Abri Group Limited (202012122)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012122

Abri Group Limited

26 August 2021

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A silverfish infestation.
2. Boiler repairs and a bathroom leak.

Background and summary of events

The resident became a tenant of the landlord on 28 March 2019. The voids inspection sheet shows that several repairs were completed prior to the resident moving in.
On 18 June 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that there were silverfish in her property. The landlord advised her to contact pest control. The resident contacted the landlord on several further occasions regarding the silverfish, and the landlord advised that the pests were her responsibility to address.
The resident reported a (containable)leak from her upstairs bathroom into the downstairs bathroom on 17 August 2019. The landlord attended on 19 August 2019.On 23 August 2019 the landlord raised follow-on remedial repairs for the leak. These were completed in September and early November 2019.
On 28 October 2019 the resident reported that her boiler was leaking. The landlord noted that this was containable, and the heating and hot water was still working. The landlord attended on 29 October 2019 and noted in its records that it cleared a blockage.
On 31 October 2019 the resident reported that her boiler was dripping water. The landlord attended to repair the boiler on 26 November 2019.
On 12 December 2019 the resident reported that her boiler was leaking again, and the landlord attended on 2 January 2020 to complete a repair. However, the repair was re-raised on 23 January 2020. The landlords notes say this job was “carded” by the engineer”, but it is not clear when (in this context this means an operative cannot gain access and leaves a note stating they visited).
The resident reported again, on 23 January 2020,that there were silverfish in her property and the landlord noted that she “was not happy that we would not come out as she said that silver fish only come out if there is damp and mould and there must be some in the property, but she can’t see it”. The landlord subsequently arranged for pest control to visit.
On 10 February 2020 the resident asked to reschedule the pest control appointment.
The landlord raised a repair on 9 February 2020 to check under her bath for a possible leak into “cloakroom below” because of water stains on the ceiling.
On 10 February 2020 the resident called to report that her boiler kept “cutting out” and leaking. The landlord attended on 18 February 2020 and found no leaks. It was recalled on 20 February 2020, and attended on 27 February 2020 to complete repairs
The resident asked to reschedule her pest control appointment on 25 February 2020, and asked for an update on 10 March 2020. The landlord asked its contractor to contact the resident to reschedule her appointment.
On 14 February 2020 the landlord informed the resident that once a plumber checked for the bathroom leak, it would attend to seal and paint the water stain to the cloakroom ceiling. On 24 February 2020 the resident asked the landlord to add a note to the bathroom repair to check under the bath for a leak. The landlord attended on 4 March 2020 and “carded” the job. The repair was re-raised for 26 March 2020.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 April 2020 and advised that she thought she had a leak coming from under the bath. When she took the bath panel off she noticed that the plastic sheet under the bath was not fitted correctly, so water was wetting the floorboards, and coming through the ceiling below. Water was in the light fitting in the hallway and downstairs toilet. The landlord raised a repair to check the electrics but advised the resident that if other repairs were needed this would need to be done once the repairs service was back to normal (due to the covid situation at the time). The landlord attended to check the electrics to the ceiling below the bathroom on 9 April 2020.
Following a backlog of works due to covid, the landlord re-raised the works for a decorator to attend to the leak stained ceiling on 9 July 2020.
The resident advised the landlord on 23 July 2020 that there were still silver fish in her daughter’s room, who was therefore sleeping with her parents, and pest control had not attended. The landlord asked its pest control contractor to contact the resident.
On 19 August 2020 the landlord raised a repair for the boiler, which was leaking. The repair was marked as completed on 19 August 2020 and there were no further repairs raised in relation to a leak from the boiler.
On 3 September 2020 the landlord noted “resident called to chase Pest Control that did not attend due to Covid-19. reraised to Pest Control to attend.”
On 16 September 2020 the landlord completed decorative follow-on repairs from the bathroom leak.
Pest control attended the property on 8 October 2020. According to their report, they completed an inspection, installed insect monitoring traps, and completed an insecticide spray treatment to the whole property. They recommended that the issue was monitored and any further issues reported.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 23 November 2020. The landlord noted that the resident believed that there were issues with silverfish and the boiler leaking before she moved in, and that the silverfish were caused by the leaks and damp issues. The resident said that the attic and kitchen cupboards were infested, and she had to throw a lot of items away. The landlord noted that the resident wanted to move property and had registered with homeswapper and the local authority. It said that the local authority suggested that the resident apply for a management move, but the landlord had not received any evidence to suggest this was warranted.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 November 2020 to confirm that it was investigating the complaint and would update the resident within five working days.
On 30 November 2020 the resident called the landlord for an update. She expressed concern that her home was becoming unliveable due to silverfish, and said she did not want to live there anymore. The landlord advised that it would arrange for pest control to re- attend. The resident was unhappy because she did not feel that pest control would help.
Pest control attended the property on 4 December 2020. In their report, they noted that they found silverfish in the traps laid “but not many”. They said that there was a tumble dryer in the kitchen venting into a condenser, which could be causing damp and there was a damp smell present. Pest control laid new insect traps, completed an insecticide spray treatment to the whole property, and advised the resident to open the kitchen window to vent damp air while the tumble dryer was on.
The landlord updated the resident on 16 December 2020 that pest control would reattend on 22 December 2020 to see if there had been any improvement in the situation.
Pest control attended again on 22 December 2020. In their report, they said that the resident had only seen three silverfish since their last visit. They found two silverfish in one trap and all others were clear. Pest control carried out another insecticide spray treatment to the entire property.
On 14 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to her complaint. It confirmed it had asked pest control to visit on several occasions, something which it would not normally undertake on her behalf. The landlord said that it understood that the source of the problem was dampness, which was being caused by the condenser tumble dryer. It confirmed that when the dryer was running, the kitchen needed to be suitably ventilated with windows open so that air could circulate. The landlord said this should reduce the damp and the pest problem. The landlord confirmed there had been a reduction in silverfish with various traps having been laid, and a full insecticide spray treatment had been applied throughout the property. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had concerns and wished to be rehoused, but said this was not something that it could agree to in the circumstances. It referred the matter to the resident’s housing officer for them to consider the best options for the resident. The landlord concluded that there was little more it could do to achieve a suitable resolution, and referred the resident to contact this Service, if she remained unhappy.
On 14 January 2021 the resident called in response to this email and on 15 January 2021 she spoke with her housing officer, who explained this was now a housing matter as the complaint was closed. The landlord advised the resident to call some pest control companies about treating the loft. The resident forwarded the landlord photographs and said that she was still getting silverfish throughout her property. The landlord subsequently arranged to inspect the property on 10 February 2020 to check for any obvious points of damp which could attracting the silverfish.
On 8 February 2021 this Service contacted the landlord to advise that the resident had contacted us to complain about a faulty boiler, leaks, and a silverfish infestation.
Following the landlord’s visit of 10 February 2021, it internally advised that it inspected the loft, bathroom, kitchen and bedrooms and could find no obvious cause for the silverfish. It found no areas of damp and did not see any silverfish except one that the resident had caught in a glass in the kitchen. The landlord said that the resident confirmed that following the treatments from pest control the silverfish numbers declined. It advised that it agreed to one more professional treatment to kill the remaining pests, then following that the resident would need to carry out regular treatments to the carpets herself.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 February 2021 to confirm it had arranged for pest control to attend one more time.
The resident called the landlord on 15 February 2021 and said that she felt the issue stemmed from the loft and “how will the issue get sorted if pest control don’t do any treatment in the loft”. The landlord confirmed it had inspected the loft on its visit and did not find any obvious indication that it was the cause of the pests.
On 19 February 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it received instruction from this Service to review her complaint and it would do so in accordance with its procedure.
On 19 February 2021 the landlord called the resident. It noted that this was to discuss the previous boiler issues and water leak. The landlord offered the resident £160 as a resolution for this aspect of the complaint.
Pest control attended on 22 February 2021. In their report they said that they had not seen any live silverfish at the time of the inspection. They completed another insecticide spray treatment to the whole property and installed two silverfish monitoring traps. Pest control recommended that the resident clear the loft of unwanted items and place items to be kept in sealed containers.
The landlord internally advised on 23 February 2021 that the resident sent an email in which she declined the offer of compensation due to the silverfish issue, which she said was getting worse. The resident was unhappy that she felt the landlord was blaming her for the silverfish.
On 23 February 2021 the landlord sent its final response to the complaint. It reiterated its offer of £160 in relation to the issues that the resident reported with the boiler repair and the leak. It said that the issues with silverfish would need to be pursued with the Service Manager. The landlord said it was not able to progress the complaint any further and suggested the resident contact this Service to fully review her concerns.
The landlord attended to check under the bath and replace the bath panel on 24 February 2021.
On 22 March 2021 the resident called the landlord regarding the silverfish. She asked why the landlord would not move her and the landlord “advised doesn’t meet criteria and in any normal case the tenant should be the one paying for pest control not us”. The resident said she did not feel the landlord done enough considering the silverfish were there when she moved in. The landlord said that its position had not changed, and it would not take any further action.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

