Beyond Housing Limited (202122510)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122510

Beyond Housing Limited

2 May 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. Reports of a rat infestation in the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint is/are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Issues relating to banding, allocations and the housing register relate to local authority functions and as such, fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The Housing Ombudsman Service therefore would not be able to consider that part of your complaint.

Background

Scope of the investigation

The resident has advised that the handling of this matter by the landlord has impacted on both hers and her children’s mental well-being. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Background

The property is a two bedroom housing association property and the resident held an assured tenancy. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord stated that it did not have a policy for dealing with pests but its website states that a pest control service can be provided in very limited circumstances. In addition it lists its own responsibilities as:
1. Dealing with pests and vermin in communal areas
2. Blocking access points of pest and vermin
It lists residents responsibilities as:
1. Dealing with pests and vermin in their home
2. Preventing infestations in their home
3. Avoiding fly tipping and waste storage that could encourage pests.
The landlord also stated that it did not have a repairs policy or procedure. However, its website clearly sets out both its own, and the residents responsibilities for repairs. It also sets out the timeframes for different categories of repair. In addition it advises residents that if they are not at the property when an operative visits to carry out repairs, the job will be cancelled and the resident will need to rearrange the appointment.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord’s complaints policy relevant to this complaint was published in October 2018 and that it updated its policy in line with the complaint handling code in December 2022.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a formal two stage complaints process. It also stated that it sought to resolve complaints as quickly as possible through early resolution prior to accepting a formal complaint.
Its policy stated that it would acknowledge stage one complaints within two days of receipt, and would provide a response within 10 working days from receipt of the complaint. Stage two complaints would be acknowledged in writing within two days of receipt and a full response would be provided within 10 working days from the date of receipt of the escalation.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that discretionary payments can be made to reflect the loss or inconvenience suffered. The policy lists examples of when a discretionary payment could be made but also states that discretionary compensation will not be paid for service failure or right to repair where reasonable access has not been granted to carry out services.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 4 June 2020, to report that rats had chewed through wires connecting the boiler, and consequently the boiler was not working. The resident stated that she would not stay at the property until the issue with the rats had been sorted. The landlord raised two separate jobs: one for the boiler repair; and one to resolve the issue of the rats.
The landlord attended the property the following day but could not access the property. Information provided by the landlord shows that the operative telephoned the resident the same day, but she failed to respond so they left a voicemail.
The landlord visited the property again on 9 June 2020. The property was inspected and a hole was found outside in the outhouse. Bait was left by the shed door and a note made to attend on 16 June 2020.
The resident contacted the landlord shortly before the arranged appointment on 16 June to advise that she was not at the property and could not attend the appointment. She requested an alternative appointment and one was arranged for 18 June 2020. Later that same day the resident contacted the landlord again to arrange an alternative appointment.
The landlord attended the property on 22 June 2020. According to notes provided by the landlord, the resident stated that the rat was in the backyard. The resident was advised to remove the rubbish from the backyard.
On 8 July 2020 the resident contacted the landlord as she had expected another appointment for pest control to visit the property, but up until that day had not received an appointment. The landlord raised a job to fill the hole where the rats were entering the property.
An appointment was made on 17 July 2020, but was cancelled in error by the landlord on 22 July 2020. The landlord re-raised it that same day.
The following day the resident contacted the landlord to change an appointment she had for an electrician to attend to fit a kitchen fan. At the same time she asked about the pest control appointment, she was advised that the landlord needed to schedule the time to attend.
According to the landlord’s notes, it attended the property on the morning of 28 July 2020, however the resident was not there as she had requested an afternoon appointment. A new appointment was made that day, for 30 July 2020. However, later on 28 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that she needed at least a week’s notice for the appointment. The landlord made an appointment for 14 August 2020.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 August 2020 to amend the appointment from 14 August 2020 to 20 August 2020. An operative attended that day but no access was granted.
On 9 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to let it know that she had seen a rat under the sink and thought that it had entered via a hole. The landlord advised the resident that pest control had been to the property on two separate occasions but was unable to get access. It stated that pest control had advised the resident to clear the rubbish in the backyard. In response, the resident said that the rubbish was being cleared that day.
Landlord records show that the resident contacted the landlord again on 14 September 2020 to report multiple repairs (records provided do not state exactly what these repairs were). Landlord records show that a property inspection was conducted on 30 September 2020 and the job marked as completed.
The landlord has stated that it had no further contact from the resident regarding the pest issue until March 2021, when she submitted a complaint.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 11 March 2021. She stated that rats were getting in through a pipe in the bathroom, which had been inspected but that wasn’t due to be fixed in until May. She added that the property had been over-run with rats and all of the family’s belongings had been destroyed, as a consequence the family were unable to live at the property. The resident requested a move to an alternative property.
The resident called again on 3 occasions on 17 March 2021 and 18 March 2021. The landlord then raised a routine repair for 8 April 2021 to deal with the rats in the property.
The landlord responded to the stage one complaint on 23 March 2021. It apologised to the resident and stated that following their conversation it had agreed to complete the following repairs:
1. Repair fault on the boiler – Appointment arranged – 25 March 2021
2. Wastepipes to be repaired – Appointment arranged – 25 March 2021
3. Pest control inspection – Appointment arranged – 25 March 2021
4. Repoint holes in back wall – Appointment arranged – 9 April 2021
5. Inspection of kitchen – Appointment arranged – 15 April 2021

