Clarion Housing Association Limited (202120227)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120227

Clarion Housing Association Limited

6 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Decants from the property between April 2021 and June 2021 and January 2022 and February 2022;
2. Request for it to reimburse her for the costs incurred during the decants from the property;
3. Reports about an ongoing rat infestation in the property from April 2021;
4. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. Her tenancy started in 2008. The landlord is a housing association and the property is a three bedroom house. The resident lives at the property with her family.
The resident has informed the landlord and this Service that the issues that she has complained about have significantly affected her health and wellbeing. One of her children is autistic and the disruption caused to them during this time has been particularly challenging.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that repairs fall into two main categories. These include:
1. Emergency repairs. These will be attended to within 24 hours.
2. Non-emergency repairs. These will be completed within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The landlord has a decant policy. It says that it will:
1. Consider meeting all reasonable costs that a resident incurs as a consequence of a decant.
2. Consider whether to make a referral to its tenancy sustainment or welfare benefits team where it identifies that a resident needs additional support.
3. Keep residents informed at all stages of the decant process. It will also agree the frequency of the updates with residents.
4. Provide residents with a named officer to act as their single point of contact as soon as it is identified that they will need to move. The officer will conduct individual household needs assessments and agree a package of support.
5. Contact residents within four weeks of their return to their permanent property to follow up on any outstanding issues.
The landlord’s tenancy management policy states that:
1. Responsibility for preventing, reducing and eradicating pests is shared between the landlord, residents and the local authority.
2. It will identify and block any potential access points in the structure of its properties and repair any damage to buildings including pipe work.
The landlord has a vulnerable person policy. It says that it will:
1. Take account of resident’s vulnerabilities in the provision of services.
2. Consider any additional needs due to the vulnerability and where appropriate vary its service delivery.
The landlord did not have any published response timescales at the time of the resident’s complaint. It did have a two–stage complaints procedure. It has subsequently published its complaint response timescales and says that it will provide a stage one response to residents within 20 working days. Stage two responses will be issued within 40 working days. If it is unable to meet these timeframes, it will explain why there has been a delay and keep residents informed.
The landlord’s compensation policy provides for payments of £50 to £250 where there has been a service failure resulting in some impact on the resident. The policy also says that it will consider the following when making a compensation payment to a resident:
1. Whether those affected had particular needs that were made worse by the situation.
2. Any difficulties the resident experienced when making their complaint.

