Anchor Hanover Group (202114698)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114698

Anchor Hanover Group

23 March 2022


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 report of a potential pest infestation issue within the loft area of the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. She took ownership of the property in February 2021.
  2. Shortly after moving into the property, the resident reported hearing pest activity in her loft. The landlord’s pest services contractor attended and laid traps, with its roofing contractor sealing possible ingress points. There is no evidence of further contact between the resident and landlord on this issue until August 2021, when the resident reported that she smelt rodent droppings in her property. She asked the landlord to clean the loft.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint, also in August 2021, about the landlord’s handling of her above concerns. The landlord’s final response of 27 September 2021 explained that based on the pest service contractor report of February 2021, it did not think further work in the loft was required.
  4. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, she said she wanted the landlord to clean the loft, including renewing loft insulation that she believed to have been infested by rats. She has since confirmed that the landlord has since attended and completed works to the attic, including cleaning and renewal of the insulation. She also referred to a new issue relating to the electrics as wires had been chewed, meaning that her alarm system no longer worked.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns relating to the electrics will not form part of this investigation. This is because the resident did not raise this matter with the landlord as part of her original complaint which exhausted its complaints procedure. The landlord needs an opportunity to investigate this matter before the Ombudsman becomes involved. The resident should raise her concerns to the landlord first, then once it has fully investigated them, she can bring them to this Service if necessary.
  2. It is appreciated that the electrics issue followed on from the same issues under investigation here. However, as this represents a development on the case since the completion of the complaints process, it cannot be investigated here.

Handling of the residents reports

  1. The landlord’s pest control procedure sets out that leaseholders are responsible for managing and covering the costs of pest control when there are issues within the property. The landlord is responsible if there are pests in communal areas, with costs to be recovered from residents through the service charge. The resident’s lease explains that she is responsible for keeping the interior of her home in good repair and decorative order. The landlord is responsible for repairing the main structure (roof, foundations, and exterior).
  2. The landlord’s stage one response (26 August 2021) referred to having previously explained to the resident that the pest contractor had informed the landlord that this was likely a squirrel issue, rather than rats. However, this contradicts the information contained within the 24 February 2021 contractor report, which explicitly refers to rat droppings. It was also decided at that time that 8 of the 10 rat traps laid should be for rats, suggesting the contractor was aware that rats were a likely issue.
  3. The resident’s escalation request referred to a discussion she said she had with the contractor at the time (February 2021) about sewer rats within the property at that time, with nesting having taken place in the insulation. She also asked about her being prevented from accessing the loft area and requested that it confirm which part of the lease confirmed that she could not access this area herself. She also raised health concerns on this issue, stating that she was classed as a vulnerable, disabled person, hence her need for a retirement property.
  4. The landlord’s final response confirmed that it was not a lease requirement that only landlord operatives access the loft area, but rather a fire safety issue. The landlord did not refer to the resident’s reports about her understanding of the contractor findings from February 2021, nor did it refer to the health concerns she had raised. The landlord confirmed its understanding of how the resident’s February reports were handled and confirmed that, based on this, no further works were required.
  5. The landlord’s handling of the complaint provides an example of a landlord not giving the resident a voice. It did not respond to the resident’s explicit comments about its management of the pest control issues and provided her with misleading feedback about both the access issue and the presence of rats within the loft space.
  6. The landlord subsequently attended the property in November 2021, following the resident’s continued reports. It found that there was merit to the resident’s concerns and raised a work order to then clean the loft. The resident has confirmed to this Service that the cleaning and insulation renewal has now taken place. Whilst this is encouraging as the resident has now received her desired outcome, it is of concern that she had to make multiple reports, including progression through the formal complaints process, to get herself heard. This was of particular concern given the resident’s reported vulnerability.
  7. The landlord’s lack of action, and responses to the resident were unreasonable and constitute as a service failure on its behalf. Whilst it did subsequently take action, it should have at least attended when the resident first reported the matter in order to resolve her complaint, rather than dismissing her concerns. The landlord would be responsible for any structural faults in the roof which would allow pests to enter, and as such it should have attended to ensure this was not the case.
  8. In all the circumstances of the case, an apology and an offer of compensation is considered appropriate. The landlord’s complaints process lacked empathy and understanding of the resident’s position; it also misled her about access issues and the possible presence of rats within the loft area. This meant that it missed the opportunity to take appropriate action at an earlier point.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to apologise to the resident for the service failures identified.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 for the inconvenience and delay experienced as a result of the failings identified in this report.
  3. The landlord to confirm and evidence compliance with the above orders, within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to discuss the resident’s concerns with the electrics/alarm system with her; to ensure that her vulnerability concerns have been addressed and to see if she wishes to progress through the complaints process on this issue.