In addition, the landlord confirmed that the resident had an active rehousing application since September 2020, it also added that it had checked with the appropriate officer and the application had been correctly assessed.

On 8 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she was unwell and that she could not allow operatives to access the property that day or the following day. She asked to rebook the pest control and bricklayer. The appointment was rebooked for 19 April 2021.
A pest control operative attended the property on 19 April 2021 and according to the notes provided by the landlord, the property was inspected and no bait had been taken. The poison was removed and new poison placed in the backyard and a visit arranged for 26 April 2021.
On 26 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she wasn’t at home and asked if she needed to be in the property when the operative attended. The operative said that they did not need to go inside the property. The pest control operative went to the property that day and removed the poison from the backyard.
On 6 January 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to arrange access for a joint inspection at the property with a surveyor and a member of the housing team to confirm whether the property was habitable.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage two on 11 January 2022. She stated that repairs had not been completed at the property which had resulted in her losing the contents of her home. She stated that the situation had impacted on her mental health and that of her children. In addition she stated that she was increasingly in debt as a result of not being able to live at the property and that her children were too terrified to return. In addition, she requested that she be rehoused as soon as possible.
The resident sent a follow up letter on 13 January 2022, in which she listed the outstanding repairs to be:
1. A hole in the shed to the rear of the property
2. The wall on the inside of the house in the front room was damp and had crumbled away
3. Kitchen units needed to be replaced
4. The guttering to the rear of the property and the wood that attached the guttering to the property had collapsed
The resident also added that there were new repairs including;
1. The pipe casing in the bathroom needed to be replaced.
2. The bath panel need to be replaced
3. There was a crack in the shed.
She also added that there was no insulation in the kitchen or bathroom. She reiterated that regardless of the repairs being completed, she could not live in the property as the children are scared to return. She added that she had to leave the property as a result of the rats and that all of her belongings would need to be thrown away. She stated that rats had been in the beds, sofas and oven.
On 27 January 2022, several landlord representatives attended to inspect the property. On inspecting the property the landlord noted that:
1. The property was cold and uninhabited
2. There were signs of damp on the living room wall under the window
3. The backyard was clear of rubbish
4. All possible rat entry points had been sealed
5. The alleyway was full of rubbish.
In addition, the landlord stated that during the visit, the kitchen units were being replaced. With regard the rubbish in the alleyway, the landlord stated that it contacted the council to arrange removal. It also stated that it investigated the resident’s concerns regarding the external wall in the kitchen being cold, with a view to adding cavity wall insulation. On inspection it found that due to the age of the property, there was insufficient space in the cavity for insulation to be added.
The landlord also agreed to arrange for the pest control team to visit the property again. In addition it stated that it would raise a job to treat the damp in the living room. But also recommended that the resident would need to return to the property so that the heating could be switched on. It noted that the property had been vacant for almost a year and the lack of heat had contributed to the damp conditions.
The same day, the landlord raised a job for pest control to visit the property to check for rats and to put down traps if necessary. It also raised a job for a damp proof course to the left side of the front room window.
On 31 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to rearrange the appointments that had been made for pest control and the bricklayer. She stated that she was away from the property and that she couldn’t return until after 9th (the full date has not been given, but it is reasonable to conclude that it was 9 February 2022).
On 10 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to rearrange the pest control appointment. After discussion with the landlord, she cancelled the appointment as she did not know when she would have transport or when she would be available.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint on 10 February 2022. In its response, it apologised for the upset and inconvenience caused. It stated that it had fully investigated the complaint and confirmed the following:
1. There was no presence of rats in the property. Traps that had been baited had not been disturbed.
2. The entry point in the bathroom that the resident believed the rats were using had been filled and that there was no evidence of rats in the property since the landlord visited earlier in the previous year.
3. Two kitchen drawer base units were renewed on 27 January 2022.
4. That it had attempted to contact the resident to arrange a damp proof course. She had notified them that she was unavailable and that she would make contact once she returned. It asked her to make contact so that it could carry out the necessary work to the living room wall and fix the guttering to the rear of the property.
5. In respect of her application for rehousing, it confirmed that it had spoken with the relevant officer and that her application had been correctly assessed.
6. The property had been deemed habitable and fit for her to reside in and that it was concerned that she was not living there.
7. That she had exhausted its internal complaints procedure and she could contact the Housing Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of a rat infestation in the property.