Summary of events

The resident had reported issues with rats in the property to the landlord on a number of occasions prior to 2021. On 26 February 2021, the landlord told the resident that, although it is normally a resident’s responsibility to deal with pests, it had arranged for its pest control contractor to review the problem, determine what treatment should be provided and identify what actions should be carried out to ensure that her property is made as pest proof as possible.
On 21 April 2021, the resident called the landlord to discuss the repairs in the property and the ongoing issues with rats. The landlord noted that the resident appeared “genuinely distressed on the phone and stated she had a complete breakdown over the weekend regarding the repairs”. It also said that a support referral for the resident might be required. The landlord did not provide any evidence that it completed a support referral for the resident at this time.
On 26 April 2021, in an internal email to the landlord, its pest control contractor said that the rat infestation in the property was “significant”. Extensive repairs to rat proof the property would be required. A landlord surveyor visited the property and said that the resident was “very distressed” about the situation. The landlord said that it would decant the resident from the property. The decant needed to take enough time to ensure that all the repairs and treatments were completed and effective.
The resident was decanted from the property from 30 April 2021 until 18 June 2021. The landlord had told the resident that the decant would last about three weeks. The decant was extended twice. During the decant, the landlord carried out repairs in the property to try to make it as rat proof as possible.
The resident contacted her MP on 17 May 2021 and 4 June 2021. She said that:
1. There had been a rat problem in the property for over five years.
2. She felt stressed and anxious about the issues. Her children’s health had been affected. She felt like the landlord did not care about her and her family.
3. The landlord had communicated poorly with her during the decant and not kept her up to date.
The landlord met with the resident at the property on 17 May 2021. It agreed that it was not ready for her to move back in and extended the decant until 21 May 2021.
In an internal email, the landlord said that it had agreed to meet the resident at the property on 18 June 2021 when she moved back in. A deep clean had been organised and some small outstanding repairs would be completed when she moved back in.
On 18 June 2021, the resident asked the landlord to reimburse her for the electricity used by operatives during the decant and the parking costs that she had incurred during the decant. The landlord said it would contact her to discuss this. The landlord did not provide any evidence that it contacted the resident at this time.
The resident asked the landlord about reimbursing her for the parking costs and electricity used again on 22 June 2021 and 28 June 2021. She sent the landlord evidence of the parking costs and said that the landlord had evidence of the electricity used in the property whilst she was decanted. She said that she was currently struggling with her finances.
On 26 July 2021, the resident reported further issues with rats in the property. The landlord raised a works order for its pest control contractor to re-attend. The landlord also recorded that its contractor had used battery powered tools whilst it carried out the repairs during the decant.
The resident complained to the landlord on 30 July 2021. She said that:
1. She had made the same complaint to the landlord four times. She wanted the landlord to resolve the issues with rats in the property.
2. The decant had gone on for longer than expected. The landlord had communicated poorly with her during the decant and she did not know what was happening. The decant had affected her children’s health and wellbeing.
3. She had requested a list of the works that was carried out during the decant but had not received this.
4. She was still waiting for the landlord to reimburse her for the electricity used in the property during the decant.
On 3 August 2021, the pest control contractor told the landlord that it had found a hole in the drain that could be the cause of the rat infestation. It needed to install a drain liner and a rat blocker. The landlord told the pest control contractor that it would authorise the repair due to the “urgency of the work”. The work was carried out on 20 August 2021.
On 12 August 2021, the landlord told the resident that it could not promise her that it would reimburse her for the electricity costs incurred during the first decant. It asked her to send a letter from her electricity provider.
On 24 August 2021, the landlord told the resident that it had repaired the drain and installed two extra rat blockers.
The resident told the landlord on 31 August 2021 that there was further evidence of rats in the property. She had noticed another hole under the stairs and had heard rats. The landlord said that it needed to arrange another visit to inspect the property following the recent works carried out by its pest control contractor.
On 8 September 2021, the resident said that she had been reimbursed for the cost of parking during the decant. However, in an internal email, the landlord acknowledged that it had still not responded to her request for the electricity costs to be reimbursed. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident at this time.
On 23 September 2021, the landlord said that it was aware that the resident was unhappy as a number of repairs were still outstanding. It would organise for the outstanding repairs to be completed urgently, not within the usual 28 day timescale. A surveyor would track the repairs to make sure they were completed. This included checking with its pest control contractor to find out if any additional work was required.
On 3 November 2021, the landlord said in an internal email that there were lots of issues outstanding. It questioned why the resident had been moved back into the property before they had all been resolved. It then emailed the resident on 19 November 2021 to find out what repairs were outstanding.
On 7 December 2021, the landlord called the resident to discuss a second decant from the property. She said that the first decant lasted a lot longer than she expected so she did not want to move into a hotel. She would like seven days’ notice about any extensions to the decant so that she could prepare herself and her children. She asked the landlord for “one point of contact” as during the first decant she had spoken to lots of different people. She was also still waiting for it to reimburse her for the electric used during the first decant.
On 14 December 2021, the resident told the landlord that she could hear rats in the property. The landlord asked its pest control contractor to attend. It is not clear when the pest control contractor carried out another visit following this report. The resident also asked the landlord to make sure that all the repairs were completed whilst she and her family were decanted from the property.
On 14 December 2021, the landlord offered the resident an apartment to use during the decant. The resident told the landlord that it was too far from her children’s school so she would not be able to accept it.
On 20 December 2021, the resident told this Service that she felt that the landlord had ignored the majority of her complaint that she had made in July 2021. She said that she had been told by the landlord that it was going to decant her again in January 2022. This was very disruptive and stressful for her and her family. She also said that the work that was carried out during the first decant did not do anything to resolve the rat infestation.
On 22 December 2021, the landlord confirmed that it would pay for the resident’s parking costs while she was decanted from the property. The resident asked the landlord about the new flooring that she had installed and whether it would compensate her for any damage to this. The landlord did not provide any evidence that it responded to the resident’s question about the flooring.
On 6 January 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it would disconnect her cooker and white goods on 7 January 2022. It said that its contractors would be starting work in the property on 10 January 2022. The landlord provided the resident with £200 vouchers to pay for food during this time.
The resident was decanted from the property from 10 January 2022 until 15 February 2022. During the decant the landlord said that it completed work to rat proof the property, repaired the stairs, kitchen and hallway ceiling and carried out work to damp proof the property.
On 20 January 2022, the landlord met with the resident at the property to discuss the progress with the repairs.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 January 2022 to extend the decant until 8 February 2022. It emailed her again on 2 February 2022 to extend the decant to 15 February 2022.
This Service re–sent the resident’s complaint email from 30 July 2021 to the landlord on 17 January 2022. The landlord said that it had raised a new stage one complaint on 1 February 2022.
The landlord called the resident on 3 February 2022 to inform her that it had failed to respond to her complaint thoroughly in July 2021. It would respond to her complaint by 11 February 2022. It emailed her again on 8 February 2022 to let her know that its response would be delayed until 15 February 2022.
On 8 February 2022, the landlord emailed its pest control contractor to ask for a quote to clean the property at the end of the decant. It said that it did not need a deep clean, more like a “spit and polish” following the building work that had taken place there.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 February 2022 as she had no furniture in the property after she had moved back in. The removal company had not been arranged to deliver her furniture. She also said that the flooring in the property had been damaged and some of the wooden joists in the loft had been damaged by rats. The property was also very dirty. The landlord said that it could move the resident into a hotel on a temporary basis. As this was not suitable, it gave her £195 vouchers to purchase food.
On 15 February 2022, the resident asked the landlord about compensation for the kitchen flooring that had been damaged by its operatives during the decant. It advised the resident that she would have to claim for the damage through her own insurance policy. The resident said that she was did not want to do this as the floor had been damaged by the landlord’s operatives. She contacted the landlord again on 16 February 2022 to request it sent an insurance form to claim for the damage to her flooring. There is no evidence that the landlord sent her a insurance form following her request or clarified its position on her request for compensation.
On 21 February 2022 and 23 February 2022, the resident asked the landlord to reimburse her for the expenses incurred during the second decant. These included the car park charges, electricity used in the property and her petrol costs. The landlord said that it attempted to contact the resident to discuss her request on 23 February 2022.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 23 February 2022. It said that:
1. It had received the resident’s complaint from this Service on 22 January 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding to her.
2. The resident had complained about an unresolved pest infestation after the first decant and its contractors using electricity in the property. She also complained about the landlord’s delay in responding to her complaint and that it had failed to address all of her complaint points.
3. It awarded the resident £325 compensation for its delayed complaint response and the inconvenience caused to her.
4. It had received proof of the car parking charges and electricity used by its contractors. This had been passed to the relevant team who would contact the resident to discuss it with her.
The resident asked the landlord to move her complaint to stage two on 2 March 2022.
The resident reported further issues with rats in the property on 25 April 2022 and 28 April 2022. The landlord informed her that it did not usually provide pest control services for residents, it would ask a surveyor to call her back.
On 3 May 2022, the pest control contractor told the landlord that it had inspected the property again. It had found evidence of rat activity in the loft. It recommended investigating the drains again. Another drain survey was then completed on 13 May 2022. The pest control contractor said that it did not think that the drains were the cause of the rat infestation.
The landlord issued the resident with a stage two complaint response on 11 May 2022. It said that:
1. The resident was unhappy about the ongoing, unresolved rat infestation at the property, its operatives using electricity in the property and the delay in responding to her complaint.
2. It had looked at the time taken to complete the repairs following her initial decant from the property. It was sorry for the upheaval caused to her and her family.
3. It apologised for not dealing with the repair issues fully during the first decant.
4. It had communicated poorly with the resident during the second decant. It took longer than planned due to the complexity of the repairs required to the hallway floor and as it had to organise asbestos tests. It did not do enough to keep the resident updated during this time.
5. The resident had experienced a poor service and the landlord had made a number of errors. It apologised for the impact on the resident and her family. It awarded the resident £880 in compensation to reflect its service failure. This included:
  1. £100 for its handling of the mould removal.
  2. £100 for the length of the second decant.
  3. £40 for the electricity used.
  4. £20 for the delay in returning her furniture.
  5. £50 for the damage to her kitchen floor.
  6. £20 for the delay in re-connecting her cooker.
  7. £50 for the poor repair completed to the stairs.
  8. £50 for the delay in returning her personal items following the end of the decant.
  9. £50 for the delay to make good plastering works.
  10. £350 for the delay to repair the toilet.
  11. £50 for its poor complaint handling.
The resident told this Service on 24 May 2022 that she felt like the landlord was ignoring her. She also said that the landlord had not kept her updated throughout the second decant. This had caused her and her family “so much stress. I was in tears the whole time”. The landlord had also failed to consider how the decant had affected her and her family.
On 20 June 2022, the landlord’s repair records stated that it needed to remove and dispose of all of the items in the resident’s loft. This was completed on 1 August 2022. The landlord told the resident that it would arrange for the pest control contractor to inspect the loft to establish how the rats were accessing it. When this was done, it would arrange to repair the damaged wooden joists and reinstall the loft insulation.
On 15 August 2022, the pest control contractor said that the landlord should fill some gaps in the party walls with blockwork and mortar. Some additional external works that might allow access to rats had also been identified.
After the resident had reported hearing rats in the property again the landlord organised for the pest control contractor to return to the property on 26 August 2022.
The landlord confirmed in an internal email that it had arranged to repair the damaged wooden joists in the loft on 26 August 2022.
The resident emailed this Service on 6 June 2023. She said that:
1. She was frustrated that she and her family had been decanted two times. The landlord had communicated poorly with her during both decants.
2. She had not received a refund for the electricity used during both decants.
3. There was still a significant problem with rats in the property.
4. During the second decant her personal belongings had been damaged and the property had not been cleaned properly.
5. The landlord had unreasonably delayed responding to her complaint. She had made the complaint on 30 July 2021.
6. The landlord had failed to acknowledge the significant distress and inconvenience that she and her family had experienced as a result of her being decanted from her property on two occasions.
The resident told this Service on 18 July 2023 that she had been decanted from the property for a third time. She had not been provided with a schedule of the works that were being carried out in the property or a timeframe for when the landlord hoped to complete the work.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns to this Service about the impact of the issues raised in her complaint on her health and wellbeing. She also said that her children’s health and wellbeing had been affected. The Ombudsman is unable to establish a link between health issues experienced by complainants and the actions of landlords. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as it may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of her complaint. However, consideration will be given to the general distress and inconvenience which the issues may have caused the resident and her family and how the landlord responded to this.
The Ombudsman understands and acknowledges that the resident is unhappy with the service she says she has experienced over many years from the landlord. These concerns relate to the ongoing rat infestation and outstanding repairs in the property.
According to this Service’s records, in 2021 the Housing Ombudsman decided upon a complaint from the resident (case 202004140). This complaint was about the landlord’s handling of a rat infestation in the property, its handling of a number of outstanding repairs in the property and its complaint handing. This report made a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the rat infestation in the property.
This investigation will examine the landlord’s handling of the resident’s first and second decants from the property from April 2021 to June 2021 and from January 2022 to February 2022, the landlord’s response to the rat infestation from April 2021, its response to her request for reimbursement of costs incurred during both decants and its handling of her complaint made in July 2021.

