Clarion Housing Association Limited (202218339)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218339

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 May 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a fly infestation.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a two-bed flat with her three children under an assured tenancy which began on 11 October 2021.
  2. The resident has not declared any health needs or disabilities within the household.
  3. The complaint centres around a fly infestation in the resident’s property, which she said was being caused by waste accumulation in a neighbouring property. The resident said that flies were causing her additional costs through spoiled food and drinks and making the property unpleasant and unsafe to live in. She also reported that the infestation was causing her and her children a great deal of anxiety and stress.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 1 November 2022. She said that she had paid pest contractors to attend privately and resolve the issue but was not successful and asked the landlord to assist her moving properties.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 December 2022 and said that it had inspected the property and found no flies present. It had also arranged a contractor to attend, who found flies present and who suggested they were coming from a neighbouring property. The landlord committed to attending the neighbour’s property to carry out a pest control treatment.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 15 December 2022 as she felt the landlord had taken too long to address the fly infestation and that it remained unresolved at this point. The resident also said that she had incurred additional costs in private pest control treatments in an attempt to resolve the issue.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 March 2023 in which it acknowledged a delay in addressing the fly infestation and awarded the resident £200 compensation in respect of this. The landlord said it was visiting the neighbour’s property and that this was under review, including ongoing waste management. The landlord did not give further details to protect the neighbour’s privacy. The landlord said that it would not normally cover the costs of private pest control treatments but was happy to consider this if the resident sent in evidence to support these costs.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 14 May 2023 seeking a resolution to the fly infestation and compensation for the costs that she had incurred. 

