Birmingham City Council (202106713)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106713

Birmingham City Council

24 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 repair work to address a mouse infestation in the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and the property is a flat within a purpose–built block. The landlord is a local authority.
3. The resident first reported a rodent infestation to the landlord in September 2020 and it attended on 2 October 2020 to block rodent access holes in the kitchen, bedroom and garden. She reported further rodent activity to the landlord on 25 January 2021. It attended that day and on 3 February 2020 but was unable to complete rodent proofing due to it deploying the wrong trade and being unequipped for the work. Three more appointments were made on 8 February, 9 and 26 March 2021 for rodent proofing works, which were not completed. The resident was informed by the local authority’s pest control operative on 17 March 2021 that now pest control work had been undertaken the rodent proofing could be done. Multiple calls were made by the resident to the landlord during this period to request updates on the work.
4. The resident was informed by the landlord on 26 March 2021 that rodent proofing could still not yet be completed until the infestation had been confirmed eradicated. She raised a complaint on 31 March 2021 to request that the property was inspected and that adequate rodent proofing, with suitable materials, was done to prevent re-infestation. The landlord’s internal communication showed that it liaised with its pest control team and confirmed that there was no evidence of fresh activity. It would therefore carry out the rodent proofing work at the resident’s property after two weeks. The landlord sent a complaint response to the resident on 12 April 2021 which noted that she had stated she was satisfied with the work undertaken by the pest control team.
5. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 April 2021 as she had since found a mouse in her kitchen and disputed that the infestation had been eradicated. She highlighted that rodent proofing work had still yet to be completed.
6. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 17 May 2021 in which it acknowledged that there had been a “lack of communication and limited follow-up” on its part. It noted that attempts to address the mouse infestation had been split between its housing repairs team and its environmental health team. The landlord relayed that, since the escalation of the resident’s complaint it had carried out a site visit on 14 April 2021 and arranged an appointment for 24 April 2021 to remove the kitchen units, block all rodent entry points with cement and wire wool at her request. It noted that she had refused this and it arranged for another contractor to carry out pest control work. The landlord inspected the property again on 6 May 2021 to confirm that the infestation had been eradicated and then arranged for proofing works. It confirmed with the resident on 10 May 2021 that she was happy with the outcome.

Assessment and findings

7. The conditions of the landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirm that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. These conditions also state that she is responsible for taking reasonable steps to keep the property free from pests. If an infestation is discovered this must be reported to the local authority’s environmental services team.
8. The landlord’s compensation claims policy does not provide for offers of discretionary compensation. This policy states that compensation is to be paid only when it accepts liability; such as for carrying out work which did not resolve a reported issue, or if the work was found to be faulty.
9. It should firstly be clarified that the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction extends to considering the landlord’s actions in the provision of housing and its related obligations. As the landlord is a local authority, its provision of pest control services is outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman and will not be considered. Complaints that relate to dissatisfaction with the landlord’s provision of pest control services is more appropriately considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
10. As confirmed by the landlord’s conditions of tenancy above, it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. The landlord also has an obligation to ensure that the property is free from hazards. Therefore, in response to a report of a mouse infestation, it would be expected of the landlord to investigate the issues and carry out work to the structure and exterior of the property to prevent rodents from entering and to repair any damage caused.
11. Despite the resident reporting the presence of rodents in her property from September 2020, there was no evidence of the landlord explaining the process for rodent-proofing until 26 March 2021, when it explained to her that rodent proofing works could not be completed until the infestation had been eradicated. There were five appointments set by the landlord between 25 January and 26 March 2021 before this was clarified. This was a failure on its part to adequately manage the resident’s expectations, leading to distress and inconvenience for her.
12. While it was reasonable for the landlord to await confirmation of the eradication of the mouse infestation from the environmental health team before carrying out rodent proofing works, there was no evidence that it kept the resident updated throughout the process. Considering the distressing nature of the issue, and the length of time the infestation had persisted for, it was unreasonable that it did not keep her informed of developments.
13. It was clear that there was a failure by the landlord to coordinate the works effectively, leading to appointments which were ineffectual. The landlord acknowledged, in its final complaint response to the resident on 17 May 2021 that there had been failures in communication and following up the works.
14. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests compensation between £250 and £700 where failures have occurred such as:             
    1. A resident being repeatedly passed between staff and / or teams, with no one officer or department taking overall responsibility, or a landlord not taking responsibility for sub-contracted services.
    2. Repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address all relevant aspects of complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving complaint
15. Landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing the substantive issue and any inconvenience that has occurred in the meantime. This is part of providing a fair response. It is not fair to limit compensation only to instances of specific costs or damages where the landlord has admitted its liability. The landlord is expected to offer redress, which can include compensation, when it agrees that it has failed to provide a required service, as it had stated it had in this case. Therefore while the landlord had gone some way to resolving the complaint by acknowledging some of its failures, the response was not as full as was required.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repair work to address a mouse infestation in the resident’s property.

Orders

17. As a result of the determination above the landlord has been order to, within 4 weeks:
    1. Pay the resident £250 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by the 6 month period before the landlord explained the rodent-proofing process; and caused by the repeated ineffectual visits; and by the inadequate communication.