The landlord’s handing of the decants from the property

Decant between April 2021 and June 2021

The landlord’s decant policy says that it will conduct individual household needs assessments and agree a package of support with residents before a decant takes place. The landlord did not provide this Service with any evidence that it completed a needs assessment with the resident or considered offering her or her family any additional support before, during or following the first decant from the property. The resident had told the landlord that she and her family were struggling to cope with the rat infestation and the repairs in the property. The landlord had noted that the resident had been distressed during conversations with it before the decant took place and identified that it should consider referring her for some support. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord failed to consider how it could support the resident during the first decant. This was unreasonable and the decant led to the resident experiencing significant distress and inconvenience as a result.
The resident said that she did not know what work was being carried out in the property during the first decant. She said that she had asked the landlord for a breakdown of the repairs it planned to carry out during the decant. The landlord did not provide any evidence that it gave the resident a comprehensive repairs action plan before the decant took place. The landlord’s decant policy says that it will keep residents informed about the work it is going to carry out before a decant takes place. In the Ombudsman’s view, if the landlord had provided the resident with a plan for the repairs that it was going to carry out during the decant, it would have helped her to better prepare herself and her family. As it failed to provide the resident with information about the repairs, the resident said that she felt confused and frustrated.
The landlord told the resident that the first decant should take around three weeks. However, due to complications with some of the repairs, it took seven weeks before the resident was able to move back into the property. The landlord provided evidence that it met with the resident at the property and agreed to extend the decant on 18 May 2021. The landlord did not provide any further evidence to this Service that it gave the resident any other updates during this time to make sure that she understood what was happening and when she would be able to move back into the property. The resident also said that the landlord failed to provide her with enough notice about the extensions to the decant. This caused her to feel anxious and stressed. She said that if the landlord had given her more notice about the extensions to the decant, it would have helped her to better prepare her children. There is no evidence that the landlord gave consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities or considered any reasonable adjustments for her and her family before or during the first decant. In the Ombudsman’s opinion therefore, the landlord failed to provide the resident with sufficient updates during the decant. As it failed to do so, the resident and her family experienced additional distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s decant policy also says that it will contact resident’s within four weeks of their return to their permanent property to follow up on any outstanding issues. The landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service that it carried out a visit to the property following the completion of the decant. If the landlord had carried out this visit, it would have provided it with an opportunity to clarify the outstanding repairs and issues raised by the resident following the decant. It would also have provided the landlord with an opportunity to learn how it could improve how it handles decants in the future. As a result, the resident said that she felt ignored by the landlord.

