Fairhive Homes Limited (202316144)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316144

Fairhive Homes Limited

26 September 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance from the communal entrance door.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 3 August 2021. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat in a small block. The resident lives with her child, who was around 6 months old when the issues began, and has asthma. The landlord leases the property from a freeholder. The headlease states that a managing agent is responsible for management of the block’s structure and common parts.
On 5 October 2021 the resident reported a silverfish infestation to the landlord. On 29 April 2022 she reported to the managing agent that the communal entrance door slammed excessively whenever anyone went in or out. She chased the managing agent and the landlord for a response 4 times between then and 21 June 2022. She told the landlord that the noise was affecting her and her child’s sleep and causing serious distress. On 31 August 2023 the landlord inspected the flat for pests but could not find an obvious cause for the silverfish infestation. It said that its structural team would investigate the matter further.
The resident lodged a stage 1 complaint on 12 October 2023 about the door and the silverfish. The complaint said the resident had first noticed silverfish soon after moving in and now they were all over the flat, including in food cupboards and her and her child’s beds. She said she had been reporting the door slamming to the managing agent and the landlord for at least a year but they had not been responsive. Both issues were affecting the resident’s and her child’s sleep and causing distress. She wanted the landlord to help resolve the issues and to pay compensation for lack of sleep, the pest treatments she had bought, and the food she had to throw away because it was infested.
The landlord logged a separate complaint for each of the issues. It issued its stage 1 response to the door complaint on 20 October 2023. The landlord apologised for the delay responding to the reports about the door. It also said that while it had been the managing agent’s responsibility to resolve, it had a duty of care to the resident and a level of responsibility to raise issues when asked. It had tried to contact the managing agent after the resident’s last email but had been unable to get hold of them. As the resident had not followed up on her email it had been overlooked. The landlord acknowledged it should have followed up with the resident to check if it had been resolved. It said it had now been in contact with the managing agent who said they had rectified the issue with the door on 16 October 2023.
The landlord did not issue a formal response to the complaint about silverfish. It emailed the resident on 25 October 2023 and said it had investigated but not found any property or building defects that could be causing the infestation. It said there was nothing further it could do to assist and encouraged the resident to contact a pest control firm who could inspect and recommend further treatment. It invited her to forward any reports or recommendations on to the landlord.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response about the silverfish and, assuming this was a formal stage 1 response, asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on the same day. The landlord accepted this. She contacted the Ombudsman on 7 December 2023, having not had a response yet, and asked us to investigate both the silverfish and the door. We contacted the landlord on 11 December 2023 and asked it to respond to the stage 2 complaint by 18 December 2023.
The landlord inspected the communal door on 21 December 2023 and recommended works to prevent it from slamming. It issued its stage 2 response on 3 January 2024. The response said:
1. The landlord was limited legally in what work it could do in communal areas as this was the managing agent’s responsibility.
2. The landlord had had difficulty contacting the managing agent but would write to them to advise of the works that were required for the door.
3. The pests were also the managing agent’s responsibility to address but to try and help all residents the landlord would take it up with them directly. It would first speak to all residents to determine the extent of the problem and was speaking to a pest control firm to see if there were measures it could implement immediately before it could find a long-term solution.
4. The landlord had upheld the stage 1 complaint about the door and since then, the resident had not raised further concerns until the Ombudsman contacted it. This, together with the fact that both issues were the managing agent’s responsibility, meant the landlord could not uphold the stage 2 complaint, but it would try to ensure the managing agent completed the works as soon as possible.
The Ombudsman accepted the case for investigation on 14 June 2024. The resident remains dissatisfied as she says both issues are still outstanding. The resident told us the situation has affected her health, work, and family life. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident would like the landlord to resolve the issues, pay compensation, and transfer her to an alternative property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. This is because, when a resident complains, the landlord should be given the opportunity to put things right in the first instance. The resident can then bring the complaint to the Ombudsman if they are dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
The resident told this Service that she wanted us to investigate the landlord’s response to her reports of pests, namely silverfish and centipedes. The resident did not raise an issue with centipedes in her stage 1 or stage 2 complaint to the landlord. This means the landlord did not have the opportunity to respond to that element of the issue and we are, therefore, unable to investigate it. Our investigation will focus only on the landlord’s response to the reports about silverfish and the communal door. If there is still an issue with centipedes the resident should report this to the landlord, and if she is dissatisfied with its response, she can log a new stage 1 complaint.
Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This means that, normally, we will only investigate what happened in the 12 months prior to the stage 1 complaint.
In this case, however, the Ombudsman has made the decision to review the evidence going back more than 12 months – to 13 May 2022. This is because the resident reported the issue with the communal door to the landlord in May and June 2022 and while she subsequently did not complain about it until 12 October 2023, the landlord acknowledged for itself that it had been aware of the issue for more than 12 months but did not respond to the reports as it should have. The Ombudsman believes that it would be unfair to exclude this from the investigation.
‌Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints about matters where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The resident told the landlord and this Service that the issues she complained about have had a significant impact on her health and wellbeing. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s action (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health and wellbeing.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health concern, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion on the cause of any injury or effect on health and wellbeing. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance explains that we cannot order a remedy that would put things right for the resident but would adversely affect other individuals, or that would mean the resident had received preferential treatment compared to others in the same situation. The resident told us that, as a resolution, she would like the landlord to move her to an alternative property. Unfortunately, we are unable to order a landlord to transfer a resident. This is because it could adversely affect other transfer applicants if the resident were to be prioritised for a move ahead of them. It would also mean the resident had been given preferential treatment if her request to move was not assessed in line with the relevant policy, as other applicants would have been.
What the Ombudsman can investigate is whether the landlord responded to a transfer request reasonably and in line with any relevant policies, procedures or legislation. In this case however, the Ombudsman has not been shown any evidence to indicate that the resident asked the landlord to move her during the period that we are investigating. We have recommended that the landlord discuss the resident’s options for moving with her in line with its transfer policy if it has one. If it does not have one then it should signpost her to the local authority and mutual exchange websites.

The landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance from the communal entrance door

The headlease of the property states that the managing agent is responsible for communal repairs. However, the landlord’s repairs guide which it provides to its residents states that repairs related to the communal entrance are the landlord’s responsibility. While this does not override the terms of the lease, it means that residents have a reasonable expectation that the landlord will ensure such repairs are completed in line with its repairs policy. Its repairs policy states that the landlord will respond to routine repairs within 20 working days.
Evidence shows that the resident emailed the managing agent on 29 April 2022 to report that the communal door was slamming excessively loudly, which she said she had reported several times before. She then reported this to the landlord on 13 May 2022 and said the managing agent had not been responding to her.
The landlord chased the managing agent on her behalf by email. This was a reasonable response, however, the landlord did not follow up with the managing agent or the resident to check if they had contacted her, which meant there was further delay. Knowing that the resident was already frustrated by poor communication, the landlord should have taken responsibility for making sure the managing agent contacted her.
The resident chased the managing agent twice more and then contacted the landlord again 21 June 2022 when the managing agent was not responding. She told the landlord the door would slam loudly every time it closed and it sounded like someone was breaking into her flat, which was distressing. She could hear it from 5am to 11pm each day and it was affecting her sleep to the point she felt suicidal. Her child’s bedroom wall was adjacent to the door on the other side, their sleep was also affected and they would wake up crying in shock when it slammed every day at 5am. As a result, the child now slept in bed with the resident. She told the landlord she first reported it to the managing agent in January 2022 and they had promised to come out and inspect the problem, but nothing had happened. She asked the landlord if it could fit a slow closing mechanism to reduce the noise.
The landlord did not respond to this email which added to the resident’s frustration. As well as having reported the issue multiple times to no avail, she had described how the issue was affecting her and her child’s quality of life. Having shared such information and not received a reply would have damaged the resident’s trust in the landlord and made her feel that it did not care.
