Clarion Housing Association Limited (202212280)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212280

Clarion Housing Association Limited

5 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of rodent infestation at her property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused due to the infestation.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. In October 2019 she was moved into the property via a management transfer.
In March 2020, the resident complained to the landlord about its failure to address a rodent infestation in her property, which she stated had been present when she moved in. The resident was pregnant and had 2 small children. She asked for compensation for damage to belongings and to be moved out until the infestation was dealt with and access holes stopped up.
The landlord’s pest control contractor surveyed the property and recommended urgent repairs and cleaning of affected areas. The landlord responded to the complaint by arranging for the work to be done and said that, although eradicating pests was normally the responsibility of the tenant, the landlord would deal with the matter because of the condition of the property when let. It also said a decant was not necessary and that an insurance claim should be made for damage to personal possessions.
In August 2021, the resident complained to the landlord about delayed repairs and about the impact of the ongoing rodent infestation following unsuccessful treatment by pest control. She noted that the contractor had recommended work to the drainage system to prevent rodent access, but this work hadn’t been done. The resident said she considered the property so unsafe that she had been forced to stay elsewhere and she had been charged court costs for failing to allow access for a gas inspection. She again asked to be moved.
The landlord did not uphold the complaint. It said that at a recent inspection its surveyor had seen no evidence of rodents within the property and its pest control contractor reported that no rats were found in the area. The resident was told she did not qualify for a management move as the property was not uninhabitable.
In December 2021, the resident made a third complaint to the landlord. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the infestation and wanted a drain inspection. She asked for repairs to be carried out and for the infestation to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. The landlord identified that it had completed some works to prevent access and clear land adjacent to the property but noted a failure to act on the pest control recommendation to resolve the drainage issues. It awarded £375 compensation for this and for delays in responding to the complaint. It concluded that there were no grounds to consider the property uninhabitable and so the resident was ineligible for a management move.
In September 2022, the resident complained to the Ombudsman about the rodent infestation she had experienced since moving to the property. She said that the infestation had adversely affected her mental and physical health and that of her children. The resolution she was seeking was a move to a safe home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident first made a formal complaint about the rodent infestation on 13 March 2020, 5 months after her tenancy started. She stated that she had evidence that the infestation was present before she moved in. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 2 April 2020, committing to carry out works and cleaning, and it offered the resident £50 compensation for inconvenience. According to the evidence provided to this Service, the resident next reported an ongoing infestation and failure to complete the promised works on 22 October 2020, and again on 23 July 2021. The resident then raised a second formal complaint about the ongoing issues on 6 August 2021.
The resident did not escalate her initial complaint following the stage 1 response and a period of 9 months elapsed between the reports in October 2020 and July 2021. This investigation is therefore focussed on the landlord’s actions in response to the report of 23 July 2021 and the subsequent complaint. The history of the resident’s reports of an infestation and the landlord’s previous responses provides necessary context for assessing the reasonableness of the landlord’s response.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of rodent infestation at her property