Decant between January 2022 and February 2022

The landlord told the resident that it would need to decant her from the property for a second time in December 2021. After the resident told the landlord that the first property it offered to her was unsuitable due to the distance from her children’s school, the landlord agreed to look for an alternative property that would be more suitable. This demonstrated that the landlord did make efforts to try to limit the disruption caused to the resident by the decant.
After the landlord had identified a suitable property for the resident and her family to move into, it told her that it would disconnect her cooker and white goods on 7 January 2022. As a result, the resident did not have cooking facilities until she moved into the decant accommodation on 9 January 2022. The landlord said that it had offered to move the resident into a hotel before the decant property was available. The resident said that she did not want to move twice as it would be very disruptive for her family. She said that she then “had to fight for food vouchers” to help during this period and that she was unable to afford the additional cost of food. The landlord agreed to issue her with £200 vouchers to purchase food. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s actions at this time did not appear to be very customer focused. The landlord could have organised to disconnect the resident’s cooker and white goods after she had moved out of the property. This would have limited the disruption caused to her and her family. The resident had to spend additional time and effort to obtain the food vouchers from the landlord during this time. This was frustrating for her, particularly as she had explained to the landlord that she and her family had been struggling to cope with the disruption caused by the impending decant from the property.
The resident asked the landlord to give her seven days’ notice if the decant was going to be extended. During the first decant in April 2021, the resident said that the landlord had not provided her with enough notice when it extended the decant. This caused her to feel anxious and stressed. She said that if the landlord gave her more notice when it was extending the decant, it would help her to prepare her children for the disruption. The landlord provided this Service with evidence that it told the resident that it was going to extend the decant twice by email. The first extension email was sent to the resident four days before she was due to move out of the temporary accommodation and the second was sent six days before she was due to move out. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did give the resident reasonable notice on both occasions.
After the resident had moved back into the property in February 2022, she told the landlord that some of the repairs had not yet been completed. These included the installation of an extractor fan in the kitchen and a replacement electrical socket in a bedroom. The landlord arranged to complete these additional repairs within the following 28 days. In the Ombudsman’s view, although the landlord arranged to carry out the repairs within a reasonable amount of time, it could have done more to ensure that all the repairs were completed in the property whilst the resident was not living there. As it did not, it caused the resident additional disruption as its operatives had to re-attend while she and her family were back living in the property.
The landlord did not provide any evidence that it agreed with the resident how often it would provide her with updates during the first or second decants. In the Ombudsman’s view, if the landlord had agreed this with the resident, it would have helped to her to manage the disruption that the decant caused her and her family. The landlord has only provided evidence that it met with the resident once during the second decant on 20 January 2022. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have kept in more regular contact with the resident during the second decant. As it failed to do so, she felt like she said that she did not know what was happening and this had a significant impact on her and her family.
The landlord did not provide any evidence that it agreed with the resident who her named officer would be during the second decant process. This is despite the resident highlighting this as an issue following the first decant. If it had done so, this would have helped her to communicate more effectively with the landlord. The landlord again failed to carry out a household needs assessment or consider offering the resident any additional support during the second decant. The resident had told the landlord that she and her family had struggled to cope during the first decant. In the Ombudsman’s view, if the landlord had completed a household needs assessment with the resident and offered her additional support, it could have helped her to better manage the disruption of the second decant more effectively.
The landlord did not provide any evidence that it considered making a referral for the resident to its tenancy sustainment or welfare benefits teams or offered her any advice on local support services before, during or after the second decant from the property. The resident had advised the landlord that the first decant had been particularly difficult for one of her children who is autistic and that she had been struggling financially. In the Ombudsman’s view therefore, the landlord could have supported the resident more effectively during the second decant to try to limit the impact that it had on her and her family.
When the resident returned to the property on 15 February 2022, her furniture was not delivered until 17 February 2022 and her cooker was not reconnected until 18 February 2022. The resident said that this caused her further disruption. Although the landlord agreed to give the resident food vouchers for the disruption, in the Ombudsman’s view, it should have done more to make sure that the resident’s furniture was moved back into the property on 15 February 2022. As it did not, it caused the resident and her family additional, unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
After she moved back into the property, the resident said that it had not been cleaned to her satisfaction. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response, it stated that the clean carried out by its contractor was satisfactory. The resident had expected that the landlord would carry out a deep clean in the property following the completion of the decant. In an internal email, the landlord said that it wanted a quote to carry out “spit and polish” clean. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord should have told the resident what type of clean it intended to carry out in the property. As it failed to do so, it did not sufficiently manage her expectations and therefore she did not know what to expect when she moved back in. As the repair works carried out in the property were significant, this Service would have expected the landlord to arrange a more thorough clean. This would have helped the resident to move back into the property more easily following the decant.
The landlord again failed to provide any evidence to this Service that it contacted the resident to carry out a post-decant check with her four weeks after the completion of the decant. As the resident had been decanted for a second time, and as the repairs and rat infestation issues had been ongoing for a significant period of time, this Service would have expected the landlord to have carried out a follow up check with the resident. As it failed to carry out this check, it missed an opportunity to support the resident and give her confidence that it would be able to resolve the issues for her.
This investigation has highlighted that the landlord handled both of the resident’s decants from the property poorly. In its stage two complaint response, it admitted that the resident had experienced a poor service and that it had communicated poorly with her during this time. It also apologised for the frustration and upheaval that the decant had caused to the resident and her family. However, it is clear that the decant had a significant detrimental impact on the resident and her family. To go through a second decant so soon after the first one was frustrating for her and she told the landlord and this Service that it had been a very challenging time. The landlord did not communicate well with her during both decants and it failed to offer her any additional support.
In the Ombudsman’s view, although the landlord apologised for its failings and offered her some compensation, it did not sufficiently recognise the distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced. As a result, a finding of maladministration has been made in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decants in 2021 and 2022. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £500 payment of compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience that she and her family experienced due to the landlord’s failings during the two decants from the property.

