Camden Council (202204496)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204496

Camden Council

30 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. Repairs following reports of a pest infestation.
2. The resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
The report also examines the landlord’s complaint’s handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a one bedroom first floor flat. The tenancy started on 18 July 2016.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for this resident but has noted on the original sign up interview checklist that the resident had mental health concerns.
The resident contacted this Service on 23 June 2022 and explained that she has had a severe mouse infestation in her property for at least three years. She explained the extent of the infestation, which included damage to kitchen cupboards. She explained that the infestation was so bad that she was unable to us any of the lower kitchen cupboards due to them containing mouse droppings and that she was unable to prepare meals in her kitchen.
The resident further explained that she had also complained to the landlord about the behaviour of an operative who attended her property. She stated that both the infestation and the behaviour of the operative has had a negative impact on her mental health.
The resident stated that whilst the landlord had upheld her complaint and offered compensation it had failed to complete the necessary works to prevent the mice from entering her property.

Scope of investigation

Whilst the resident has explained that the mouse infestation has been ongoing for several years. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to investigation of historical issues as a resident is expected to raise issues with both the landlord and Ombudsman in a timely manner. As such, this investigation is focused solely on the events that progressed through the landlord’s complaints procedure that commenced in, or shortly before 25 October 2021, and culminated with the landlord’s final response of 21 March 2022.
The resident has stated that the mouse infestation, the lack of engagement from the landlord regarding the necessary repairs and the issues relating to staff conduct have had a negative impact on her mental well-being resulting in a hospital visit. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on causation or liability for, impacts on physical or mental health. This is because assessment of fairness in such cases requires a level of expertise that this Service is unable to provide.

