We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Southampton City Council (202326087)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326087

Southampton City Council

27 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of pest control reports and associated works.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which began in 2018. The property in question is a 3-bed terraced house.
  2. In January 2023, the landlord raised works orders to investigate a leak due to a hole in the resident’s roof, which she also suspected was letting in birds. Following this, it was found that rats were using the property and pest control attended to carry out an inspection.
  3. The pest controller identified that 4 linked properties, including the resident’s, had an issue with rats and it provided a report to the landlord in April 2023 with recommended treatment works. The resident had continued to raise concerns with the landlord about the rat problem during this period.
  4. The resident then raised stage 1 complaints in April 2023 – these related to the pest control issues and other outstanding works at the property. The resident said that the landlord had failed to address the rat problem. The landlord continued to advise that treatment was underway.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 5 May 2023 and provided a detailed breakdown of events since January 2023. The complaint was partially upheld as the landlord said it was not in a position to confirm when essential repairs would be carried out to assist with the pest control problem. The landlord said that the matter had been made more complicated due to the involvement of the other properties. It set out proposed actions to address the rat problem across those properties.
  6. Works and further pest control visits, including inspections, took place following the complaint but the resident continued to experience problems with rats. The resident contacted this Service regarding those issues in October 2023 and she was directed to escalate her complaint with the landlord. The complaint escalation, due to the continued and outstanding issues with rats, was acknowledged on 18 December 2023.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 19 January 2024. It upheld the complaint and acknowledged that although the issue was more complicated than first thought, it could have been managed better. The landlord proposed that a schedule of works be arranged with a dedicated point of contact. It said that a decant would be considered to allow the works to be completed. The landlord also made an offer of £750 in compensation to the resident.
  8. The resident continued to chase the landlord for the completion of works following the stage 2 response. She advised that the rats are still an issue at her property and works remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Within the evidence submitted by both parties, it is evident that the resident acted on behalf of the residents of neighbouring properties when seeking a resolution to the rat problem. This investigation will focus solely on the resident’s complaint, rather than as a group complaint, given the 4 properties in question, and the residents, are likely to have been impacted in different ways. This is in accordance with paragraphs 26 and 48 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

The landlord’s handling of pest control reports and associated repairs.

