One Vision Housing Limited (202423539)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2‑bedroom upper flat owned by the landlord. From the start of his tenancy in 2024, he reported a pest infestation. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to treat the infestation before the resident moved in and attempted to resolve the issue by carrying out treatments, completing remedial works, and reimbursing rent. The resident, however, remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation and escalated his complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation at the property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of a pest infestation at the property.
5. We have found service failure with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord recognised its failures in dealing with the pest infestation at the property. Its apology, remedial action and compensation offer put things right for the resident.
7. The landlord did not involve the resident in choosing whether the compensation should be paid to him or onto his rent account in contradiction of its compensation policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The resident told us that the pest infestation caused him and his daughter bites and rashes to the skin. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. The tenancy agreement states that at the time the tenancy is granted, the landlord will ensure the property is fit for human habitation and to carry out remedial work to ensure it remains fit for human habitation during the tenancy as per the Homes Fitness for Human Habitation Act 2018.
10. The tenancy agreement also states the landlord is not responsible for infestations, including infestations of rodents or insects unless it is due to its failure to comply with its repair obligations.
11. The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy states that it will ensure all empty properties are safe, clean, and secure prior to letting.
12. The resident started to report issues with a rodent infestation (May 2024) shortly after taking on the tenancy. He expressed concerns that the property was uninhabitable. The landlord issued its stage 1 response towards the end of May 2024. It acknowledged its failures to resolve rodent infestation prior to the resident taking over the tenancy. It also acknowledged the property was uninhabitable. It agreed remedial work and offered him 3 weeks rent refund. These were all positive resolution focussed steps forward.
13. In June 2024 remedial work remained outstanding. The resident reported bugs at the property and requested to be moved as he said the issues were impacting on his health. The landlord responded at stage 2 in mid July 2024. It had inspected the property, arranged remedial works, however some work had been delayed. It also arranged to visit neighbouring properties. It agreed the property was uninhabitable and said it would reimburse rent of £108.26 per week over the period from the start of the tenancy (1 April 2024 to 15 August 2024 – the date work was completed). The total rent reimbursement was £1623.90.
14. The landlord told the resident it would deduct £873.98 to clear rent arrears. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint resolution. The landlord reviewed its position again. Its final offer of compensation was increased to £1873.98: £873.98 of which would be paid onto the resident’s rent account. It is unclear why it increased compensation by £200 however we have assessed this as a distress and inconvenience payment. It also agreed to offer him a paint pack to help him with decorating the property. The landlord identified learning from the complaint around its empty property inspections.
15. The landlord demonstrated a resolution focused approach to resolving the issues. It recognised its failures and aimed to put things right for the resident. Its rent reimbursement for the period he could not live at the property was an appropriate response in line with our remedies guidance and its offer of £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him plus an additional paint pack were all reasonable steps to resolve the issues for the resident.
16. The landlord’s overall handling of the issues were resolution focused and aimed to put things right for the resident. The landlord’s learning from the complaint aligned with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. We have therefore found reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation at the property.

17. The resident raised a complaint on 9 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 May 2024 and sent its stage 1 response on 22 May 2024.
18. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states complaints must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 working days of the complaint being received. Landlords must issue a full response within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. The landlord appropriately complied with the Code.
19. On 3 June 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. It is unclear from the records if the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It sent its stage 2 response on 19 July 2024.
20. The Code states requests for stage 2 must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 2 of the complaints procedure within 5 working days of the escalation request being received. Landlords must issue a final response to the stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. The landlord provided its full response 7 weeks later and outside the Code’s timeframe. However, there is evidence the landlord stayed connected with the resident and agreed an extension of time to complete its investigations. Our Code allows for the landlord to extend the complaint in exceptional circumstances. As the landlord demonstrated its proactive involvement and engagement in seeking resolution to the complaint, we have found the landlord followed our Code’s complaint handling principles.
21. The landlord chose to apportion £873.98 to clear rent arrears. The landlord’s compensation policy states:
    1. “Where tenants are in arrears or owe other monies to the landlord, they may choose to have compensation payments (in full or in part) offset against monies owed and if they wish to pursue this option, they should inform the landlord.”
22. There is no evidence the landlord gave the resident a choice on whether to have compensation paid onto his rent account. The landlord made the decision to transfer a large part of the compensation (£873.98) onto the rent account. The landlord did not comply with its compensation policy and therefore its decision making on apportioning the compensation to the rent account was inappropriate. We have therefore found service failure with the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident.

Learning

23. The landlord should ensure it implements learning on empty property inspections to ensure a property is not let with a pest infestation. It should also ensure it complies with its compensation policy.