The resident lodged a stage 1 complaint on 12 October 2023 which reiterated the effect the issue was having on her and her child. The landlord contacted the managing agent on 16 October 2023 and asked it to assess the communal door with a view to carrying out works to allow it to close less forcefully. It is positive that the landlord took this action while investigating the complaint.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 17 October 2023. The response detailed the difficulties the landlord had been having in contacting the managing agent.
The Ombudsman’s March 2022 Spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents, ‘Where regulated and unregulated sectors meet’ (the Spotlight report), acknowledges that landlords can have limited abilities to influence the quality of managing agents’ communication. However, we would expect landlords to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps to engage with them or, if they are unresponsive, the freeholder. It is not clear when and how the issues contacting the managing agent were resolved. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord did not take decisive action at the time when the issues were happening. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to resolve such issues as a matter of urgency by escalating to senior management or, ultimately, the freeholder if that did not work.
The stage 1 response said that the managing agent told the landlord it rectified the issue with the door on 16 October 2023. The evidence the landlord provided this Service does not include a record of this repair or any others that were done by the managing agent. It is unclear whether the landlord keeps records of repairs carried out by the managing agent. However, the Ombudsman expects landlords to keep a robust record of all contact with residents, repairs and services provided. The Spotlight report says that where these records are held by managing agents, landlords should endeavour to ensure that they are provided either with copies of, or other clear information on, technical assessments, decisions and future plans. This enables landlords to effectively manage any issues raised by their residents and identify and respond to problems when they arise. Landlords cannot properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records and this could result in unfairness to the resident.
The landlord apologised in the response that the issue had taken over a year to fix. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for this failure. However, considering the length of the delay it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer some redress over and above an apology, such as compensation or a goodwill gesture such as flowers, chocolates or vouchers, which are allowed under its compensation policy.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 17 October 2023. Initially the stage 2 complaint was only about the silverfish but she later informed the Ombudsman that the door remained an issue. We informed the landlord of this on 11 December 2023 and it added the door to the stage 2 complaint. It also attended the property and inspected the door on 21 December 2023. It was positive that the landlord acted swiftly once it knew the door was still an issue. As a result of the inspection the landlord recommended a new hinge, installing a door stop so it did not bang the skirting board, and for the door closer to be tightened to prevent it from slamming.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 3 January 2024. While its statement that it was limited in the works it could do as communal works are the managing agent’s responsibility may be true, the landlord still had a responsibility to take reasonable steps to compel the managing agent to fulfil its obligations. The language used made it seem as though the landlord was shifting blame onto the managing agent. The resident’s tenancy agreement and relationship are with the landlord only, not the managing agent and the landlord has an obligation to take all reasonable actions to enforce the terms of the headlease. The fact that the managing agent had been difficult was not the resident’s concern.
The response also said that the resident should continue to report repairs to the landlord and it would endeavour to ensure the managing agent responds appropriately. The word ‘endeavour’ gave the impression that the landlord was not taking its obligations as seriously as it would were it directly responsible for the repairs. The Spotlight report discusses how such an approach risks creating a 2-tier level of service for residents. Those in properties owned and managed by the landlord can reasonably expect a service in line with the landlord’s policies and statutory obligations. However, residents in properties where this is not the case are often told that the landlord will “use reasonable endeavours to ensure a satisfactory service” or similar. Landlords must ensure that all residents can expect the same level of service, even where the landlord is not directly responsible for repairs, by holding managing agents who are not fulfilling their obligations to account in a timely manner.
On 19 January 2024 the landlord wrote to the managing agent asking them to complete the works as soon as possible. The repairs policy states that the landlord will carry out routine repairs within 20 working days, which would have been 23 January 2024. For the landlord to write to the managing agent only 2 working days before the due date was not appropriate, especially when it already had concerns about the managing agent’s communication and willingness to do repairs. The landlord should have taken stronger action once the repairs were identified to ensure the managing agent responded swiftly. It could also have sought legal advice on whether the landlord could carry out the repairs itself and could have pursued the managing agent after this.