Reimbursement of costs incurred during the first and second decants

An Ombudsman investigation the complaint made by the resident that was determined in 2021 (case 202004140) recommended that the landlord considered reimbursing the resident for any reasonably incurred expenses associated with her first decant from the property. It was also advised to provide the resident with written explanations of its decision in relation to this. The resident had reported that she had not been reimbursed for all of the costs incurred during this time.
The landlord’s decant policy says that it will consider refunding resident’s for all reasonable costs that they incur as a direct consequence of a decant taking place.
The resident asked the landlord to reimburse her for the additional parking costs and cost of electricity used by its operatives working in the property on a number of occasions in June 2021, July 2021 and August 2021. The resident confirmed that the landlord had refunded the parking costs in September 2021. The landlord did not appear to refund the resident for the electricity used in the property until May 2022. This was nine months after the first decant was completed and following this Service recommending that the landlord makes a decision about her request in July 2021. In the Ombudsman’s view, it took the landlord an unreasonable amount of time to refund the resident for the costs she incurred during the first decant. This was particularly unacceptable considering she had told the landlord that she was struggling financially in June 2021.
Following the resident’s second decant from the property in February 2022, she asked the landlord to refund her for the additional money that she had spent on petrol due to the increased distance she had to travel to and from her children’s school, for the cost of electricity used in the property by its operatives and for car parking charges that she incurred during this time. From the evidence provided by the landlord, it is not clear if it has made a decision about the resident’s requests for reimbursement of these costs incurred during the second decant. In the Ombudsman’s view therefore, the landlord’s handling of her requests for reimbursement was poor. It communicated with her poorly following her request and she experienced unnecessary frustration as a result.
The landlord says that it will consider refunding residents for all reasonable costs that they incur as a direct consequence of a decant taking place. However, this investigation has identified that the landlord should have done more to clarify what costs it would refund to the resident during a decant and responded to her requests more quickly. The resident experienced unnecessary frustration as she did not know what costs the landlord would or would not reimburse to her. As a result, this Service has made a findings of maladministration in respect of this element of the resident’s complaint. A further order of £350 compensation has been made to reflect the impact that the delays in reimbursing the resident had on her and her family.

Ongoing rat infestation at the property

The Ombudsman notes that in cases involving pests such as rats the landlord, resident and local authority have shared responsibility for addressing the issue, depending on why and how rats are accessing the property and the impact of the problem.
The landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, including the drains. Its tenancy management policy also says that it is responsible for identifying and blocking potential access points, repairing any damage to the structure of the property including the pipe work and eradicating infestations caused by its own actions or lack of action.
The available records show that Ark Pest Control (Ark) first visited the property on 7 April 2021. Its technician’s report stated:

“A thorough inspection has been carried out and the loft showed the highest level of infestation indicated by droppings, I have bait the loft area and informed the tenant that house keeping under the stairs needs addressing for me to look. I would also hugely recommend a drain survey to this property or neighbouring properties drains to find the source of the problem as from what the tenant is describing and from what we encounter very much indicates drain related infestation.”

At this stage, Ark considered the source of the infestation was via the drains. The resident was asked to clear the area under the stairs to allow further investigation. Ark also recommended a drain survey, which was completed on 14 April 2021. The findings from the survey were:

“In the manhole surveyed at 165 [the next door property on Pratling Street] the engineer reported what appear to be rodent droppings. The recommended solution for this is a rat blocker [designed to stop rats passing through drains] at either end of the line. This will effectively close the line to access at either end so if a pest exits via a blocker returning is not possible. …The area is quiet, rural and has large field to the rear. Given the location of this at the top of the pipe a repair is advisable, given there is an issue as this could be causing access and egress to the line. …The drain team manager advises starting with the rat blockers, and to monitor the situation. If rodent activity persists then look at the line repair.”

Ark returned to the property on 20 April 2021. Its technician reported:

“I have attended site for a second visit, all bait point have been completely wiped out. Tenant was very very distressed with this current situation as she has cleared under the stairs as requested on last visit and found several dead rats, there was huge holes made by rats in the walls and the floor boards which I have blocked temporarily but something needs doing with the drains and major proofing within the property.”

Two rat blockers were installed in the drain on 20 April 2021. Ark recommended that, in addition to the drains being repaired, the kitchen and ground floors should be proofed by a builder. Ark’s recommendations were not explicit as to what exactly “major proofing” meant. Proofing essentially means closing all holes and gaps that could allow a rat access into the property, but there are different degrees to how extensive this proofing should be. Given Ark referred to the floor boards, a fair interpretation of “major proofing” is that the floor boards on the ground floor should have been removed and all holes underneath plugged.
The resident was decanted out of the property from 30 April 2021 to 18 June 2021. The landlord has indicated that while the resident wasdecanted it removed the kitchen units and carried out proofing in the hallway, bedroom and bathroom to prevent the rats gaining access. It then installed new kitchen units and the property was environmentally cleaned by Ark. Other repairs and improvement works not related to the rat problem were also completed.
The landlord’s internal email correspondence dated 18 May 2021 and 11 June 2021 indicates that both the property and the loft were to be deep cleaned. This was completed on 17 June 2021. However, a clean within the loft was not completed during the first decant. This is because there were items, presumed to be the resident’s, in the loft. An email dated 21 June 2021 indicates that the landlord intended to ask the resident to remove the items so that Ark could revisit and complete an environmental clean of the loft. I have not identified any documentary evidence to show that it advised the resident of this.
Although the landlord completed a number of works related to tackling the rat infestation, it has failed to show that it undertook any significant investigative or remedial work in the hallway, lounge or under the stairs. Assessing the area under the stairs was specifically important as this is where rat activity was most evident. Given Ark’s findings and recommendations, I would have expected the floorboards to have been taken up to identify potential rat access points. I would also have expected Ark to be invited to carry out additional investigations during the decant period. The landlord failed to take these steps and I consider this is a significant failing in its handling of the rat infestation between April 2021 and June 2021.
Despite the remedial works during the first decant, the resident soon reported issues with rats again. The landlord contacted Ark on 27 July 2021. It noted that rats had been seen coming out of the drains. Ark attended on 30 July 2021 and reported:

“…drain survey was carried out whilst on site and a hole in the drains was found, a new hole under the stairs was identified by myself and looks like it has be caused by chew damage, I have temporarily blocked with wire wool but is next to where a repair has taken place so I would recommend entire area looked at below floor level, All bait points from last visit within loft have been inspected and found no new signs of any rodent activity at the time of the inspection, maggot casts were found which made me investigate and uncovered a large dead rat, estimate 6-8 weeks old by state of it.”

