Camden Council (202344159)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344159

Camden Council

15 November 2024

 

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 response to reports of a pest infestation.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a flat on the 4th floor of a block. The resident has young children that live with her in the property. For the purpose of this report, any communication to the landlord from the resident, her daughter or the local cultural centre will be referred to as ‘the resident.’
  2. The resident called the landlord to report mice in the property on 16 February 2023. The landlord’s pest control and repairs operatives attended on a number of occasions but did not resolve the issue. The resident said pest control had acknowledged fixtures and fittings [in the kitchen] needed to be removed to block all access points, but this had been ignored by the repairs team, who only blocked visible holes.
  3. The resident complained on 31 October 2023 and said the infestation had worsened. The landlord upheld the complaint and sent its stage 1 response on 16 November 2023. It said:
    1. Its repairs operatives may not always carry out recommended works by pest control, as they were recommended works only.
    2. It had budgetary constraints regarding the filling and sealing of holes, but it would arrange a further repair appointment.
  4. After no further contact from the landlord, the resident escalated the complaint on 30 November 2023. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the escalation a few days later, it did not send its stage 2 response until 29 January 2024 where it upheld the complaint.
    1. It apologised for the lack of communication and distress and inconvenience caused.
    2. It said a repair appointment had been booked for that day. The appointment should include the filling of the large hole near the boiler which gave mice access to the property.

Events after the landlord’s complaints process

  1. A repair operative attended as outlined in the stage 2 response but did not fill all the holes. In a phone call with this service on 6 November 2024, the resident said the situation was still not resolved. She said she had put down bait and mouse traps herself and had to remove dead mice on a number of occasions.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. 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 up to the landlord’s final response of 29 January 2024.
  2. The landlord’s pest control team operate within the environmental health department of the local authority. They sit outside of the landlord’s housing function. Therefore, actions and decisions made by pest control fall under the LGSCO’s jurisdiction and not the Housing Ombudsman. Therefore, the Housing Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the action or lack of actions by pest control.
  3. During the complaint journey, the resident has raised concerns in relation to how the situation may have affected her family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt these comments and empathises with the resident’s situation. However, 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.

The landlord’s response to reports of a pest infestation.

