Sanctuary Housing Association (202207322)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207322

Sanctuary Housing Association

16 January 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of bedbugs in his home.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is situated in a building which is classed as sheltered housing and it has a shared communal area. The resident has physical and mental health vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of.
  2. In January 2022, a member of the landlord’s staff reported an infestation of what appeared to be mites in the communal area of the building and stated it was also present in a resident’s property. The landlord stated that it was only responsible for the treatment in the communal area. On 4 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord as he had tried to treat his property himself, but had been unsuccessful. He asked for assistance from the landlord as he was on antibiotics due to the bites and had been quoted £200 for a private pest control operative which he could not afford. The landlord discussed potential ways it could assist the resident, but maintained it was the resident’s responsibility. On 11 March 2022, the landlord stated it would take responsibility for the extermination of the pests in the resident’s room and would not recharge the resident, due to a policy change. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 March 2022 as he felt misled given that the landlord had previously stated it was not responsible.
  3. On 23 March 2022, the resident was decanted and a pest–control operative attended to inspect the property. During the visit, the pest control operative identified bedbugs in the resident’s property. Follow–on works to treat the infestation were booked to begin on 30 March 2022. On 1 April 2022, the resident informed the landlord that due to how severe the infestation was, he had destroyed all of his belongings in an attempt to resolve it.
  4. The infestation had been fully treated by 19 April 2022. On 27 April 2022, the resident checked out of the hotel as he was travelling abroad due to a family bereavement. The resident returned on 14 May 2022, and the landlord stated it provided a further hotel decant from this date. The resident slept at the property during this period, and reported that he had been bitten again on 29 May 2022. On 8 June 2022, a contractor attended the property and found no further signs of activity. The resident’s decant ended on 15 June 2022.
  5. The resident initially complained on 10 March 2022 about being bitten by the bedbugs in his property, and stated that despite having an upcoming back operation, he had received no support with the issues he was facing. In the resident’s complaint escalation, he stated that he wanted compensation to cover the cost of his furniture, he was homeless due to the infestation and had to throw the furniture away so that he could enter the property. He was unhappy that due to this, he had to return to an empty property following the decant. The resident also raised concerns as he was initially told by the landlord that pest infestations were the resident’s responsibility which was incorrect.
  6. In the landlord’s final stage two response on 11 July 2022, it stated that it had not told the resident to dispose of any furniture or belongings but acknowledged that the pest control issue could have been resolved at an earlier stage. It apologised that the incorrect advice had been given previously, but stated that once it was aware of its error, it had arranged for the necessary treatment and had decanted the resident. It stated that it had provided the resident with a new bed and mattress, which had cost £1500 in total. In addition, it offered the resident £1213 compensation in view of his other furniture, and offered the resident an alternative property if he wished to move. The landlord acknowledged that its poor communication and lack of initial service had impacted the resident, and that the resident had spent time and effort trying resolve the issue.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service on 11 July 2022 as he was dissatisfied with the level of compensation when considering the impact on his mental and physical health due to being homeless at times during the infestation and how this impacted his anxiety and back problems. The resident also remained dissatisfied as the landlord had initially stated it was not responsible for the infestation; and due to this, the resident had destroyed his belongings. The resident is seeking further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. This Service acknowledges that the resident has explained how the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation significantly impacted his mental health, and that due to the infestation, the resident attempted to take his own life. However, whilst this provides context for the complaint, this Service is unable to make findings of damage or injury to physical or mental health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of bedbugs in his home.

  1. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged that it had initially provided the resident with incorrect advice in relation to who was responsible for pest infestations within his property. In addition, it acknowledged that it did not respond to the resident’s initial reports appropriately, which impacted the resident as he had spent time and effort trying to resolve the issue. The landlord attempted to put this right by providing the resident with compensation in the form of a new bed and mattress which was a total cost of £1500, as well as £1213 monetary compensation. Furthermore, it offered the resident an alternative property as part of its redress.
  2. However, the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of redress, and believed it was not proportionate when considering his physical and mental vulnerabilities, as well as his loss of belongings and that at periods throughout the infestation he was homeless.
