the issue remains, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider other options, such as an external specialist. Its failure to consider this sooner has added to the overall distress caused to the resident.
In summary, throughout the period of the complaint, there were failings by the landlord to communicate its actions to the resident. It also failed to consider other options to resolve the issue, given that its present approach repeatedly failed. However, in both of its formal responses, the landlord acknowledged the delays and the impact this had on the resident. While its offer of £550 in compensation was intended to address multiple issues, given that the Ombudsman has awarded separate compensation for the flooring issues, the total amount offered by the compensation is broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would order for the failings identified relating to the windows. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has therefore made an offer of reasonable redress for the impact caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman notes that further works have already been arranged for the windows; however, a recommendation has also been made that the landlord consider an external expert inspection should these works be unsuccessful and to reiterate its commitment to redecorate any damage caused by the leaks once the leak is solved.

Repairs – Lifts

It is not disputed that the resident made the landlord aware prior to her move into the property that her mobility issue meant she required the use of a lift. It is also not disputed that shortly after moving her into the property, major works to the lift meant it was out of action for several days. The resident has expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord did not warn her about this prior to her moving in.
While this concern has been mentioned in the correspondence between the parties, the issue of whether the landlord was aware of these works when offering the property has not been specifically addressed in the landlord’s formal responses. The landlord has, however, addressed its overall approach to repair works to the lift.
The Ombudsman notes that it is expected for a lift to require regular maintenance, which may leave it out of action for a period of time. The landlord’s lift policy also notes that maintenance inspections are carried out every six months, which could conceivably result in maintenance works. In such circumstances, given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide advanced warning of the works and explore what steps could be taken to mitigate the impact on the resident. It is not evident that the landlord considered this, however.
The resident has also raised concerns about a number of other occasions when the lift broke down. On these occasions, it is evident that the landlord took steps to carry out the necessary repairs and ultimately identified the issues were caused by deliberate damage. While the lift being damaged caused considerable inconvenience for the resident, the cause was beyond the landlord’s control, and it is evident that it took reasonable steps to address the issue.
The resident noted that on one occasion, the lift contractors did not attend until the following day. The landlord appropriately confirmed that the response time should be within two hours, and that it would continue to monitor all lift repairs closely. Given that this appeared to be an isolated incident, this response was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord also appropriately measured the resident’s expectations that, while its contractors may attend within two hours, repairs may take longer.
In summary, the landlord’s formal responses appropriately reiterated that the repeated failures of the lift had been caused by deliberate damage and that it was now working correctly. Given that there were no further issues with the lift, it was reasonable that it took no further action. However, as noted above, given that it knew about the resident’s vulnerabilities and need for the lift, it failed to take these into account when carrying out maintenance works to the lift, resulting in considerable inconvenience for the resident. This amounted to maladministration in the circumstances, for which £400 in compensation has been ordered to reflect the detriment caused to the resident, taking into account her vulnerabilities.
A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to liaise with the resident about what steps it can take to mitigate the impact on the resident during any future periods of lift maintenance.

Repairs – Other

The landlord’s repairs policy notes that when repairs are raised, a resident will receive a job number and a confirmation by text. Following her reports about various minor repair issues in April 2021, it is not evident that the landlord provided any job numbers or works confirmations. The resident also reported that a promised call back did not occur, causing her to expend time and trouble chasing the issue up.
Once the landlord acknowledged these issues, it appropriately arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property and subsequently raise the relevant repairs. The landlord also appropriately identified that some repairs and cleaning should have been completed during the voids period. While this was frustrating for the resident, it is evident that the issues raised were subsequently resolved during various future appointments.
In one communication in December 2021, however, the landlord contacted the resident to inform her about repair appointments it had booked for issues that had already been resolved. This is further evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord and caused the resident inconvenience by having to cancel these duplicate appointments.
In addition to the repairs raised, the resident also raised concerns that the landlord’s asbestos inspection had not included the vents in the property, where she had noticed suspicious dust. This service has not seen any evidence to suggest this amounted to a failing in the initial investigation; however, in light of the resident’s wider concerns about asbestos, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide its position and carry out any further inspections in a timely manner.
Instead, the landlord did not address the concerns about asbestos and only responded to her query about whether the vents could be closed over. While it was reasonable to inform her they were part of a building wide ventilation system, its failure to address the asbestos concerns would have caused distress for the resident.
Following the resident’s repeated concerns, it is evident that the landlord arranged for an inspection of the powder in the vents in September 2021. This service has been provided with a copy of the inspection report, which notes that no asbestos was detected. It is not evident, however, that the landlord provided the resident with the outcome of this inspection until December 2021. The landlord’s internal communications also indicate that some staff were unaware of the inspection or the location of the report. This further demonstrates the landlord’s poor record keeping and a lack of ownership over the issues. The landlord’s delay in providing the outcome of this inspection, especially in light of the ongoing concerns about asbestos and the suitability of the sealant, was unreasonable and contributed to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
Following its advice to the resident that no asbestos was found, the resident raised concerns about how the investigation was conducted. The inspection was carried out by a qualified expert, and so it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have relied upon their advice. However, it is not evident that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns in any follow up communication. This would have left her frustrated that the landlord’s position had not been sufficiently clarified.
In summary, while the landlord ultimately completed repairs in relation to the issues raised by the resident, various communication failures and poor record keeping would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Additionally, the landlord’s failure to effectively communicate the outcome of its asbestos inspection in a timely manner or to have provided further reassurance to the resident would have caused her additional distress.
These failings amount to maladministration, for which £300 in compensation is appropriate in the circumstances to reflect the impact caused to the resident. This amount is made up of £100 for its communication and record keeping failures in relation to the repairs, £100 for the delays to its further asbestos inspection, and £100 for the delays in updating the resident about the outcome of this inspection and its subsequent failure to clarify its position.