If the response times in the landlord’s repairs guide do not apply to repairs that are the managing agent’s responsibility, then the landlord needs to clearly communicate this with residents. However, as mentioned above, the landlord must be mindful not to create a 2-tier service.
The resident called the landlord on 13 February 2024. The landlord told her it had written to the managing agent and would chase them up. It had been almost a month since the landlord had written to them at this point. The landlord should have taken ownership of the situation once it identified that works were required and proactively chased the managing agent rather than only doing so when the resident got in contact. This meant the situation became even more protracted than it already was.
The landlord chased the managing agent the following day and asked it to address the communal door works immediately. It said if it did not hear back from them within 7 calendar days it would contact the Ombudsman and its legal advisers. However, the deadline came and went and the landlord took no further action. There is no evidence that it took legal advice and it did not chase the managing agent again for a response. The landlord did not take any ownership of the situation which again gave the impression that it did not think it had any responsibility for resolving it.
The managing agent eventually responded to the landlord on 5 July 2024. It said an operative had attended and resolved the door issue on 17 June 2024. The managing agent asked the landlord whether there had been reports since then and if so, could it send video evidence so it could check against the repairs report. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this query, neither did it follow up with the resident to check if the issue had been resolved. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of what work was done and the resident said she is not aware of any work being done as the door still slams extremely loudly.
The resident was reporting the door since at least April 2022, according to the evidence available. She initially reported to the managing agent but tried to get the landlord to assist twice, in May and June 2022. The landlord failed to ensure the managing agent fulfilled its obligations and failed to respond to the resident’s email in June 2022, which had detailed the significant impact the door slamming was having on her and her child. The landlord itself was having problems contacting the managing agent. This should have prompted it to take decisive action to ensure the managing agent responded to not only the landlord and the resident in this case, but to all residents who might need them to do repairs.
There was 6 months between the resident’s first report to the managing agent on 29 April 2023 and the managing agent carrying out works to the door on 16 October 2023. While the landlord cannot be held responsible for the entire delay, the resident asked it to help her in her email of 21 June 2023 which the landlord did not act on. This led to a further 3-month delay.
The landlord was reasonable to assume the problem was resolved after the stage 1 complaint and when the Ombudsman told it otherwise, it swiftly arranged an inspection and identified the works required. However, it failed to take responsibility for ensuring the works were completed. If the managing agent’s assertion that it carried out works on 17 June 2024 is correct, this means there was a 4-month delay. However, the resident states that the door still slams so even if work was carried out, it has not been effective and the landlord did not follow up with the managing agent to confirm whether it had done the specific works that the landlord asked it to.
The landlord’s failure to effectively communicate with the resident and to take swift, decisive action to hold the managing agent to account amounts to maladministration. We have made orders for the landlord to ensure the issue with the door is resolved.
The landlord should also compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience the issue has caused her. The door slamming has affected her sleep and that of her child for at least 2 years and 4 months. The frustration she has felt trying to get the issue resolved has also caused her distress and she has spent time and trouble progressing her complaint. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends compensation of up to £600 for maladministration that has a significant, non-permanent impact on the resident and we consider this to be an appropriate sum in this case.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation

The resident first reported silverfish to the landlord on 5 October 2021. The landlord advised her to contact environmental health for advice on products she could use to eliminate them.
The landlord’s repairs guide states that all vermin and pests are the resident’s responsibility to resolve and that they can get further information from environmental health. This is misleading, as not all pest issues will be down to the resident to resolve. Pest issues which the landlord would be expected to address include those which:
1. Stem from a wider issue and cannot be appropriately addressed in isolation.
2. Affect several other areas of the building including the communal spaces.
3. Arise from repairs which are the landlord’s responsibility
Additionally, the Ombudsman’s guidance on pests says that where the landlord suspects a resident’s actions are contributing to pests it should support the resident to identify the cause and resolve it. Therefore, the repairs guide should not absolve the landlord of all responsibility to deal with pests. It is noted that the landlord does not have a separate pest control policy. We have made a recommendation in relation to this at the end of the report.