  3. It is the role of this Service to determine whether the landlord’s response and the redress it offered in view of this was proportionate. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. Whilst the landlord acknowledged its poor communication initially, the resident informed it that due to receiving no assistance with the infestation and the landlord stating it was not responsible, he had destroyed his furniture and belongings, so that he was able to return to the property. The resident is seeking further compensation in relation to this as he has stated that the amount of compensation provided was not enough to refurnish his property. In addition, the resident has stated that due to destroying his belongings and furniture, there was a period of ten days where he had to sleep on the floor. However, the landlord has stated that it did not advise the resident to dispose of any furniture or belongings, nor was it aware that the resident was planning to do this. Therefore, it would not be obligated to provide compensation for any furniture loss due to this. Despite this, the landlord went above its obligations to be fair and it tried to put things right by providing goods and compensation in view of how the resident had been impacted by the failings it had identified.
  5.  Prior to the infestation being identified by the landlord, the resident stated that he was forced to be homeless for two–and–a–half weeks due to the extent of the infestation. The landlord has provided evidence to this Service to show that the resident had informed it that he was homeless, but that it was unaware whether this was actually the case or not. This is evidence of a lack of communication on the landlord’s behalf, and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to communicate with the resident at the time to gain clarification on the matter and consider any relevant support it could provide. Nevertheless, whilst this Service acknowledges that this would have been distressing for the resident, the property was not found to be uninhabitable due to the infestation. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and how this may have impacted the situation, to ensure it was providing an appropriate service. In addition, if the landlord had taken steps to review its processes at an earlier stage, it may have found its policy errors at this point, which would have reduced the total length of time in which the resident had a pest infestation in his property.
  6. The landlord has advised this Service that it recognised the error in its policy on 16 March 2022 and acknowledged its liability of the infestation by implementing an updated Pest Control Guidance policy, which it backdated and stated that it came into effect on 11 March 2022.  It then acted appropriately by arranging for a pest–control operative to inspect the property within six working days, which was an appropriate timeframe when considering the landlord would have had to book for a specialist to attend.
  7. Following the pest control operative finding evidence of an infestation on 23 March 2022, the landlord decanted the resident to a hotel and had completed treatments by 19 April 2022. Whilst this Service acknowledges that the resident was dissatisfied with the length of time taken to resolve the infestation, it should be noted that pest infestations can take time to resolve due to the repeated treatments that are needed. In addition, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 states that the presence of pests needs to be identified before a pesticide treatment can take place. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to wait until a pest control operative had inspected the property and identified the bed bugs before it could begin any treatment.
  8. Following the initial inspection on 23 March 2022, the landlord had booked treatments to begin on 30 March 2022. This was delayed by the contractor, who rebooked the works to begin on 6 April 2022. Whilst this slightly extended the timeframe for the pest treatments, the landlord acted appropriately by also extending the decant for the resident.
  9. Furthermore, following the resident’s reports that he had stayed at the property on 29 May 2022 and had been bitten again, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for a further inspection. The pest–control operative attended on 8 June 2022 and found no further evidence of an infestation. This was a total of five working days and was therefore completed within an appropriate timeframe. In addition, the landlord ensured that the decant for the resident had been extended throughout this period, so that he did not need to stay at the property. This shows that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously, and acted swiftly to ensure it had improved its service. It also suggests that the landlord had learnt from the failings it had previously identified.
  10. From the evidence provided, it is clear that the decants were problematic at times and did not always suit the resident’s needs. However, from the evidence provided, it is not clear what caused this. That said, the landlord acted appropriately by providing an alternative hotel booking for the resident which was more suitable. In addition, this Service acknowledges that the resident was distressed due to the decant extending throughout the treatment period and taking place in different hotels, which the resident has stated exacerbated his anxiety. However, this was outside of the landlord’s control as it was not previously aware of the hotel’s availability, nor that it would need to extend the decant beyond the initial stay. In addition, the landlord attempted to minimise the impact on the resident by offering to pay for taxis if the resident needed assistance with moving his belongings.