Summary of events

Pest control notes dated 25 October 2021 recorded that a referral had been made to the landlord repairs team to repair the holes behind the plinth of the sink unit.
According to the landlord work visits sheet an appointment had been arranged to visit the property on 8 November 2021. However, the visit sheet showed that the appointment was not attended as the operative originally booked into do the job was no longer in its employment and it was unable to find an alternative operative to attend. The record showed that an appointment had been rebooked for 30 November 2021. The record does not indicate if the resident was advised ahead of the appointment that no one would be attending.
The property was attended on 30 November 2021 as planned, and the work sheet showed that the job was partially completed. The landlord recorded that it had removed kickboards in the kitchen, that some of the holes had already been sealed but that it was unable to fill the holes behind the hot water cylinder. In addition, it noted that there were a lot of mouse droppings everywhere and that the pest control team had not been back to the property for some time.
The operative reported that the resident was a young adult with mental health issues and that she was extremely distressed. The operative also noted that the resident had a dog and that dog food was left in the kitchen.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 20 December 2021.She explained that the complaint was regarding a long-standing severe mouse infestation at her property and within the block, and that despite having regularly reported the issue, she had been passed between pest control and the landlord without a solution having been found. Her complaint described issues dating back to September 2020. She explained that the pest control team visited on 25 October 2021 and re-confirmed the repairs works that were needed in order to prevent the mice from entering her property. She stated that the landlord failed to attend an appointment on 8 November 2021 and did not notify her that the appointment had been cancelled.
The resident explained that an operative visited the property on 30 November 2021, but was rude and confrontational. Before leaving the property, he stated that both the landlord and pest control would contact her within two weeks. But that she had not received an update from either party.
On 6 January 2022, the landlord noted that it had provisionally booked to assess the situation at the property with a carpenter on 14 January 2022.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 7 January 2022. It explained that it understood the complaint to be about the landlord’s failure to carry out repairs at the property to prevent mice from entering. It confirmed that it upheld her complaint for the following reasons:
1. The length of time taken to fully resolve the issue of mice entering the property through various areas of the property.
2. Any inconvenience and distress that the issue with the mice, and the resident’s interaction with the landlord’s operative may have caused.
3. Missed appointment on the 8th November 2021.
The landlord offered £175 in compensation for the inconvenience and distress that may have been caused and for the delay in completing the works to her property.
In responding to the complaint, the landlord noted repairs it had carried out in September 2019 but that it had no record of requests from pest control to carry out work to the property in 2020.
It acknowledged that a works order was raised on 27 October 2021 following a visit from pest control two days earlier. It apologised that it had failed to attend as promised on 8 November 2021. The landlord said that it had listened to the audio recordings of the visit that the resident had provided and noted that there was a hole near the gas pipe and a hole behind the hot water cylinder that both needed to be filled to prevent mice from entering. The landlord confirmed that an appointment had been made for a joint visit with the landlord and pest control to attend on 14 January 2022 to clarify any works that needed to be carried out, to ensure that the relevant orders were raised, and the works carried out within a reasonable timescale. It also confirmed that the operative about whom she complained would not attend the visit on that day and stated that in order to respond fully to her complaint with regard to staff conduct it would need to obtain comments from relevant team leaders before updating her on 13 January 2022.
On 14 January 2022, the appointment that had been booked for that day was cancelled as there was no pest control officer available. The resident was notified that an alternative appointment would be provided in due course along with the repairs.
According to pest control notes, they visited the property on 8 February 2022 with the landlord operative who had attended on 30 November 2021. According to notes provided, the landlord operative stated that he had attended on a previous occasion but that there was nothing that he could do as he couldn’t remove the foam from under the units and that the resident wanted the units removed, which he wasn’t going to do. The note explained that pest control spoke with the resident who was surprised that the same landlord operative had attended. No work was carried out at the property.
Notes provided by the landlord for the same day, stated that the resident reviewed work. It is not clear to this Service what this was intended to mean. In addition, the notes stated that the operative was advised to close the job, it is unclear from the notes who made this recommendation but it appears that it was a landlord employee.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 March 2022, she reiterated her concerns about the long-standing mouse infestation and the complaint raised at stage one. The resident noted that she was only made aware of the cancelled visit planned for 14 January 2022 on that day and explained that she had to contact the landlord twice for an update, first on 25 January 2022 and then on 2 February 2022. She stated that she was advised the visit would take place on 8 February 2022 and that the operative about whom she complained would not attend.
The resident added that on 8 February 2022, there was an exchange between pest control and the landlord operative outside her property and she was subsequently advised by pest control that the landlord operative would not remove the kitchen. The resident noted that she recognised the landlord operative as the same person who attended on 30 November 2021. She explained that the operative became abrasive and stated that the kitchen had been replaced in 2019 and that he would not be doing any work to it. Following the incident, which the resident explained had caused her distress, she contacted the landlord and left a voicemail explaining what had happened. The resident stated that she failed to receive a response to her voicemail so followed this up with an email on 13 February 2022, 21 February 2022 and 24 February 2022. The resident concluded that up until that point she had not had a response from the landlord.
Pest control notes dated 15 March 2022 showed that it attended the property. It noted the following:
1. Smear marks found in kitchen at the side of the washing machine.
2. Mouse droppings found I the bedroom and boiler cupboard.
3. Baited kitchen x 1, boiler x 2, bedroom x 2.
4. Emailed repairs for the kitchen, bedroom and boiler.
The landlord responded to the stage two complaint on 21 March 2022. It confirmed that the resident’s complaint had been upheld at stage one and that it had offered compensation and arranged for further repair works to be completed. It acknowledged that although it had attended on 8 February 2022 that no works were completed on that day and that the job was closed and that there was no record of any further works having been raised. It apologised for this failing. The landlord also noted that the resident had previously complained about an operative who attended her property and that it had agreed that this operative would not attend in future. But that this person had attended on 8 February 2022. The landlord stated that it was often difficult to limit specific attendance to suit the wishes of the customer, but that given the resident’s previous reports, the landlord should have given her prior notice and a clear explanation. The landlord stated that it could neither confirm or deny the residents account of what happened on 8 February 2022, but that it would not discount it and acknowledged that no repairs work was carried out that day, which it confirmed was unacceptable.
The landlord stated that it would instruct another joint visit with the repairs team and pest control and would arrange for the work to be supervised by a senior manager. The landlord concluded that it upheld her complaint and that it would arrange for someone to contact her within five days with a new appointment for further inspection of her property. In addition, it awarded a further £100 compensation for her distress and trouble.

Post complaint

The landlord visited the property on 5 May 2022 and confirmed that it would need a joint visit with a carpenter, plumber and a boiler engineer. It stated that in order to complete proofing works the kitchen units, the sink and the hot water cylinder would need to be removed. The note requested for the work to be scheduled from 23 May 2022 onwards.
On 31 August 2022, following contact from this Service, the landlord advised that the work requested on 5 May 2022 had not been actioned and that it would arrange for an appointment to be made as soon as possible. The following day the landlord confirmed that in respect of the complaint regarding staff conduct, the landlord had dealt with the matter internally.
On 15 May 2023, the resident advised that following further failed attempts to complete the repairs, the work was eventually completed on 2 November 2022.

Assessment and findings

Landlord policies and procedures

The Landlord’s tenants guide published in 2017 does not set out responsibilities in the event of a pest infestation. However, the local authorities pest control team states that is will respond to reports of mouse and rat infestation within three days. The landlord has also advised that the pest controls reporting and treatment procedure is as follows:
1. Tenants wishing to report pest control related issues/concerns shall make contact with the service provider via phone or online portal.
2. The provider shall make appointments to visit tenants in order to inspect and treat infestations within 5 working days. A service appointment card (with contact number) will be left at the premises if the tenant fails to keep the appointment: the tenant will be given the opportunity to rebook a missed appointment.
The landlord has a responsibility to keep the structure of the property in repair and good working order. Its repairs policy states that essential repairs include day to day repairs where there is a risk to the resident, their home or neighbour’s home if the problem isn’t fixed, will be dealt with within 35 working days.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint’s process. It aims to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and to stage two complaints within 25 working days.