On 31 August 2023 the landlord inspected the property for pests. The evidence the landlord provided does not show what prompted this inspection. It is likely that this was prompted by a further report from the resident but we are unable to determine when, how many times and whether she reported it to the landlord, the managing agent or both. Keeping a robust record of all resident contact is vital. As well as enabling the landlord to provide a better service, it helps the Ombudsman to understand the timeline of events and the landlord’s actions and decision-making. The lack of complete records in this case is inappropriate.
The inspection report shows that the landlord did not find any obvious reason for the infestation. It noted that the building was not very old and that the resident’s flat was immaculate and free from damp and mould. The report said there was apparently a leak 2 floors up that was not reported and the resident believed internal parts of the structure may still be damp and causing the silverfish. The resident told the landlord she had used smoke bombs and other products to try and resolve the issue. The inspection report recommended that the landlord’s structural team investigate further. This indicates that the landlord suspected there may be an underlying cause and it is positive that it was prepared to investigate further, however the landlord did not follow through on this, which was inappropriate and further prolonged the issue being diagnosed.
The resident contacted the landlord twice in September 2023 to ask for the outcome of the inspection. The Ombudsman expects landlords to share the outcomes of all repair jobs and inspections with the resident. This helps the resident to have confidence in the landlord’s diagnosis and to understand the next steps. In this case, the landlord does not appear to have shared the inspection report with the resident or even responded to her calls. This was inappropriate and led to the resident lodging a stage 1 complaint on 12 October 2023.
In her complaint the resident reported the impact on her mental health and her finances. She said the whole building was infested and that neighbours had also reported problems inside their flats. She said she tried various treatments and needed the landlord’s help to resolve the issue. She also expressed concern with the effect the pest treatments she had tried were having on her and her child’s health, particularly as she has asthma.
The landlord did not provide a formal response to this part of the complaint which is discussed further in the complaint handling section of this report. Instead, it emailed the resident on 25 October 2023 and said it had investigated the silverfish and not found any property or building defects that could cause them. It said there was nothing further it could do to assist and encouraged the resident to contact a pest control firm who could inspect and recommend further treatment.
On the same day the landlord noted in internal emails that the resident had reported silverfish in 2021 and the landlord had done structural surveys which found nothing wrong. There is no evidence of any investigations apart from the inspection on 31 August 2023 so it seems the survey the landlord was referring to in its email took place in 2021. Considering its own surveyor had recommended further investigation in 2023, the landlord should not have relied on the outcome of the historical investigations.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on pests states that landlords should not place the onus on residents to sort out the problem. While they may have a part to play, they may not be the root cause and landlords should investigate fully before deciding who is responsible yet the landlord placed the onus squarely on the resident to resolve the issue. This was inappropriate.
The resident had also told the landlord that the issue had affected her health, and that it had meant she had to throw food away, costing her financially. The landlord did not address this in its email to her. It should have advised the resident that she could make a claim for damages against its liability insurance if she wished to do so. As she also reported that it was a building-wide issue, the landlord should have advised her how to make claim to the freeholder and/or managing agent’s insurance as well.
Although the landlord’s email was not a formal complaint response, the resident assumed it was and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She said the landlord would have been aware of the infestation before she moved in from other neighbour reports and that there must be a problem with the building or ventilation. She had pest-fogged the flat twice and felt it was no longer her responsibility.
Internal emails show that the landlord was unsure how to proceed and questioned whether it should visit the property to assess the issue, clear the silverfish and then leave it as the resident’s responsibility from there. Had the landlord had a clear pest control policy it would have been able to establish at an earlier stage what its obligations were.
The landlord also noted that silverfish are usually found in damp, dark locations rather than the places that the resident reported finding them. This should have indicated to the landlord that something out of the ordinary was going on in the property and prompted it to investigate further rather than to write the issue off as the resident’s responsibility.The landlord surveyed the property for pests on 21 December 2023. Internal emails following the survey show that the landlord had now accepted there was a wider issue with silverfish throughout the block.