In line with the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the main structure and exterior of the property. It is also responsible for the repair and maintenance of kitchen and bathroom fixtures and fittings, electrical wiring and gas and water pipes, and space and water-heating equipment that it owns. The resident must carry out all repairs she is responsible for, which are listed in the landlord’s tenant’s handbook.
The tenant’s handbook says that, under the tenancy agreement, residents are responsible for keeping their home free from pests. It says that for some pests residents may need to contact a pest control company or their local council.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, dated 10 October 2016, gives the following repair priorities:
1. Critical repairs: within 4 hours (Priority 1) To avoid immediate danger to resident, the property or members of the public e.g water in contact with electrics
2. Emergency repairs: within 24 hours (Priority 2) To avoid potential further damage to the property or risk to the resident, e.g. complete failure of heating and hot water during winter months, major leak.
3. Urgent repairs: within 7 calendar days (Priority 3) Repairs that affect the resident’s comfort or convenience, e.g. minor water leaks.
4. Essential repairs: within 14 calendar days (Priority 4) Repairs that could normally wait but where the resident is vulnerable and a routine repair of 31 days would be unreasonable, e.g. less urgent but cannot wait 31 days.
5. Routine repairs: within 31 calendar days (Priority P5) Repairs that can generally wait, with only slight inconvenience to the resident, e.g. minor problems with toilets, baths, sinks, plaster repairs, brickwork and other non-urgent internal and external repairs.
The landlord changed its repairs and maintenance policy in December 2020. This policy does not include the above classification and says the landlord will operate an appointment system, based on a 24-hour emergency response to make safe or an appointment-based job system for non-emergency repairs.
When a tenant asks their landlord to move them it is known as a management transfer. Landlords have discretion to agree to or offer such a move, and usually only do so when they need a tenant to move, or the tenant has an urgent and immediate need to move. It is an action of last resort, and done in situations such as:
1. violence, harassment, intimidation, or threats of violence likely to be carried out
2. the need to protect witnesses who have agreed to go to court to give evidence on matters of anti-social behaviour
3. urgent social reasons
4. major works to the property needing to be carried out