  1. When a potential pest issue is reported to a landlord, if it has a responsibility to address it, the Ombudsman would expect it to arrange an inspection of the property. If the property is found to have a pest problem, the landlord should consider any recommendations made by specialists and undertake any suggested course of action in a timely manner.
  2. The resident indicated that she first raised concerns in October 2022, however, this Service has not had any sight of emails from this time that would confirm the landlord was made aware of the problems any earlier than January 2023. The reports in January 2023 were about a hole in the roof that the resident believed had allowed birds into the loft space.
  3. Within a report from April 2023, the pest controller identified a rat problem at the resident’s property and noted access points that were being used. It said a baiting programme would be carried out and it recommended that the landlord carry out proofing works to prevent further access. Despite these recommendations being made following the report in April 2023, the first works order raised to carry out such works was not until 18 July 2023. This was around 2 months after it had addressed the resident’s initial complaint about the delays in treatment of the rat problem.
  4. The landlord said that it initially delayed carrying out works as it was awaiting an asbestos survey for the loft and completion of works at a neighbouring property (that it considered a contributing factor to the rat problem). Waiting on the asbestos survey was reasonable as it was required prior to works being undertaken in the loft. However, the landlord should not have delayed works at the resident’s property due to works at a separate property.    
  5. Although a works order to fill the access points was eventually raised on 18 July 2023, the landlord’s records do not make it clear if, or when, this was completed. The next report provided by the pest controller in September 2023 made the same recommendations around proofing and said that the previously suggested works “have still not been carried out”. The report said that access points remained open, meaning that it considered the required works to be a “very urgent intervention”.
  6. In view of these findings, the landlord should have ensured that it attended quickly to carry out the required works. However, a loft survey carried out on 28 September 2023 noted that the landlord was not due to attend to fill access holes until 27 November 2023. These significant and continued delays in carrying out the required proofing works are a service failing by the landlord and allowed rats continued access to the property during that time. Given that the resident had made the landlord aware of the distress this was causing her and her family on numerous occasions, these delays show both a lack of understanding of the resident’s situation and a lack of urgency to address the problem.
  7. In October 2023, the landlord then failed to act on more detailed information around access points in the loft of the property. The contractor met the landlord on site on 10 October 2023 to show them the access points and provided a detailed report about them on 18 October 2023. However, these were not acted on, as the contractor made reference to them only having temporary proofing in place when it provided a further report, some 5 months later, in March 2024. This is another service failing, demonstrating a continued lack of oversight of the overall project and lack of urgency in addressing these issues.
  8. The landlord acknowledged within its initial complaint response in May 2023 that the timeframes it had offered for completion of works was “disappointing”. When responding to the stage 2 complaint in January 2024, it said that throughout the process there were “a number of examples” of cancelled appointments and works orders being incorrectly closed. These are further examples of service failings which not only added to the resident’s frustration but also to the time and trouble she experienced in seeking a resolution.
  9. Given the “number of examples” of faults identified within the process, it is evident that the landlord missed the opportunity to provide better management of the required works. Had it done so, this may have prevented further failings which then led to extended delays and the reliance on the resident having to chase it for updates before further works were scheduled or highlighted as having being missed. Based on the complexity of the rat problem in that area, which the landlord acknowledged, assigning somebody to manage the works through to completion would likely have reduced the overall time taken. Instead, the landlord accepted that it missed “trigger points” due to a lack of joined up working between departments.
  10. It is understood that the rat problem in the area around the resident’s property was considered significant and was complicated by environmental factors. The landlord’s records do show that some works were completed in the local area – to fencing and other properties – in an attempt to alleviate the rat problem. However, this does not excuse the significant delays in the completion of proofing works at the resident’s property. Had it prioritised these works, this would have reduced the likelihood of further access and allowed the baiting programme to be more effective in eliminating the rat problem.
  11. It is evident that during its investigation of the pest issues, the landlord removed the insulation from the resident’s loft space and there were delays in this being replaced. It also identified that there were potentially chewed electrical wires in the properties that the rats had accessed. Although it is not clear when these were identified, the resident did raise concerns with the landlord that surveys and repairs were not being carried out. Given the concerns this would raise around potential hazards in the property, the landlord should have ensured that these works were prioritised and the resident kept informed. It is a failing on the part of the landlord that it failed to do so, which the resident stated had caused her distress and inconvenience. 
  12. Through its stage 2 response, the landlord comprehensively detailed the complaint, upholding it and acknowledging its failings throughout the process. The landlord proposed that a “project manager” be assigned to the resident in order to co-ordinate and manage the remaining required works. It also identified that a lack of a pest control policy was an issue and said it would look to complete and publish one in the future.
  13. Despite acknowledging its failings and proposing a plan of action, it is evident that since the stage 2 complaint, similar failings around the management of the works have occurred. This shows no indication that the landlord has ‘learned from outcomes’ in this case, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Principles of Dispute Resolution.   
  14. Further, the landlord offered apologies and made a compensation offer of £750 to the resident. It is the view of the Ombudsman that this is not proportionate having considered the service failings, time and trouble and the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident over an extended period of time, particularly with regard to her health and safety concerns.
  15. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the matter and this is acknowledged in its complaint responses as it said it had “failed to co-ordinate their response”. As the ingress points remained accessible, rats continued accessing the resident’s house. Rodents were able to enter the property through holes in the structure of the house that the landlord had failed to block effectively. This indicates that the landlord did not meet its obligation under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ‘keep in repair’ the structure and exterior of the property.
  16. The resident has indicated that she continues to experience rats in the property following her complaint. Evidence provided by the landlord shows that the pest control contractor was still raising concerns in June 2024 around the lack of reliable and lasting proofing works at the property.
  17. Having considered the service failings identified as part of this review and the landlord’s insufficient offer of redress given the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord failed to acknowledge the first complaint raised by the resident on 3 April 2023. It accepted this within its stage 1 response issued on 5 May 2023. During this time, the resident raised a further complaint and these were dealt with in the same response. However, it did mean that the landlord failed to provide the response in the timeframe set out in its complaint policy of 10 working days. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord.
  2. Although the landlord provided a detailed breakdown of the events surrounding the rat problem and the actions it had taken, it failed to identify that some of the delays had been avoidable, such as awaiting actions at a separate property.
  3. The landlord explained the actions it would be taking to address the rat problem but it did not explain how long those works would take. It is evident that it then failed to provide adequate oversight of the actions it proposed within its response. This is a service failing which contributed to further delays which eventually led to a stage 2 complaint being raised.
  4. Having considered these failings and the detriment this caused the resident, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the pest control reports and associated works.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord should provide a written apology to the resident. This should be provided within 28 days of the date of this report. The apology letter should include confirmation of the outcome of the landlord’s consideration of whether a decant is needed to allow for works at the property to be completed.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £1,200 to the resident (inclusive of the £750 it offered through its complaints process), made up of:
    1. £1,100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of pest control reports and associated works;
    2. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of her complaints.
  3. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord should ensure that any, and all, of the required proofing works are completed at the resident’s property. These should be completed to a permanent and lasting standard.
  4. A further pest control survey should be completed within 14 days of the proofing works being completed. A copy of the report should be provided to the resident.
  5. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.