Babergh District Council (202207448)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207448

Babergh District Council

31 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. a rat infestation;
2. a bedroom size/number of rooms appeal;
3. repairs to:
  1. the cracked walls;
  2. the felt roof;
  3. the water pipes affecting the washing machine;
  4. the windows;
  5. damaged wood, and fascia boards; and
  6. a poor fitting back door.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant.
On 16 October 2021, the resident reported rats chewing on wood within her property and stated there were ‘rats and mice everywhere’. The resident expressed concerns that the roof between her property and a neighbouring property was a possible point of access. The resident also reported longstanding cracks in her walls, that her loft needed insulation and that the windows needed replacing.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 November 2021 about rats which were thought to be nesting in a neighbour’s garden. On 4 November 2021, the landlord agreed to visit and inspected the neighbour’s garden.
On 8 November 2021, the resident called her landlord about felt falling off her roof. The landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 9 November 2021 about their garden.
On 10 November 2021, the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process. It booked various works and arranged for a surveyor to conduct a site visit to investigate the cracking.
A contractor came to the resident’s property on 15 November 2021 to fit loft insulation. They ultimately refused to do the work as the rats had destroyed so much of the loft insulation including the facias, so the damage was much worse than expected.
The landlord instructed a pest control company on 17 November 2021.
The landlord visited the resident’s neighbour on 26 November 2021. It sent a second notice to the neighbour when the resident raised further concerns with the garden on 9 December 2021.
On 20 December 2021, the resident reported issues with a kitchen gully drain and washing machine pipe. The landlord attended the resident’s property twice to do repairs on this.
The neighbour’s garden was cleared by 4 February 2022.
On 18 February 2022, the resident complained again to her landlord. She indicated that rats were running through cavity walls, the ceiling, and under floorboards.
The pest control company completed the loft insulation on 1 March 2022 when the old insulation was removed, and the roof cleaned.
The landlord also issued a stage 1 complaint response on the same date (1 March 2022). It stated stating that it was pleased that the new insulation had helped keep the house warm. It arranged for a tradesman to visit the resident’s property to replace a section of rotten wood to the front.
The resident asked for her complaint to be re-considered at stage 2 of the landlord’s response on 28 April 2022.
At some point the landlord amended the size of the property in respect of the number of bedrooms. The resident explained she was dissatisfied with this decision.
On 6 June 2022, the landlord issued its final response, which explained:
1. it was in the process of appointing a new roofing contractor from August 2022 but could not give a timescale for the start of the roof work.
2. it was aware that the window panes required replacement and this was on order. It apologised for the delay, as the windows were measured in October 2021, but the panes had not been ordered until May 2022. It apologised for the resident having to chase this up.
3. it was sorry for the delay in replacing the damaged wood and fascia boarding. It said that this was due to be completed on 25 February 2022, but had been delayed due to supply chain issues in sourcing wood. The works had been rebooked for 6 July 2022.
4. the back door was replaced in 2021, but there were issues with it not fitting and a refitting had to be booked for 6 June 2022.
5. a plumber attended to inspect the pipes behind the resident’s washing machine but said the plumber needed to return with materials but did not do so.
6. it did not have a policy on bedroom sizes and once this is implemented it would be able to advise on how to appeal the bedroom size.
7. it was awarding £200 compensation, comprised of £150 for delayed work and £50 for poor communication.
The resident remained unhappy with the level of compensation offered and how her landlord had handled the rat infestation and disrepair. The resident stated:
1. that the infestation in the loft caused damage to personal belongings of sentimental value and she incurred the cost of a skip to dispose of these items
2. the loft installation was replaced in March 2022, but she had to block the point of entry to prevent the infestation as well as repair the waste pipe.
3. the rats were still present in her home.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s responsibilities

The landlord is responsible for repairing roofs, external doors, walls, insulation, and windows. The landlord’s website states that a leak from a water pipe and insecure door should be treated as an emergency and responded to within 24 hours. The website indicates that routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days of being reported whenever possible. According to the landlord’s website roof works are classed as long-term planned maintenance with no defined time for completion.
The landlord’s website states that pests inside properties would normally be the resident’s responsibility however in November 2021 the landlord accepted responsibility. This is because the source of the rat infestation was thought to be a neighbouring property it was responsible for.

How did the landlord respond to the infestation?