Assessment and findings

Fly infestation

  1. The landlord’s tenancy management and pest and wildlife policies indicate that in most cases, residents are responsible for maintaining their properties in a condition which will not attract or allow pests to accumulate. This includes regularly disposing of waste. The policies state that the landlord is responsible for resolving pest issues in communal areas or in individual properties, where the infestation can be shown to have started in a communal area.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy management policy outlines a process for addressing pest issues with individual residents. This includes conducting an initial investigation, offering support and advice, taking action to address any tenancy breaches and ultimately, if left unresolved, taking legal action against the resident.
  3. The landlord’s policies make allowances for vulnerable residents, by stating that it will seek further support internally and from external support agencies to assist the residents. The landlord may also consider one-off works to address a pest problem at no charge to the resident when they are vulnerable.
  4. The resident reported the fly infestation on 1 November 2022. In response to this initial report the landlord attended the property on 22 November 2022 and found no flies present. The landlord also sent a specialist contractor to inspect the property on 1 December 2022 who found flies in the resident’s property and on the neighbour’s windowsill. The contractor recommended that the landlord access the neighbour’s property to confirm if that was the source of the infestation.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord committed to attending the neighbour’s property and carrying out a pest treatment. The evidence shows that the landlord requested confirmation of which neighbour the flies were coming from, by telephone call to the resident on three occasions and then by email on 30 January 2023. This was inappropriate as the landlord had already been provided this information by its contractor and this caused a delay in resolving the matter.
  6. When the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, she advised the landlord that she had visited her neighbour’s property. During the visit her noticed a strong smell from the property and that flies were present. The resident told the landlord that her neighbour was vulnerable and in need of support. She said that the neighbour’s son usually assisted him to remove rubbish from his property, but that he had not been attending and this was causing the accumulation.
  7. The resident said to the landlord on 30 January and 1 February 2023:
    1. In January 2023, the resident and another neighbour assisted the owner of the adjacent property to clear the rubbish from his flat, which they believed was causing the flies.
    2. The removal of rubbish from the neighbour’s property had resolved the fly infestation in the resident’s property.
    3. That the removal of the rubbish by the resident and another neighbour was a temporary fix and the ongoing support needed to resolve the issue was still not in place.
    4. That the landlord’s pest control contractor had never attended the neighbour’s property to carry out a treatment.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said that it had visited the neighbour’s property and had this under review. The landlord confirmed that contractors had not attended the neighbour’s property to conduct a pest treatment as it needed to arrange access with the neighbour. The landlord did not provide further details due to data protection. In the documents provided to this Service, there is no evidence that the landlord’s staff visited the property in this time period.
  9. After the complaint process, the evidence shows that the landlord completed a home visit to the resident’s neighbour on 22 May 2023. The notes from this visit indicate:
    1. The property was in a clean state, free from any accumulations of rubbish.
    2. The neighbour had hired a cleaner to assist him with managing the property and rubbish.
    3. The neighbour had made lifestyle changes to reduce the amount (and types) of waste he was generating.
    4. The landlord had offered wider support to the resident, however he had declined this.
  10. In November 2023, the landlord’s records indicate that it queried whether the contractor had attended the neighbour’s property during the course of this complaint. The evidence shows that no contractor attended the neighbour’s property. The landlord said that contacted the neighbour, who said he did not have an issue with flies, so the appointment was cancelled. It is not clear from the evidence when this contact took place.
  11. Overall, the evidence shows that the resident reported the issue in November 2022 and the landlord did not attend the neighbour’s property until 22 May 2023. During this time, there is also no evidence that a contractor attended, despite the landlord’s assurances in its complaint responses that this would be completed. Due to these delays, the resident and another neighbour resolved the issues themselves by assisting the neighbour and paying for private pest control in their own properties to alleviate the distress and inconvenience of the situation.
  12. Taking together the delays in response, the lack of pest control action, and the long term detrimental impact on the resident and her family, the Ombudsman considers that there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the fly infestation.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process in which it commits to issuing responses within 20 working days at stage 1 and 40 working days at stage 2. This was an interim complaints policy, following a cyber attack, which has since been replaced with a policy that is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord issued both of its complaint responses outside the timescales set in its interim policy. Its stage 1 complaint response was issued 32 working days after receipt and its stage 2 response was issued after 63 working days. At each stage the landlord apologised and awarded £50 compensation to the resident in respect of these delays.
  3. The landlord’s complaint responses did not include a reason for the delays and there is no evidence to suggest that these were communicated to the resident in advance. On the contrary, the evidence shows that the resident chased for updates on the complaints on at least two occasions in writing. This was maladministration as the Ombudsman expects landlords to comply with the timescales within its policies and the Complaint Handling Code, to keep residents informed of any delays.
  4. Whilst the stage 2 complaint was open, there is also correspondence to show that the landlord contacted the resident to ask if she would like the stage 2 complaint closed. This was in response to the resident and another neighbour assisting with waste clearance to remedy the fly infestation. The Ombudsman considers that this was inappropriate, as the landlord had, at that time, taken no action itself to resolve the issue or through suitable referrals secure support to the neighbour who was reported to be struggling to manage his waste.
  5. Also within its stage 2 complaint response, the amount of compensation awarded to the resident conflicted at two points within the letter. Within the text of the letter the compensation was £200, however within the table providing a breakdown of this, the compensation totalled £300. The Ombudsman considers that this was poor record keeping which may have caused unnecessary confusion for the resident.
  6. The Ombudsman considers that these factors, when taken together with the landlord asking the resident which neighbouring property the flies were coming from, when it already had this information, show that the landlord handled this complaint in an incompetent manner. The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep sufficiently detailed records of its interventions and actions to be able to track its complaints to completion.
  7. Taking these factors together, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the fly infestation.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience of the fly infestation over an extended period. This amount is in addition to any compensation paid previously and must be paid directly to the resident, not applied to her rent account, unless she requests this.
    2. Refund the full cost of private pest control contractors, paid for by the resident, on production of invoices or similar evidence, if it has not already done so.
    3. Provide this Service with a report showing what it has done to resolve the fly infestation and waste accumulation in the neighbouring property, in a lasting and effective manner. This must include details of:
      1. Any support provided to the neighbouring resident.
      2. Any pest control visits undertaken.
      3. Ongoing monitoring of the situation to prevent a reoccurrence.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Provide refresher training to its complaint handling staff to ensure that they can progress complaints in a timely way and with accurate compensation calculations.
    2. Review its record keeping practices to ensure that residents are not asked for information which the landlord already holds.