It was suggested in internal emails that the landlord get pest control to inspect and make recommendations for the whole block. The landlord then questioned whether the managing agent would be responsible for any of the work. The landlord could not find a copy of its contract with the managing agent and so it was unsure who needed to deal with it. The Spotlight report says that landlords should ensure that they and the managing agent have a clear, shared understanding of their legal and contractual responsibilities, including what this means in practice. The lack of understanding in this case was another factor that prolonged the pests being dealt with.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 3 January 2024. Its promise to take the issue up with the managing agent directly was the right thing to do, but the way it was worded made it seem as though the landlord was doing this as a favour. The Spotlight report explains that the Ombudsman expects landlords to own the relationship with their residents and be proactive in pursuing resolutions on their behalf. They should take responsibility for getting clear updates and action from managing agents and failure to do so is unsatisfactory. Expecting residents to contact or chase managing agents directly in cases where there have already been issues with communication is inappropriate.
The landlord’s statement that it could not uphold the complaint as pests were the managing agent’s responsibility was also inappropriate. While it is likely that the managing agent would be responsible for pests affecting the entire block, the landlord has a responsibility to ensure they fulfill their obligations which it had failed to do. The resident gave the landlord information in her stage 1 complaint on 12 October 2023 that indicated there might be a wider issue, but the landlord did not investigate, or ask the managing agent to investigate, until 21 December 2023. Had it acted sooner the problem could have been identified at an earlier stage.
On 4 January 2024 the landlord contacted pest control who inspected the building and recommended treatment. The landlord wrote to the managing agent on 19 January 2024 asking them to arrange the required treatment. It did not chase the managing agent for a response until the resident contacted it on 13 February 2023. Its second letter to the managing agent told them that it had written to all block residents and 7 had responded. All reported silverfish in their flats and 5 had also seen them in the communal areas. It said if the landlord did not hear back from them within 7 calendar days it would contact the Ombudsman and its legal advisers. As with the communal door issue, the landlord failed to follow through on this and did nothing to chase the managing agent or escalate the matter.
The managing agent responded to the landlord on 5 July 2024 and said they would arrange for pest control to attend. The landlord wrote to all block residents on 17 July 2024 and said pest control would be attending on 23 July 2024 to inspect communal areas and would be knocking on doors to inspect individual flats.
The landlord told the Ombudsman that pest control had undertaken works in the communal areas but the resident did not answer the door on that day or on 2 other occasions when they knocked. Contrary to this, the resident told us that the landlord had told her pest control would attend on 19 July 2024 but no one had turned up. She said she had had no contact about it since and had given up reporting it. Without any records of these visits the Ombudsman is unable to determine what happened, but both parties agree that silverfish have not been eliminated in the resident’s flat.
There were several failures in this case that amount to maladministration. The landlord failed to refer the case to its structural team for further investigation after its own surveyor recommended this on 31 August 2023. It then told the resident that the pests were her responsibility to deal with without having properly investigated the cause. Even if it was her responsibility, it should have supported her to identify the cause and resolve it.
When it investigated further in December 2023 and found that there was a wider issue in the building that was not the resident’s responsibility, it failed to take ownership of the situation by arranging the works or ensuring that the managing agent did.
The managing agent eventually carried out works in July 2023. This was 9 months after the resident gave information in her stage 1 complaint that indicated there was a wider issue, and 7 months after the landlord became satisfied of this for itself. We cannot say whether the landlord is at fault for the resident’s flat being missed when works were completed but either way, there was an unreasonable delay in any works commencing.
The resident has been living with silverfish in her property for over 3 years. This has caused her considerable distress. She reported that she has to do a 20 minute check each evening before bed to remove silverfish from beds and she has difficulty getting to sleep as she is worrying about them so much. She has been inconvenienced by having to throw away food and has spent time and trouble trying to eradicate the silverfish herself, as well as on progressing her complaint.