The technician recommended repairs under the stairs and to the drains. The landlord’s email correspondence notes further feedback from another technician:

“I attended the property along with the technician and drains team to determine what is happening. We completed a thorough investigation and survey. The resident has a video which shows noises (believed to be rats) coming from an external pipe. The drains team were able to send the camera down this drain and identified a large hole, which is the likely cause of the rat ingress. The remedial work will involve installing a liner patch and rat blocker.”

The resident sent an email complaint to the landlord on 30 July 2021 after Ark’s visit. She explained that, although cement had been laid in the kitchen to prevent rat access, there were other areas on the ground floor where the proofing had not used cement. The resident noted:

“The rats had a runway between my hallway, where they had made holes, and my kitchen. Between the two there is a bit of mdf attached to my wall, I have asked and been promised by [landlord employee] that this will be taken down and checked behind it as there will not only be faeces from the rats but also some dead bodies of them. This STILL has not been done, even the Ark gentleman said this was meant to be taken down and inspected.

…When Ark came out to inspect the house, they advised you [the landlord] to take up the whole of the hall floor to see what’s going on underneath with a rat run, broken areas etc and then cement the whole under the floor to prevent them coming back in. This was NOT done and I now have another hole in my floor that Ark has temporarily fixed but this is still meaning that rats are getting in my house. Not only that, I have had to have the drain people out again with Ark as I have footage of rats in my pipes.

…Today Ark returned with the drain people, they have found a large hole in the drain further down and have recommended that this be repaired to prevent any further rat problems, I would like to hope that this is done… Yet again, Ark have advised you to get my hall floor up and clear it, clean it, repair the damage as well as cement it, I would like to hope this is also this time done.”

The landlord’s internal email correspondence from 18 August 2021 indicates that Ark had advised that there was a second hole in the drain and the rat gates were not installed where they should have been to prevent rats entering. As such, the rat blockers had been installed incorrectly. I acknowledge the landlord acted quickly and appropriately to correct the issues with the drains. Internal landlord email correspondence and Ark’s report dated 24 August 2021 indicates Ark completed a patch repair to the drain and installed three rat blockers in August 2021.
The resident reported continuing rat problems on 31 August 2021. Ark attended on 22 September 2021 and reported:

“…all bait points in the loft were checked and serviced and showed no signs of any rodent activity at the time of the inspection however a new hole has appeared under the stairs and has now been temporarily filled with wire wool, still recommend having a looking [sic] under the floor under the stairs.”

Following the resident’s return to the property after the first decant, Ark had now twice recommended that the landlord arrange further investigations under the stairs. The landlord visited the property on 23 September 2021. It agreed to check with Ark what further work could be completed to prevent rat access. An internal landlord email indicates that by 12 October 2021, the landlord’s surveyor had been “unable to get my head around what was required/specified/done regarding ground floor hall”. It is not clear what further action the landlord took in relation to the rats, if any, at this time.
Ark attended again on 26 November 2021 and reported:

“…bait points in the loft area have been checked and showed no new signs of any rodent activity at the time of the inspection however temporary proofing I undertook in the hall way had been disturbed and pulled down below the floor, I have dropped some bait below the floorboards and reblocked the holes using wire wool, this is the area the tenant is also hearing the rodents I recommend that the hallway / entrance flooring area is lifted to investigate what’s going on sub floor level.”

The landlord allowed the issue to drag on unnecessarily and failed to act on direct advice from Ark to investigate rat activity under the stairs. Once rat sightings were reported following the drain repairs in August 2021, it was clear that additional measures were required to tackle the problem. The landlord also failed to properly reassess its previous proofing work to understand what it had missed and what further steps it could take to prevent the ongoing rat infestation. The landlord failed to properly remedy the rat activity under the stairs in September 2021, October 2021 and November 2021 and the resident and the family were left to deal with the consequences.
The landlord contacted Ark on 7 December 2021 as the resident had made an additional report of rats entering the loft. The landlord’s call note from 14 December 2021 indicates that the resident informed the landlord that there was “an awful smell of dead rats and it is getting worse plus video footage of rats in the loft chewing again and needs Ark out asap as it’s a huge problem”. The resident called the landlord again on 22 December 2021 to confirm that the resident could hear rats in the loft.
Ark attended on 6 January 2022 and reported:

“…the rats have reappeared in the loft area, after proofing had been carried out. All bait points in the loft were wiped out and zero bait was found, all these points have been refreshed. new droppings and damage to beams was discovered on this visit, tenant said she had a smell and hasn’t heard much recently but this will be twinned with bait take, proofing needs to take place at ground level or below especially in hallway where noises heard and my proofing was disturbed on last visit will continue monitoring.”

Ark returned on 13 January 2022 and reported:

“…the floor in the hallway has had 2 floor boards lifted immediately through the front door I have laid some baits to gain an understanding of activity but earth looked very smooth beneath the floor like rodents had been passing over it the area I really need to look at is beneath stairs and have spoken to [landlord surveyor] whilst on site and he said he’s getting this area exposed all other baits in the loft area showed no new signs of any rodent activity at the time of the inspection will continue monitoring.”

The landlord arranged a second decant and began work on excavating the wooden and concrete floor to identify access points. On 19 January 2022, the floorboards in the hallway were removed and a dead rat was found by the operatives. Ark visited the property the following day. Its technician reported:

“…the entrance floor boards have now been raised, multiple holes have been found under the floor area and dead rat, smoothing of earth showing rodent activity, 2 holes lead to concrete base beneath the stairs although holes go under the concrete, and 3 holes lead to under the living room which may need inspecting due to us still being unable to locate entrance point. All baits in the loft area still showed no signs of any new activity however the dead rat beneath the floor indicates a recent infestation.”

Ark recommended that further investigation was required. It stated that the landlord should take up the concrete block base beneath the stairs and cut an entry point in the living room floor to inspect. In an email dated 27 January 2022, Ark confirmed it was satisfied that there were no further issues in the drains as its staff had recently re-inspected the drains and found no evidence of rat activity beyond the rat blockers. Internal landlord email correspondence shows that the landlord had also found evidence of woodworm in the floorboards. This, along with the extensive additional investigative works related to investigating rat access points, meant that the decant period had to be extended. The landlord broke up and removed the concrete blocks under the stairs. Ark visited again on 4 February 2022. Its technician reported as follows:

“…the under stairs area has now been exposed, a huge hole has been found and just disappears off under the ground so I have recommended that this is concreted in.”