Evidence provided by the landlord shows that it acted appropriately and within a reasonable timescale to assess and deal with the presence of rats at the property. The landlord visited the property on 5 June 2020 which was the day after the resident reported that a rat had chewed through wires. The landlord visited again on 9 June, at which time it inspected the property and left bait and returned a week later. On its website, the landlord states that it can provide a pest control service in limited circumstances, although it does not say what those circumstances are. It is clear from the evidence provided that it provided a pest control service to the resident and acted appropriately in handling reports of a pest infestation.
This Service has seen evidence that between 4 June 2020 and 27 January 2022, the landlord made at least nine visits to the property. Between 4 June 2020 and 10 February 2022, the resident cancelled at least six appointments that had been made in connection with the reported rat infestation and that there were at least two occasions where the landlord visited but could not get access as the resident was not there.
On 9 June 2020, 19 April 2021 and, 26 April 2021 the landlord visited the property, laid bait and inspected the area for the presence of rats. It was appropriate for the landlord to remind the resident of her responsibility to ensure that all waste was removed from the property in a timely manner.
In its visit to the property on 27 January 2022, the landlord showed that it thoroughly surveyed the property in relation to outstanding repairs and to check for rats. In addition it arranged a further inspection by pest control (which the resident later cancelled) in an effort to reassure the resident.
There is no evidence of a failure in the landlord’s service delivery. It responded appropriately to the resident’s reports by organising the necessary inspection in timely manner.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint through its internal complaint process

The landlord’s compensation policy states that a resident maybe eligible for compensation if a response to a complaint is provided outside of its published standard, the compensation would be paid as an initial payment of £10 and further payments of £2 for every day outside of the standard (up to a maximum of £50).
The landlord responded to the stage one complaint within 8 working days. This is a reasonable timescale for responding and aligns with the timescales set out in the landlord’s own policy and the complaint handling code published by this Service in March 2022.
Its response at stage one apologised to the resident and arranged for relevant repairs to be completed, with dates given for when those repairs would take place.
At stage two the landlord responded to the resident on 10 February 2022, which, at that time, was 12 days outside of its published timescale for responding. Whilst this Service acknowledges that as part of responding to the stage two complaint, the landlord conducted a thorough survey of the property in order to inform its response and highlight any further repairs, the landlord did not respond within its published timescales, and this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident regarding a delay in responding.
The Landlord’s response at stage two was appropriate and provided the resident with the necessary information to escalate her complaint to this Service, if she thought necessary.
Nevertheless, given that the landlord’s response was outside of its published timescale at that time, this Service finds that there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint through its internal complaints process.

Determination (decision)

The Ombudsman has determined that in accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
1. There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of a rat infestation in the property.
2. There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. There was service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord responded in a timely manner to reports of rats at the property and took the appropriate steps to resolve the issue.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint within its published guidelines. However, the landlord’s record keeping practises require review as it failed to provide accurate and relevant information when initially asked by this Service.

Orders and recommendations

Within 28 days of this letter, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £100 in compensation for its shortfalls in record keeping.
2. Review its record keeping practices to ensure that it provides relevant, accurate and complete evidence in response to information requests from the Ombudsman.