ASB

ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships, and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency in the decision-making process and an audit trail after the event.
The resident reported on a number of occasions that there was noise nuisance in the building. Her reports included loud music and shouting. She also reported that some tenants were smoking in communal areas.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that following reports of ASB noise nuisance, the landlord will contact the resident within five working days. It will also seek to interview the resident about their reports and set out an action plan, or otherwise provide its position in writing.
The landlord has a dedicated noise team, which will seek to witness the noise directly. The resident’s reports were directed at this team.
It is evident that the landlord took some appropriate steps following the reports, including issuing a noise abatement notice. It is also evident that it had some further communication with the resident.
It is not evident, however, that it followed up the resident’s reports with any kind of written correspondence or action plan.
In its stage one response, the landlord indicated that as the noise reports were sporadic and occurred between 9:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., no further action would be taken. The Ombudsman notes that some level of noise between these times is expected and can be reasonable, especially in the case of everyday living noise. In such cases, it may not be possible to take enforcement action.
However, should this be the case, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to demonstrate it had carried out a reasonable investigation to reach this conclusion and set out its position in writing, as per the obligations in its ASB policy. Additionally, given that it took some action, such as issuing the noise abatement notice, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to inform the resident of this action in writing. The landlord did not do this, however. Instead, the resident had to expend time and effort chasing a formal complaint response in order to understand its position.
It is not disputed that the resident considers herself particularly sensitive to noise. This may mean that the level of noise, while frustrating for the resident, may not be at a level at which the landlord can take action. This does not mean, however, that there isn’t action the landlord can take. As per its ASB policy, it could arrange for mediation so that the residents could understand how their behaviours affect each other. Its failure to consider or present such an option in writing within the timeframes of its policy denied the resident the possibility of exploring this resolution.
In its stage one response dated October 2021, the landlord provided its position on how it had addressed a report of a knife attack in the building. Given, however, that the resident had raised a concern about this incident in May 2021, a significant amount of time had passed before the landlord responded, which would have caused the resident distress and frustration.
It is evident that the resident made enquiries about the possibility of a noise monitor but did not receive a response. This caused the resident further inconvenience by having to chase up this request. In its stage two response, the landlord appropriately apologised for having failed to respond to the residents enquiries about a noise monitor. Its explanation that these would usually only be used in complex cases was also reasonable given the nature of the resident’s reports. The landlord also appropriately used its stage two response to explain the other action it had taken and to encourage the resident to report further issues.
In summary, while the landlord took some appropriate action in response to the resident’s reports and evidently corresponded with her verbally on some occasions, it failed to follow its policy regarding providing an action plan or otherwise communicating its position in writing. This meant the resident’s expectations were not effectively managed, which caused her to expend time and trouble chasing the landlord for its position. Due to the delays to its formal responses, discussed below, the resident was often waiting months to find out what action the landlord had taken.
The landlord’s poor communication amounted to maladministration in the circumstances. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident, an amount of £400 in compensation has been ordered. This is made up of £50 for each month between her reports in May 2021 and the landlord’s response in October 2021, and a further £100 for its failure to respond to the request for a noise monitor.