The landlord confirmed that it had blocked any rat access in the hallway, kitchen and lounge and laid new concrete under the stairs. A new floor was then laid. The landlord also noted that there had been some rat damage to roof joists which may need strengthening. The landlord indicated that this would be completed once the tenant had moved back in. The second decant lasted from 7 January 2022 to 17 February 2022.
Having read through the detail of the inspections and works completed during the two decants, it is clear that the works completed during the second decant could have been completed during the first decant had the landlord worked hand in hand with Ark as it did during the second decant. The landlord unnecessarily limited the scale of its rat infestation investigations and repairs to the kitchen and drains during the first decant. This is despite Ark’s findings in April 2021 which confirmed clear evidence of rat activity under the stairs, under the floorboards and the recommendation for major proofing within the property. This meant further investigative work and proofing in the hallway, lounge and particularly under the stairs was delayed by about eight months. The length of this delay was also unnecessarily extended, as the landlord failed to act on the resident’s reports of continuing rat problems in July and August 2021 and Ark’s repeated recommendation to investigate under the stairs from July 2021, September 2021 and November 2021. The landlord’s failings caused considerable detriment to the resident and the family as they had to deal with the effects of a rat infestation for a further eight months including living with the smell of decaying rats under the floorboards.
It is important to note that the problem with rats had been a long running recurring issue at the property. Previous Ombudsman case reference 202004140 confirms that the matter was long standing even when the resident raised a complaint in June 2020. The first decant therefore represented an opportunity to carry out extensive investigations and properly tackle the matter once and for all. The resident has explained how the time away from home and lack of consistency particularly affected the resident’s daughter. The impact of multiple lengthy decants was therefore exceptionally acute for the resident’s family and the landlord’s failure to investigate fully during the first decant caused significant detriment.
The landlord should have engaged with Ark during the first decant and asked for specialist advice when investigating and plugging the holes being exploited by the rats. Had it done so, the access routes that were found in January 2022 would have been sealed in the summer of 2021. This is a significant failing in the landlord’s handling of this matter between June 2021 and February 2022.
The resident reported rats again in the loft on 25 April 2022. Ark visited on 3 May 2022. Its technician’s reported:

“…evidence of rats was immediately found in the loft area indicated by droppings and bait take, these bait points have been refreshed to combat this activity but tenant also said her neighbour is also experiencing activity so would recommend investigating drains again.”

Ark attended again on 6 May 2022 and reported:

“…tenant contacted me very distressed with a smell of dead rodents, so I agreed to attend and x2 dead rats in the loft area was found and removed and baits refreshed but down under the stairs area the smell still remained very strong indicating a possible dead rat below the floor or in void under the stairs will continue monitoring.”

The drains survey team attended on 18 May 2022 and reported:

“We have now completed three surveys, and I still don’t believe this is the problem with the rats. This lady’s house is the only house on a shared line of 6 houses that have issues. However, we could install one more rat wall on her branch and there is a new break.”

Ark completed a drain repair and fitted an additional rat blocker on 23 June 2022. No further action was taken with the loft. Ark chased a response from the landlord about the loft on 20 June 2022. It noted that it had previously advised that the loft should be cleared of items to allow for the removal of the loft insulation, an environmental clean and new loft insulation to be installed.

Ark attended on 30 June 2022 and reported:

“…tenant has a dead rat in her living room, all baits in the loft area have been checked and showed no new signs of any activity, however the tenant is hearing them again under the living room floor and the hallway floor.

Ark recommended that the proofing in the loft, hallway and living room were checked to ensure it was sufficient. The landlord’s worksheet records indicate that it cleared the loft of all items on 1 and 2 August 2022. The landlord replied to Ark on 4 August 2022 to confirm that the loft had now been cleared of items and it had asked Ark to complete a further inspection to determine how rats were getting into the roof and to recommend prevention works.

Ark’s specialist proofing team completed an inspection on 11 August 2022. Ark reported back its findings on 15 August 2022:

“The loft has recently been cleaned, so there is no evidence of rat droppings. There are gaps in the party walls. The resident (and neighbours) have reported hearing activity in the party wall cavity. This will provide ingress points for rats. The gaps should be filled with blockwork and mortar. There are pipes in the loft space that can be used by rats to access the property. This gives access to floor voids and the boiler cupboard. Another pipe also provides rodent access to the internal area of the property. There is a gap between the soffit and fascia of the roof. This provided access to rodents via the abutting rainwater pipe and SVP. The soffit and fascia should be removed, and fitted correctly.”