  11.  Following the completion of the pest–control treatments, the landlord arranged meetings with the resident on 21 June 2022 and 1 July 2022 to discuss how its failings had impacted him and to enquire about what the resident would like as a resolution. This is evidence that the landlord was eager to make things right in view of the failings it had identified. In addition, the evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord had carefully considered the redress which the resident had suggested would be appropriate, which was to move property and stated that the compensation would need to be ‘thousands.’ Following this, the landlord offered compensation of £1213, as well as providing a bed and mattress totalling £1500, when it was not obligated to. In addition, it did offer the resident an alternative property which he could permanently move to, but the resident declined.
  12. Overall, the landlord has acknowledged that its incorrect policy meant that the resident was provided with incorrect advice which impacted him throughout the process of the pest infestation. It has provided evidence to show that it has learnt from this, and has implemented an updated policy to ensure the same mistake does not happen again. Following its realisation that the resident had been provided with incorrect advice, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for an inspection and the necessary treatments, and it ensured that the resident was decanted throughout the process. In addition, it has shown it was fair by communicating with the resident about what redress he would be seeking, and attempted to put things right by providing the resident with £2713 compensation which was made up of the £1213 monetary compensation offer and the £1500 total for the bed and mattress, which the resident had selected himself. Furthermore, as a form of redress, it also offered the resident an alternative property.
  13. Therefore, when considering all the factors of the case, the landlord has provided compensation which was in line with the remedies and outcomes guidance provided by this Service, as the landlord had identified and acknowledged its own failings prior to the investigation by this Service. In addition, it had taken steps and made an offer of compensation which, in the opinion of this Service, puts things right. It should be noted that without the level of redress provided by the landlord, this Service would have found some level of maladministration due to the impact on the resident throughout the process of the pest infestation. Therefore, the landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £1213 compensation, if it has not already been paid.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident raised a stage one complaint on 10 March 2022, and the landlord responded on 10 May 2022. This was a total of 41 working days and outside the appropriate timeframe for a stage one response, which should be sent within 10 working days. Whilst it appears that the landlord had held off responding to the complaint due to the ongoing treatments for the infestation, it is the established view of this Service that it is not necessary to wait for treatments to be completed before responding to a complaint and should ensure that it has responded to a resident within a timely manner.
  2. In addition, a complaint response can be issued whilst works are outstanding, and compensation could have been awarded for any delays or failings which have taken place or were expected, based on the proposed completion date. If there are further delays or failings after the landlord issued its final complaint response, it could still consider providing additional compensation if appropriate. The delay in responding to the complaint would have been inconvenient for the resident, and would have delayed him from being able to escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman sooner.
  3. Furthermore, the resident raised issues in his stage one complaint such as a gap in the window of his property, issues with the toilet in his property and damp in the bedroom. He also stated that the he felt he had not been supported with these issues, despite awaiting a back operation. The landlord failed to address these concerns within its stage one response, which was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service. The Complaint Handling Code provides guidance on what this Service expects of a landlord during its complaints process. The Code states that landlords must address all aspects of a complaint within its response, which in this case, did not happen.
  4. Following this, the resident escalated his complaint on 17 May 2022 and the landlord provided its stage two response on 13 June 2022. This was a total of 17 working days, which was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy which states that a stage two response should be provided within 20 working days.
  5.  As the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage two response, it decided to investigate further and, as a result, it provided a second stage two response within 20 working days, which again was in line with the appropriate timeframe in its complaints policy. Nevertheless, whilst this Service acknowledges that the landlord stated this was due to it being eager to resolve the issue for the resident, which is admirable, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord could not have done this at an earlier stage. The third stage of the complaint unnecessarily delayed the complaint process and would have been inconvenient for the resident and it further delayed his ability to escalate his complaint to this Service.
  6.  In summary, there were clear failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, despite the landlord’s good intentions. These failings impacted the resident and delayed his ability to escalate his complaint to this Service. Nevertheless, the total compensation offered as part of the overall complaint was sufficient to provide the resident with reasonable redress for both its failings with regards to the substantive issue and its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of bedbugs in his home.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint regarding its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. That the landlord pay the resident the £1213 compensation which it previously offered, if it has not done so already. The finding of reasonable redress being dependent on this amount being paid to the resident.
  2. It is also recommended that the landlord considers providing additional staff training in relation to its complaint handling, to avoid similar complaint handling failures going forward.