Transfer

Given the issues experienced by the resident, throughout the period of the complaint, she has noted her desire to be transferred as a possible resolution to the issues. This desire began following the works to the lift, which caused her considerable inconvenience in having to use the stairs.
It is not disputed that the resident had some familiarity with the landlord’s transfer options given that she moved into the property through this process. However, it nevertheless would have been helpful for the landlord to have promptly provided her with relevant information about her transfer options when she first expressed this desire.
In its stage one response, the landlord advised that it did not consider there to be grounds for a management transfer. The landlord’s management transfer policy states that it may consider a transfer if the tenant is “suffering extreme social factors, which make it impossible for them to carry on living in their current home on a permanent basis.” Given that the landlord had an action plan to resolve the issues that were affecting the property, it was reasonable that it did not consider there to be any permanent issues affecting the resident’s ability to continue living at the property. It is also evident that throughout the period of the complaint and prior to its formal response, the landlord maintained that it would seek to solve the issues affecting the property. It would nevertheless have been helpful had it formally articulated prior to its formal response that this meant it did not consider a management transfer to have been suitable.
Given that the resident continued to experience issues and raise concerns about how those issues impacted her health, it was appropriate that the landlord provided her with the relevant medical assessment forms to be considered for a transfer. The Ombudsman notes that there were some issues in providing the relevant medical evidence as the resident had some privacy concerns. The evidence suggests the landlord took reasonable steps to accommodate these concerns and ensure the evidence was considered.
The landlord has an independent team that assesses medical evidence. While it was disappointing for the resident that the outcome of this assessment was that no medical priority should apply, there is no evidence to suggest this process was not conducted properly, and the landlord promptly informed her of the outcome.
Given that the resident’s vulnerabilities meant that neither proposed solution to the floor issues was suitable for her, it was appropriate that the landlord continued to consider a management transfer and that it ultimately decided to offer one in January 2022. This was an appropriate use of its discretion in the circumstances.
The resident has continued to express concern to this service about the process of finding a new suitable property, although it is not disputed that the landlord has continued to seek to find a suitable property and make efforts to accommodate her needs. In particular, the resident has raised concerns about the allocation of some properties to other tenants that may have been suitable. It is not evident, however, that this has been raised as a formal complaint that has completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, and so it is outside of the scope of this investigation. The Ombudsman understands that the parties are continuing to work together to find a suitable property.
In summary, while there were instances throughout the period of the complaint where the landlord could have improved its communication, the landlord’s overall communication has already been discussed above in some detail and accounted for in the Ombudsman’s determinations. Aside from missing the opportunity to provide greater clarity, the landlord’s initial position that a management transfer wasn’t appropriate was reasonable given that it did not consider the issues to be permanent at that time. It subsequently appropriately used its discretion to offer a management transfer as its proposed solutions to the issue with the floor were not suitable given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has reported concerns regarding accepting a new property, specifically that it would be useful for an Occupational Therapist (OT) to have an input in the process. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to provide its position on how this can be taken into consideration.