  1. The landlord’s tenant’s guide published in 2017 does not set out responsibilities in the event of a pest infestation. However, the landlord has a responsibility to keep the structure of the property in repair. Its repairs policy states that essential repairs including day to day repairs will be dealt with within 35 working days.
  2. The Ombudsman expects that when a resident reports a pest infestation, the landlord will investigate the property. If it is found that a pest issue is present, the Ombudsman will look to see that the landlord follows the advice of specialists and undertakes the recommended course of action to solve the issue.
  3. Landlords are obliged to make sure that their properties are fit for human habitation, which includes eliminating household pests. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 imposes a duty on landlords to deal with disrepair. It says landlords must take action to deal with infestations and disrepair problems that are causing infestations. The resident reported mice in her home. Therefore, the landlord had a responsibility to conduct inspections and investigate any issues that would allow mice to enter the property.
  4. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Pest infestations, including rodent infestations, are potential category 1 hazards. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS.
  5. The landlord arranged for pest control to attend 14 working days after the resident reported the issue which was a positive step. It appropriately managed her expectations that pest control would carry out a treatment only and a separate booking would be made with its repairs team if further work was required. Pest control notes from the visit said there had been no further sightings since the resident sealed up a gap behind the cooker. However, it put down traps down and arranged for a follow-up appointment with the repairs team, which was also positive. Its repairs team attended and blocked visible holes by the balcony, although it is unclear exactly when this took place. There was then no evidence of any reports of mice for over 2 months.
  6. The resident called the landlord on 26 July 2023 after she had seen mice in the property. The landlord arranged for pest control to attend again 15 working days later. However, this time they did not arrive. The landlord promptly rescheduled the appointment and pest control attended on 8 September 2023. It put down bait and arranged a further repairs appointment to block up holes (behind the cooker, at the top of the boiler cupboard in the kitchen, and behind the kitchen sink and adjacent units) for 3 days later. The repairs operative also failed to attend. The records do not indicate if the resident was advised ahead of either appointment that no one would attend. This was unreasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident.
  7. It is not clear if or when the resident chased up the failed appointment. However, the landlord rescheduled the repairs appointment on 22 September 2023 and attended 14 working days later. Whilst the repairs operative attended, he did not fill in all holes as recommended by pest control. The evidence suggests he only filled in accessible visible holes. This was a failing as it failed to complete an effective repair. This protracted the issue for the resident and led to the formal complaint being raised.
  8. The landlord tried to use its complaints process to resolve the situation. It also tried to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to what work would be done. It said a repair appointment scheduled for 10 November 2023 (to remove the kickboard under the kitchen unit and board and fill holes) had been cancelled in error. This further contributed to delays and the resident’s distress. Further to that, it also said it would contact the resident to arrange a repair but there is no evidence it did so. The cancelled appointment and failing to contact the resident to rearrange caused inconvenience and represent further failings.
  9. The landlord’s repairs operative attended on 29 January 2024. This was a significantly after the resident had tried to escalate the issue through its complaints process. The evidence suggests the landlord failed to monitor the repair during this time. When it did attend, the kitchen kickboards were not removed and all recommended holes were not blocked up. The resident said this was because the repairs operative said there was a boiler leak which meant he could not block up all the other holes. It is acknowledged the landlord has a limited budget and a responsibility to manage its resources effectively. However, it has been aware of the mice infestation since February 2023. It had been given recommendations as to the work required to resolve the situation by pest control. Almost a year after the resident initially raised the issue, the work had still not been completed. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. The landlord is expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. There is no evidence it has done so. If left untreated, the presence of mice in the property can present a significant risk to health and cause damage to the property.
  10. The resident and her children have lived with the unsanitary nature of mice infestation for an extended period which is not appropriate. Mice were able to enter the property through holes in the structure of the property that the landlord had failed to block effectively. As ingress points to the property remained, it also indicates that the landlord did not meet its obligation under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ‘keep in repair’ the structure and exterior of the property.
  11. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  12. The landlord acknowledged some failings and made some attempt to put things right using its complaints process. However its poor management of necessary repairs meant the ingress points remained accessible, and mice continued accessing the resident’s property. Therefore, the landlord failed its obligation under HHSRS and its own repairs policy. Its communication with the resident was also poor.
  13. The Ombudsman has considered:
    1. The unpleasant nature of the mice infestation.
    2. The time the resident had been experiencing the issue.
    3. The trouble she went through trying to resolve the matter.
    4. The detriment she had detailed this caused her and her children.
  14. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord missed an opportunity during the complaint procedure to review the evidence, recognise its failing, put things right for the resident, and improve services. As a result, there was maladministration, and further orders have been made to resolve this complaint satisfactorily. This includes an award of £500 compensation which is in line with this service’s remedies guidance where the landlord has acknowledged failings but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within ten working days and to stage 2 complaints within 25 working days. The landlord failed to contact the resident after the stage 1 response as it said it would, and did not monitor or follow up the repair or apologise for the delayed response. This caused further inconvenience as the resident had to chase and escalate the complaint.
  2. The landlord sent its stage 2 response 39 working days after the escalation. The landlord therefore created an unnecessary delay for the resident in her attempt to escalate the complaint to this service, and in resolving the matter for the resident at the earliest opportunity which was a failing.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can award compensation for distress, time and trouble, and delays, yet it did not consider awarding compensation in either response which would have been reasonable given the circumstances.
  4. The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord has responded positively to an order made on another case in relation to its complaint handling and improvements that can be made. However, given the landlord’s failure to monitor the complaint and failure to follow up promised appointments, an apology was an insufficient remedy. As such and due to the effect on the resident, a further finding of maladministration is made. This Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests that an award of £250 for distress and inconvenience may remedy cases where maladministration has been found and the impact on the resident is not considered to have been permanent.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of a pest infestation.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed £750 which made up of:
      1. £500 for the handling of the pest infestation, including the inconvenience, distress, time, and trouble experienced by the resident.

ii.  £250 for the failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord must arrange with the resident to attend the property to inspect and identify any remaining pest access points. This must include checks behind the cooker, in the tank/boiler cupboard in the kitchen, and behind the sink and kitchen units. If any access points remain outstanding, the landlord must provide this Service and the resident with timescales for the completion of repairs.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should also consider whether it would be appropriate to arrange an inspection of the boiler/boiler leak.
  2. The landlord should consider developing its own pest control policy to set out what it is responsible for, and what resident’s can expect when reporting pest control issues.