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a silverfish infestation.

Generally, unless there is a fault with the property that was the landlord’s responsibility to attend to (such as holes in exterior walls), pests are a tenant’s responsibility as part of their tenancy requirement to keep a property in good condition. When the resident initially reported the silverfish, between June 2019 and January 2020, the landlord informed her that it would be her responsibility to manage, and advised her to contact pest control. This was in line with the tenant’s handbook and reasonable.
When the resident expressed her further concerns on 23 January 2020 about there being damp in the property causing the silverfish, the landlord arranged for pest control to visit. Pest control attended the property on several occasions, completed treatments and recommended that the resident open her windows when using the tumble dryer, to combat any damp. The landlord reiterated this advice in its complaint response of 14 January 2021, but the resident remained unhappy with its actions. As a result, the landlord carried out an inspection in the property on 10 February 2021. It found no obvious cause for the pests, and did not see any silverfish, except one that the resident had caught. Given the decline in the silverfish numbers, the landlord agreed to arrange one more professional treatment to kill the remaining pests, then following that the resident would need to carry out regular treatments herself.
The resident remained dissatisfied with this outcome; however, the evidence shows that the landlord went beyond its obligations in arranging for pest control to attend on several occasions. Its visit to the property to establish if there was an underlying issue of damp causing the silverfish was a reasonable attempt to resolve the issue, and the subsequent complaint. While the matter is clearly distressing for the resident and her family, none of the relevant grounds for a landlord considering transferring a tenant appear to have been met. Accordingly, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports and complaint was reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of boiler repairs and a bathroom leak.

Based on the landlord’s repair records, various appointments were raised for leaks from the resident’s upstairs bathroom and her boiler.
The landlord attended to the repairs concerning minor bathroom/ boiler leaks reported on 17 August 2019, 28 October 2019, 10 February 2020, 20 February 2020 and 19 August 2020 within seven calendar days, in line with its repairs policy. The landlord also completed remedial works (on 27 September 2019 and 5 November 2019) following the bathroom leak within 31 days of them being raised (on 23 August 2019 and 12 September 2019). This was also in line with its repairs policy.
However, the evidence shows that the landlord raised a priority two/emergency repair for an electrician to attend when the resident reported water in her light fittings on 8 April 2020. The landlord therefore attended within 24 hours, instead of four hours (the timeframe for critical repairs), despite this type of situation being given as an example in its policy of a critical repair issue.
There were also delays in the landlord completing some of the repairs for minor bathroom/boiler leaks, which its repair policy classes as urgent, with a seven day response time. For example, on 31 October 2019 and 12 December 2019 the resident reported that her boiler was dripping water. The landlord attended to the repairs on 26 November 2019 and 2 January 2020. The landlord also did not attend to the resident’s report of a leak under her bath on 9 February 2020 until 4 March 2020.
The landlord did not consistently meet its repairs policy when carrying out repairs to the boiler and bathroom leaks, and it is clear that the issues caused the resident distress and inconvenience. When a landlord has failed in its services, the Ombudsman looks at whether it has subsequently set matters right and provided reasonable remedies by way of it complaints process. In this case the landlord used its complaints process to investigate the issues raised by the resident. It completed the repairs, acknowledged its service failings, and offered compensation. Considering the circumstances of the case, the level of impact and the amount that this Service would usually expect to see, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, the compensation offer of £160 was proportionate and reasonable, and, along with the landlord’s other actions, suitably remedied its failings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a silverfish infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from her boiler and bathroom satisfactorily.

Reasons

In line with the tenant’s handbook, a resident would usually be obligated to deal with any pest infestations in their home. In this case, the landlord instructed its pest control contractor to visit on several occasions and also attended to inspect for any potential root cause of the pests. These were reasonable attempts by the landlord to resolve the resident’s issues. Additionally, the landlord has also completed the required boiler and bathroom repairs and compensated the resident £160 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its delays, which was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.