To reflect this, the landlord should pay the resident £600 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends compensation of this amount for maladministration with a significant, non-permanent impact.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In March 2022 we published our Spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report, unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords should acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 calendar days. It does not specify a timeframe for acknowledging stage 2 complaints but the Ombudsman would consider 5 calendar days to be reasonable. The landlord’s own complaints policy goes further than this and says that it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 2 working days. The Code explains that the acknowledgement should set out the landlord’s understanding of the complaint and the outcome the resident is seeking. This is important as it provides an opportunity for the resident to clarify any part of the complaint that the landlord may have misunderstood. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints, which was inappropriate.
Although the resident had put both issues in the same complaint the landlord logged them as 2 separate complaints, which was reasonable. As the landlord did not explain to the resident that it had done so, however, she was not aware that she would not receive responses to both issues at the same time. It also meant the resident was not aware that the landlord had decided not to accept the stage 1 complaint about silverfish.
The Code states that the landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to. Landlords must set out the circumstances in which it will not accept a complaint in their complaints policy, and they must be fair and reasonable. If a landlord refuses to accept a complaint, then they must provide a detailed explanation to the resident in writing.
Internal emails show that the landlord had taken the decision not to treat the silverfish issue as a complaint because the resident had raised the issue 2021 and the landlord had found nothing wrong structurally, therefore it concluded that it was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord’s complaints policy does not set this out as a reason that a complaint would not be accepted, and the Ombudsman would not consider this to be a valid reason. The landlord should have accepted this as a formal complaint and provided a formal response. Not doing so meant that the response it did provide did not explain that it was a formal response and that the resident could escalate to stage 2 of the complaints process.
However, the resident appears to have assumed this was a formal response and was aware of the escalation process. She asked to escalate to stage 2 and the landlord accepted that request, which was positive.
The Code and the landlord’s complaints policy state that the landlord should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If an extension is required the landlord should contact the resident to explain why and advise a new deadline. Any extensions should not exceed 10 days without good reason.
The landlord did not respond to the stage 2 complaint for 47 working days. In addition, the Ombudsman had to intervene. We contacted the landlord on 11 December 2023 asking it to respond by 18 December 2023. Not only did the landlord fail to do so, but it also failed to offer any explanation or a revised deadline to either the Ombudsman or the resident. The resident was already frustrated by communication issues with the landlord and this would have exacerbated her frustration.
At the time, the landlord’s complaints policy included a stage 3 where residents could escalate the complaint to a complaints panel if they were dissatisfied with the stage 2 response. However, the stage 2 response in this case signposted the resident to the Ombudsman if she wished to escalate the complaint. While the Ombudsman does not recommend more than 2 stages, and the new Code does not allow it, the landlord should have followed its complaints policy as this is what the resident would have expected.
There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation to reflect the delay and poor communication.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
1. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance from the communal entrance door.
2. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation.
3. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the identified failures. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
2. Pay the resident £1,300 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £600 compensation in relation to the communal door.
  2. £600 compensation in relation to the silverfish.
  3. £100 compensation in relation to the complaint handling.
3. Contact the managing agent and ask them to, within 4 weeks:
  1. Inspect the communal door to determine what works remain outstanding and arrange for any works required to be completed.
  2. Undertake a thorough investigation into the silverfish issue. They must investigate the wider issue impacting the block and not just the resident’s property. They should then arrange to carry out the required treatment.
  3. Provide the resident with a report detailing their investigation into the silverfish. This should include any causes that have been identified, what works or treatments have been carried out, the schedule for any future works and the timeframe for a follow up inspection to confirm the treatment has been effective once complete.
4. If the managing agent does not comply with the requests in order 77c, the landlord should seek legal advice about its available options and provide evidence that it has done so within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
5. Appoint a named member of staff to oversee the requests in order 77c and keep the resident updated of the progress.
6. Provide its liability insurance details to the resident so she can make a claim if she wishes to do so.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. Develop a pest control policy. The policy should include methodological steps in establishing whether the issue is the landlord’s or the resident’s responsibility.
2. Review its repairs guide to ensure response timeframes are accurate for repairs which are the managing agent’s responsibility.
3. Contact the resident to discuss her request for a management transfer and apply its management transfer policy. If it does not have one, it should signpost/refer the resident to the local authority and mutual exchange websites.