The resident reported rats affecting her property on 16 October 2021. The landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbours on 9 November 2021 to ask them to clear their garden. This was a reasonable step to take as the neighbours were also tenants of the landlord and there was evidence the rats were nesting in their garden.
The landlord agreed to arrange an inspection of the resident’s property on 16 November 2021 to investigate the possible entry points of the rats. However, the landlord did not provide a copy of its findings to the Ombudsman. It is therefore not possible to conclude that the landlord took all necessary and reasonable steps to block the entry of the rats.
The landlord instructed a pest control company on 17 November 2021 who attended the resident’s property on 18 November 2021, 25 November 2021, and 9 December 2021. However, the company was unable to fit any insulation in the loft until the source of the infestation was dealt with. This was a reasonable position to take as fitting new insulation when the infestation was not controlled would be ineffective.
The landlord visited the resident’s neighbour on 26 November 2021 to see how their garden could be cleared to help tackle the infestation. It sent a second letter to the resident’s neighbours in December 2021 to remind them of their responsibilities, again this was an appropriate follow-up.
However, the landlord’s records do not say what steps the landlord took to monitor this issue after December 2021. Pest infestations can amount to hazards and statutory nuisances. Therefore, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to show how they have managed infestations. It is unreasonable that the landlord cannot demonstrate what action it took after December 2021.
The neighbour’s garden was cleared on 4 February 2022 and the pest control company was able to fit the new loft insulation on 1 March 2022. There was a significant gap between October 2021 to February 2022 when the neighbour’s garden was cleared. It also took the landlord nearly five months to fit new insulation, which left the resident with inadequate insulation over the winter months. This was likely to have increased the resident’s heating costs. In the opinion of the Ombudsman, this delay combined with the lack of evidence to show the landlord took appropriate action to block the entry of the rats or to monitor the infestation amounts to maladministration.

Bedroom size/tax appeal

The resident sought to challenge the number of rooms the landlord recorded for the property. The landlord responded that it could not address this aspect of her complaint about the room sizes as it does not have a policy in place. The Ombudsman finds that it is unclear how the landlord deals with challenges about bedroom sizes without a policy in place. In the interests of accountability and transparency, landlords should have policies that explain how their decisions are made and can be reviewed.

How did the landlord respond to the disrepair?

Cracking walls

On 10 November 2021, the landlord said it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect the cracked walls. However, there is no indication if this was done or what was recommended. The lack of any records is a concern. The Ombudsman expects landlords to have surveyor reports on structural inspections. It is not clear if the works have been completed.

Felt roof

The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, including the roof. These repairs must be done in a reasonable time. The landlord’s website suggests that roof works will be done as long-term planned maintenance.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 November 2021 about felt falling off her roof. The landlord arranged a visit for 15 November 2021, but the resident was not at home and the landlord took no further action. There is no evidence that the landlord attempted to contact the resident again or re-visit her. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive and to have systems in place to ensure missed appointments are rearranged.
Despite the landlord informing the resident in June 2022 that it would appoint a new roofing contractor by August 2022 the repair was outstanding at the point of complaint closure. The landlord has not provided an update to this service on when the roofing contractor will be in place or when the resident can expect the felt to be repaired. It is unacceptable for the landlord to not keep residents updated.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs (“Room for Improvement,”) outlines that landlords should “agree actions and timescales for responding in line with …policies and obligations and confirm these in writing. Inform the resident of any delays and explain why these are necessary.” It also recommends that “where complex or extensive work is required, acknowledge that there are outstanding repairs. Explain what action will be taken and provide timescales, even if these are provisional.” There is no evidence the landlord took these steps after August 2022. This is a failure by the landlord.

The water pipes affecting the washing machine

The landlord was aware of issues with the washing machine pipes on 17 November 2021 from an internal email it sent. Despite this, there is no evidence it logged the repair until 20 December 2021. This was an unacceptable delay in logging the repair given that a leak from a water pipe required a 24-hour response.
The evidence indicates that the rats had damaged the pipe. As the landlord had accepted responsibility for the infestation it follows it was responsible for the leaking pipe. Despite the resident chasing the landlord on 24 January 2022 it was only after 1 February 2022, when the resident reported a flood caused by the broken pipe, that the landlord acted. On 2 February 2022, the landlord established that the waste pipe needed renewal. The job should have been completed on 24 February 2022, but as the plumber had not returned with new piping, it was not completed until 6 June 2022.
This was 201 days after the resident reported the repair. This delay may have contributed to the leak and is unreasonable given that the disrepair of water pipes is an emergency. The failure of the landlord’s plumber to not complete this repair properly is also a concern. The Ombudsman expects all landlords to ensure robust systems are in place for monitoring repairs, including dealing with any quality issues.

Windows

The resident complained to the landlord on 16 October 2021 that her windows were still in need of replacement. The records indicate that the landlord was first notified that the seals were broken around the windows on 30 June 2021. The landlord inspected the property on 31 July 2021 and concluded that new windows would be needed. However, there were delays in new windows being fitted. Although the landlord measured the windows in October 2021 the window glass was not ordered until May 2022. The landlord completed the installation of the new windows on 18 June 2022 nearly 12 months later. This was a significant length of time.