An internal landlord email confirms that the resident called the landlord on 19 August 2022 and explained that she was continuing to hear rat activity in the loft and their dog “recently caught a rat in the living room/hallway”. The available evidence indicates that Ark returned to the property on 26 August 2022 to complete its recommended remedial work within the loft. The landlord confirmed that it would also arrange for the roof joists to be strengthened and for new roof insulation to be installed.
The landlord’s stage two complaint was issued on 11 May 2022. It acknowledged that there were further works required in the loft, but pointed to the belongings in the loft preventing it from carrying out the works. It stated that it had previously advised the resident of this. This advice may have been provided to the resident verbally, but it has not been identified when or where the landlord told the resident to clear the loft in writing. The Ark technician informed the landlord on 20 June 2022 that the resident had confirmed that there was only one item in the loft that was to be kept and all other belongings could be disposed of. It is not clear if the items were owned by the resident or whether they related to a previous occupant and had been left behind when they moved. Whether the items were or were not the resident’s and whether the landlord informed the resident to move the items or not, the length of delay of the landlord acknowledging the need to clean the loft (in May 2021) and carrying out the work (August 2022) was unreasonable.
Although Ark reported no evidence of new rat activity after their inspection in January 2022, the delay in clearing the items prevented a full pest control inspection and the opportunity to identify further rat access points until August 2022. While I accept that the items in the loft provides some mitigation for the delays, the scale of the infestation in the property and the seriousness of the risk to health warranted further action from the landlord in the summer of 2021 after the end of the first decant. A second opportunity in February 2022 was also missed after the second decant as the landlord acknowledged the need to repair the roof joists, but again failed to follow up on this until August 2022. This again is a significant failing in the landlord’s handling of this matter between February 2022 and August 2022.
From April 2021, the landlord consistently failed to meet its obligation to identify and block any potential access points. Although its actions over the summer of 2022 appear to have now exhausted all potential access points, these actions could and should have been taken during the first decant ending in June 2021. It should also be kept in mind that the landlord previously failed to act upon the resident’s reports of rat problems between June 2020 and April 2021. Overall, the resident has experienced a period of more than two years where they reported rat infestations and the landlord failed to complete thorough investigations to prevent rats accessing the property. Although it is acknowledged that the landlord completed a number of investigations and remedial work, its efforts were delayed, ineffective and limited in scope. Its inadequate response left the resident dealing with the consequences of a rat infestation over a considerable period.
Tenants have a basic right to expect a rental property to be safe and secure, as per the Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018. The available evidence indicates that there were occasions where the rat infestation was significant enough to suggest that the property was unfit due to the risk of harm to the health or safety of the resident and her family. There were also occasions, particularly during the second half of 2021, when the landlord did not appear to treat the infestation with the level of seriousness and urgency that it demanded. The landlord’s delays, limited investigations and ineffective remedial works amount to a failure to properly tackle rat access points, which seriously adversely affected the resident and her household over a long period. The landlord’s initial response between June 2020 and April 2021 also exacerbated the situation and undermined the landlord/resident relationship. The landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right but its compensation offer was disproportionate to the serious detriment the resident experienced.
Depending on the level of service failure and the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of their property, the Ombudsman may consider awarding compensation based on the resident’s weekly rent rate. Given the unreasonable delays the resident experienced waiting for the landlord to properly investigate the rat access points, I have decided that a compensation payment should be ordered that reflects the impact and disruption on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property. The persistent rat problems between April 2021 and August 2022 should be compensated at 25% of weekly rent. The decant periods have not been included within the calculations.
Rent charged between 5 April 2021 and 3 April 2022: 39 x £135.10 = £5,268.90 (first decant – 7 weeks, second decant – 6 weeks. 13 weeks removed in total)

Rent charged between 3 April 2022 and 29 August 2022: 21 x £140.64 = £2,953.44.

Total rent charged during period (excluding decant weeks): £8,222.34.

25% of above total: £2,055.59.

Separately, the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced has also been considered. The available evidence indicates that the landlord did not take account of the vulnerabilities in the household when investigating the resident’s concerns or arranging remedial work. This shortfall has had an additional impact on the resident and her family and an award has been made to reflect this.

Complaint handling

In the landlord’s stage one complaint response in November 2021, it failed to respond to all of the issues that the resident had complained about in July 2021. The resident contacted this Service for help with her complaint in December 2021. She said that the landlord had not resolved the issues that she complained about. The landlord then issued another stage one complaint response to the resident on 23 February 2022. The landlord also offered the resident £25 compensation for the delay in responding to her complaint and £300 for the inconvenience caused to her by its delay. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord recognised its complaint handling failure and ultimately awarded proportionate compensation for this.
As a result, this investigation has found that the landlord made a satisfactory offer of redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in landlord’s handling of the resident’s decants from the property between April 2021 and June 2021 and January 2022 and February 2022.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in landlord’s handling of the resident’s for it to reimburse her for the costs incurred during the decants from the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about an ongoing rat infestation in the property from April 2021.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to the handling of the resident’s complaint prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

This investigation has identified that the landlord handled the resident’s decants from the property in 2021 and 2022 poorly. There were issues with the way that it communicated with the resident during both decants and on both occasions it failed to carry out all of the repairs that it needed to while she was not living there. The landlord did not consider the impact that the decant had on the resident or her family. It was aware that one of the resident’s children is autistic and the landlord has not provided any evidence that it considered the effect that the significant disruption caused by the decant had on them or the rest of the resident’s family. It also failed to offer the resident any further support despite the fact that she had informed it that she was struggling to cope with the disruption caused by the decant.
The landlord took an unreasonably long period of time to agree and refund the costs that the resident had incurred during the first and second decants from the property. The landlord’s decant policy says that it will refund residents for any reasonable costs incurred as a result of a decant. It failed to adequately explain to the resident what costs it would consider refunding and what evidence she needed to provide it with before the decants took place. In the Ombudsman’s view, the delay in refunding the resident was therefore unreasonable, particularly as she had informed the landlord that she was struggling financially at the time.
It is evident that the resident has experienced a long standing and distressing issue with rats in her property. Although the landlord has made efforts to resolve the issue through its pest control contractor, the amount of time that it has affected her and her family for is unreasonable. Although the Ombudsman recognises that successfully resolving a pest infestation can be difficult, the length of time that it has been going on for has caused the resident and her family a significant amount of distress and inconvenience..
There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling and it failed to respond to all of the issues that the resident raised in her complaint in July 2021 for six months. This was frustrating for the resident. However, the landlord appropriately recognised this, made an apology to the resident and compensated her for the time and inconvenience its failings had caused her.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident £4,960.59 in compensation (this is inclusive of the £1,205 it has already offered). This is comprised of:
  1. £690 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family by its poor handling of her decants from the property in 2021 and 2022.
  2. £350 for the unnecessary time and effort that the resident spent trying to get the landlord to reimburse her for the costs she incurred during the first and second decants.
  3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family by its poor handling of the rat infestation at the property.
  4. £2,055.59 for the serious failings in relation to its handling of the rat infestation at the property.
  5. £350 for the landlord’s failure to identify, record or take into account the vulnerabilities in the household.
  6. £375 for its shortfalls in complaint handling.
  7. £640 for its other shortfalls in service (excluding decant, rat infestation and complaint handling issues).

Provide the resident and her family with an apology from its Chief Executive for the failings identified in this report.

Provide the resident with a comprehensive list of repairs being carried out in the property during the current decant.

Write to the resident to find out if it has resolved all of the issues relating to her request for it to reimburse her for the costs incurred during both decants. If any costs are still outstanding, the landlord should confirm its position on them to the resident and this Service.

Contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities in the household and ensure these are appropriately recorded.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to carry out a refresher training session for all its staff on:
1. Diversity and inclusivity;
2. Its decant policy.