The landlord’s handling of repairs following reports of a pest infestation.

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified .
The landlord had initially intended to visit the property on 8 November 2021, however it failed to visit and also failed to notify the resident of its non-attendance. This was to the detriment of the resident who explained that she had waited at home all day.
The repair was rescheduled for three weeks later and whilst this visit was attended as planned, the landlord failed to complete all of the works required. The resident maintained that she was advised that both pest control and the landlord would be in contact within two weeks regarding the issue.
As a result of the lack of contact from the landlord the resident submitted a formal complaint. The complaint was acknowledged and responded to by the landlord within its prescribed timescales. It upheld her complaint and apologised for the missed appointment. In addition, it advised that an appointment had been made for the following week to clarify any works that needed to be carried out, and ensure that the relevant orders were raised, and the works carried out within a reasonable timescale.
Unfortunately, the appointment was cancelled by the pest control team and the resident had to wait a further 17 days for the landlord to attend. When the landlord eventually attended, it failed to complete any work and closed the job. Whilst it was reasonable that the appointment was cancelled due to lack of availability of a pest control officer. It was not acceptable that the landlord closed the job without having completed any works, after having assured the resident that the works would be completed. This was of detriment to the resident, who had already waited three months for the repairs to be completed and was again left with no resolution to the ongoing mouse infestation.
After several failed attempts to contact the landlord, the resident submitted a stage two complaint, which was again upheld. Again, the landlord promised to arrange another appointment to carry out the repairs and the resident was advised that someone would contact her within five days.
This Service notes that it took the landlord until 5 May 2022 to identify what repairs would be needed, and although its own notes clearly set out what was needed and when, the landlord failed to act upon this until this Service made contact on 31 August 2022.
It took the landlord 13 months from 25 October 2021, which was the date it was made aware of the repairs required at the residents property until the repairs were actually carried out on 2 November 2022. Throughout this period there were missed appointments. On the occasions that appointments were attended the jobs were either only partially completed or not completed at all. This caused the resident significant distress. She had already told the landlord how the ongoing infestation was impacting on her mental health and her ability to use her kitchen. She had explained to the landlord that she was unable to prepare food or store anything hygienically in the lower cupboard space. The landlord failed to recognise the impact of the infestation on the resident and her ability to carry out daily activities and have enjoyment of her home.
Whilst the landlord had offered £175 compensation in its stage one response for inconvenience and distress; delay in carrying out the repairs; and for the missed appointment. Then a further £100 for distress and trouble in its stage two response, this Service is not satisfied that the level of redress offered reflects the impact the issues have had on the resident and her ability to enjoy her home. This Service has considered its own, and the landlord’s remedies guidance and has made a further order of compensation due to the delay and impact on the resident. This Service finds that there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following reports of a pest infestation.

The landlords handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.

The Ombudsman does not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by individual members of its staff. The Ombudsman will consider the response of the landlord as a whole and will only comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord.
In its stage one response, the landlord told the resident that the operative about whom she had complained would not attend her property. Nevertheless, the operative returned to the property two months later.
The Landlord acknowledged, but did not apologise for, its error in respect of the operative’s attendance at the resident’s home. It explained that it could often be difficult to limit specific attendance to suit the wishes of the customer and accepted that it should have informed her in advance that it had no one else to attend.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the issue regarding staff conduct had been dealt with internally. Nevertheless, it had assured the resident that the operative would not attend her property and failed to uphold this. The landlord failed to actively listen to the resident’s needs and in not keeping to its agreement at stage one, left the resident feeling that this was not taken seriously by the landlord. This Service finds that there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following reports of a pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.

Reasons

The landlord was aware of its failure to complete the repairs within a reasonable timescale and despite promises in both its stage one and stage two response, it took 13 months for the repairs to be completed. In addition, it missed pre-arranged appointments, which resulted in the resident having to repeatedly contact the landlord for updates.
The landlord was made aware of the impact on the resident following her interaction with a member of its staff, yet it failed to maintain its assurances that the employee would not return to her property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £975 compensation, this includes:
  1. The landlord’s original offer of £275 for :
  2. Inconvenience, distress and trouble.
  3. Delay in carrying out repairs.
  4. Missed appointment
  5. £600 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.
  6. £100 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident.
3. Provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

53. This Service is aware that the timescales of the corporate complaints policy is being brought into line with the Code. Ensure that once this has happened, this is communicated to resident’s and colleagues