Damaged wood and fascia board

It is unclear when this disrepair was reported to the landlord. The evidence indicates the landlord ought to have known about this on 15 November 2021 when a contractor reported the facias were damaged.
The evidence shows that on 25 February 2022, the landlord conducted a site visit of the resident’s property and agreed to replace a section of rotten wood to the front. The job was raised on 1 March 2022, but this was delayed due to supply chain issues sourcing wood and the work was re-booked for 6 July 2022. This was 233 days after the resident complained. The landlord cited pandemic-related issues with obtaining the supply of wood as the reason for this delay.
It took nearly 4 months to source the wood to complete the repair. This delay is unreasonable given the lack of any detail or evidence about any supply chain issues.
The repair to the facia boarding was referred to by the landlord in its stage 2 response but there is no evidence it was completed. However, the landlord has been unable to clarify the status of this. The resident also states that the facias have still not been repaired. The landlord’s lack of records about the facias indicates poor record keeping.

Door

During the landlord’s internal complaint process the resident raised the issue of a problem she was having with her back door not fitting properly. The door was originally fitted on 21 November 2021. The records do not show when the resident contacted the landlord about the door. The landlord’s records indicate that a contractor attended on 6 June 2022 and concluded there were no problems with the door installed. There is no evidence to show the door was defective or insecure. It would not, therefore, be treated as an emergency repair requiring a 24-hour response but should have been responded to within 20 working days. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show when this issue was reported. It is therefore not possible to assess whether the landlord met this timescale or the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions. The Ombudsman expects all landlords to keep accurate records of all repairs.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord was required to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days and the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its procedure 8 working days after the required timescale.
The resident referred her complaint at stage 2 on 28 April 2022 but the landlord did not respond within the required 20 working days. It responded on 6 June 2022.

Financial loss and remedies

The resident disclosed on 16 October 2021 that the rodents had destroyed her greenhouse as well as personal belongings of sentimental value, some toys, her children’s work, and Christmas decorations. The Ombudsman cannot say what the financial value of these items was.
The resident claimed that the lack of insulation at the property had cost her £500 in oil fuel to heat the house. The resident also mentioned that she spent £30 on washing machine pipes and outside white plastic piping and £25 on cement and sand. The resident explained that she had to hire a skip costing £285 to remove damaged items from the loft.
The compensation offered of £200 does not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion adequately reflect the level of failure and the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident. When deciding what is fair in all the circumstances the Ombudsman is required to have regard to its Dispute Resolution Principles- to treat people fairly, to put things right, and to learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance published on our website. Where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration by the landlord, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant it can award a payment of between £250 and £700. The situation has been distressing for the resident, she has also lost irreplaceable items of sentimental value. It is fair in all the circumstances to offer compensation to cover the distress, frustration, and time and trouble caused to the resident.
As the resident also incurred additional costs relating to dealing with the rat infestation there is an order to reimburse the cost of these.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a rat infestation. This is because there is no evidence of how it monitored this issue after December 2021 or what actions it took to block the entry of the rodents.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s approach to the resident’s concerns about the number of rooms and room sizes in the property. This is because of a lack of policy on this.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to repair works. This is because of the lack of repair records and updates given to the resident.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to take the following steps within 28 days of the date of this determination.
1. pay the resident the sum of £2,940 comprised of:
  1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the infestation and insulation.
  2. £1,200 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
  3. £840 for the cost of the oil, cement, piping, and skip.
  4. £200 to recognise the upset caused by the damage caused to the resident’s belongings.
  5. £100 for the handling of the concerns about the number of bedrooms.
  6. £150 for the poor handling of the complaint.
2. provide the resident with a copy of its policy on calculating bedroom sizes and inform her how she can challenge their decision.
3. contact the resident to arrange for a surveyor to inspect the loft and property for access points if it has not already done so. The landlord must provide a copy of the report to the resident and the Ombudsman once it is completed. The landlord must use all best endeavours to ensure the works are completed within 28 days of the date of the report.
4. contact the resident to arrange a surveyor to inspect the property to assess the cracking to the walls and to provide a copy of this report to the resident and the Ombudsman within 28 days of the report being completed. The landlord must use all best endeavours to ensure the works recommended in the report be completed within 28 days of the date of the report.
5. provide the resident with an action plan about the outstanding repair works. A copy must be filed with the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. arrange for an appropriate pest control contractor to visit the property at regular intervals, over the next 12 months from the date of this determination. This is to monitor and take any pest control measures required.
2. review how it records and monitors repair jobs, including how it updates residents to identify any improvements.
3. review any repair jobs that are outstanding for more than 12 months and to contact the affected residents to explain why and when the work is likely to be completed, even if provisionally.
4. consider contributing to the cost of a replacement greenhouse on receiving evidence of the damage from the resident.