Compensation

It is not disputed that the resident was transferred to her present property after experiencing issues with her previous property. What is disputed, however, is the mechanism of that transfer. The resident has advised that she considered it to have been instigated as a temporary decant. At the time that she moved, she then requested that it be a permanent decant, as she did not want to have to move back and forth. The landlord has contended that this move was a management transfer.
As part of the parties’ discussion about the floor, the resident raised the possibility of compensation by way of a disturbance payment due to the decant in order to assist with the cost of floor coverings. It is not evident that the landlord responded to this query, leading the resident to have to chase it up again.
As part of her query, she requested the landlord’s policy on decants. This request was made in June 2021, and the landlord did not address it until its stage one response in October 2021. This was a considerable delay, which would have caused frustration for the resident.
In its stage one response, the landlord asserted that it did not have a formal policy for decants but that it was in the process of writing one and that it would provide it once it was written. The landlord has provided this service with its decants policy, which is dated April 2020. This indicated there was a written policy in place at the time of the resident’s request, and it is unclear why this was not made available or why the landlord denied there was a policy at this time.
In any case, the landlord advised that it would only offer a disturbance payment in the case of a temporary decant, not a permanent decant. This creates confusion, as the landlord’s policy specifically states that all decants are assumed to be on a permanent basis. While it may be the case that some end up being temporary once the original property is ready to return to, prior to this, they are considered permanent. Any disturbance payment, such as those to assist with floor coverings in a new property, must reasonably be payable prior to it being evident that a decant is only to be temporary. The landlord’s reasoning for why a disturbance payment would not be payable to the resident is therefore contrary to the wording used in its policy. The Ombudsman would not necessarily expect a disturbance payment to be offered where a resident has agreed to a permanent move; however, the wording used in the landlord’s policy creates confusion around this issue. A recommendation has therefore been made below for the landlord to review this policy and consider improving its wording to make it clear when a disturbance payment would be applicable.
While it ultimately provided a copy of this policy to the resident, as noted above, the policy does not include a list of disturbance payment rates or when they are applicable, which is included in a separate document. It is not evident that this list was provided to the resident along with the policy, which would have hindered her understanding about whether a payment may be applicable.
In addition to the disturbance payment, the resident also queried whether additional compensation would be offered following the initial offer made in its stage one response. While the Ombudsman has found that further compensation is appropriate given the findings in this report, the landlord nevertheless appropriately provided its position that it did not consider additional compensation to be applicable in a timely manner.
In summary, while there is confusion caused by the wording used in the landlord’s policy, the landlord clearly articulated and maintained its position that it would not offer a disturbance payment. This is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect in such circumstances and conforms with the obligations in the tenancy agreement, i.e. that the resident is responsible for floor coverings. The landlord also appropriately signposted the resident to possible services that may be able to offer general financial assistance. However, its initial delay in responding to the resident’s queries and the subsequent confusion around the availability of its policy would have caused distress and inconvenience for the resident and amounted to maladministration in the circumstances. Given the length of the delay to its response, an order for £250 in compensation has been made to reflect the impact on the resident.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction regarding its service. A complainant does not need to specifically refer to their dissatisfaction as a formal complaint.
It is evident that the resident expressed dissatisfaction about the landlord’s response to her repair reports in April 2021, although it is arguable that she had been expressing dissatisfaction about the lift issues since January 2021. The Ombudsman understands, however, that there is a difference between reporting an issue and those reports crossing a threshold into becoming a complaint. Given the volume of her concerns, the landlord should reasonably have raised the possibility of a complaint in April 2021. In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged it should have done so, for which it apologised.
In addition to her expressions of dissatisfaction in April 2021, the resident explicitly stated she wanted to raise her concerns as a formal complaint in June 2021. At this time, the resident was reporting her concerns to multiple areas of the landlord, including to her local councillor. The landlord has noted that it considers there to be a difference between a ‘councillor enquiry’ and a formal complaint, which led to a delay in her complaint being acknowledged. It is not clear why such a distinction should occur, especially where the resident has clearly articulated her reports to amount to a formal complaint. There is no reason why the resident would be aware of the intricacies of the landlord’s internal procedures in the absence of clear advice from the landlord about how they work. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to review its ‘councillor enquiry’ procedure to ensure residents are informed about the difference between this process and a formal complaint.
Further confusion was caused by the landlord raising the resident’s expectations that a complaint may be escalated directly to stage two. The Ombudsman does not consider such an approach to be useful or appropriate, as a two stage complaints procedure allows for multiple pairs of eyes to review issues and allows for parties to comment on each other’s positions following the initial stage. While the landlord later clarified that this should not have been proposed and apologised, this nevertheless caused distress for the resident and demonstrates a lack of understanding about the complaints process within the landlord.
Having acknowledged the formal complaint in August 2021, the landlord did not provide its stage one response until October 2021. This far exceeded the 15 working day timeframe for a stage one response as required by its policy. The Ombudsman understands that some investigations can take additional time and that this case in particular required extensive investigation. However, in such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide a timely update to explain that it required further time and to provide a new indicative timeframe. The landlord did not do this until 23 September 2021, and only after the resident had made multiple requests for updates. This delay and lack of communication would have caused distress for the resident and inconvenience in having to repeatedly chase a response.
In summary, while the landlord appropriately acknowledged it could have identified the resident’s concerns as a complaint earlier, its failure to acknowledge the complaint after her express request to raise one, the confusion it caused by raising her expectations about skipping to stage two, and the delays to its response had a significant impact on the resident. These failings amount to maladministration in the circumstances. An order for £300 in compensation has been made, being £50 for each month of the delay between April 2021 and the stage one response in October 2021. Additionally, an order has been made that the landlord carry out complaint handling training with its staff.

Determination (decision)

As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s FOI requests is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its:
1. response to the resident’s reports about ASB;
2. response to the resident’s concerns about various repair issues, including:
  1. her flooring;
  2. the lifts in the building;
  3. other repair issues in the property;
3. response to the resident’s request for compensation;
4. complaints handling.
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 regarding its response to the resident’s concerns about her window.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.
Reasons