The separate responsibilities of the landlord and the resident for dealing with pests are set out in the tenancy agreement and the Tenancy Management Policy.
The resident is required to take all reasonable action to prevent, reduce or destroy pests and infestations in their home and garden. This includes keeping the home and garden clean, tidy, and free from rubbish. The resident must also report nests, holes, and potential access points promptly, so the landlord can assess the cause and try to prevent access to properties and infestation of the communal areas. Residents are also required to treat and/or pay for treatment of infestations in their own property. However, where an infestation has occurred due to no fault of the tenant, but the cost of treatment is very likely to cause undue hardship to the tenant the landlord has a discretion to arranged for the necessary work to be undertaken.
The landlord’s responsibilities for dealing with rodent infestations are to identify and block access points in the structure of its properties, repair any damage to the structure of its buildings and pipe work, eradicate any infestations in communal areas, or those caused by lack of action such as disrepair, and arrange for eradication in a property where the problem is traced to an infestation in a communal area.
The tenancy agreement requires the resident to report to the landlord promptly any repair or defect for which the landlord is responsible. The landlord’s repair responsibilities are set out on its website and include maintenance of water mains, pipes and waste pipes and external drains.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy sets out service standards for repairs. For non-emergency repairs residents will be offered an appointment, within 28 days of the repair being reported, for the next available appointment which suits the resident.
The landlord had previously committed to undertake repairs to prevent pests from entering the property and to clean affected areas. It accepted responsibility for these works, outside its usual policy that the tenant is responsible for pest control within the property, as it noted that the property may not have been left in a satisfactory state at the void stage. Having committed to carry out the works, the Ombudsman would expect these to be completed within a reasonable timeframe. It is understood that there were 3 pest control visits to the property between April and October 2020 to set traps, and on 29 October 2020 the landlord emailed pest control to arrange a further visit to the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 July 2021 to report ongoing issues with pests at the property. She requested a pest control visit and reported, ‘the drains are open sewers hence rats coming in from the toilet.’ The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to review the previous reports of a pest infestation at the property to determine what action it should take.
In response, the evidence indicates that the landlord arranged a pest control inspection, which was appropriate to establish the status of the infestation, whether any works were outstanding and whether additional works were required. However, this investigation has not seen any survey report produced in response to this request. There is no record of whether the toilet was assessed as a possible entry point at this time. The landlord must ensure that it keeps full and accurate records of all inspections, including records of when a job was raised, the date and time of the appointment and the outcome.
Following the formal complaint of 4 August 2021, the landlord’s customer solutions and operations officers took prompt action, given the history of the complaint and the severity of the rodent infestation described by the resident. An urgent inspection was arranged to assess the severity of the infestation and whether the property was in a fit state to be occupied by the resident with 3 small children. They asked for a full report of findings so the complaint could be progressed and to help determine whether a decant should or could be arranged.
Whilst it is encouraging that the landlord recognised the potential seriousness of the issue and took action, it is of concern that the outcome of the inspection was not been recorded in detail. The landlord has provided copies of reports from visits to the property on 10 August 2021 and 6 September 2021, which dealt principally with the resident’s complaints about other outstanding repairs to the property. The reports noted that pest treatment had previously been applied and that a further visit from the pest control contractor had been arranged.
An email report indicates that the pest control contractor attended the area surrounding the property on 7 September 2021 and carried out a brief, external inspection. It noted some fly-tipping and overgrowth in the area surrounding the property but no indication of rat activity.
The landlord’s complaint response of 9 September 2021 was inappropriate, as it had relied on the conclusion of the pest control company based on an external inspection of the property only. The landlord relied on its usual policy that the resident is responsible for eradicating pests to conclude that there had been no service failure and the complaint was not upheld. The landlord failed to take account of the history of the issues and its previous acceptance that it would address the issues because the property may not have been in a suitable condition when let. It also failed to address the resident’s assertion that pest control had recommended external drainage works but these had not been completed.
The resident made a third formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation on 17 December 2021. The resident noted that she had contacted the contractor directly and they had reported that they had not attended her property in 2021, as the landlord had suggested. The landlord’s internal records evidence that it followed up with the contractor and confirmed that at the visit in September 2021 only the surrounding external areas had been inspected. The landlord acknowledged that a follow-up appointment should be arranged to investigate the ongoing infestation and reported issues with access via the drains, and to identify any necessary works. It was recorded that open ground adjacent to the resident’s property and controlled by the local council would be cleared and maintained once a month in future.
The landlord’s customer records show that both the landlord and its pest control contractor experienced some difficulty in gaining access to inspect the property on separate occasions in January, although an order was placed to fit rat flaps in the toilet cisterns at the resident’s and neighbouring properties.
The landlord did acknowledge some failings in its handling of the issues in its complaint response of 24 January 2022, noting that it had failed to act on the pest control recommendation and resolve drainage issues. It awarded compensation of £350 for the disruption and inconvenience caused. The landlord maintained its position at stage 2, noting that it had followed its pest eradication policies and that no rat activity was identified at the pest control inspection on 7 September 2021. Again, the landlord’s response was not appropriate, as it failed to acknowledge the resident’s concern that this was an external inspection only.
The stage 2 response noted that appointments with pest control and the landlord’s surveyor had been missed by the resident and the resident was reminded of her responsibility to keep the garden clear of rubbish and dog faeces to discourage rodents. It was reasonable for the landlord to remind the resident of her responsibilities under the tenancy agreement, as treatment was unlikely to be effective without her co-operation.
The landlord said it would visit to carry out repairs necessary to prevent rodents accessing the property and reported that works had been completed on 30 March 2022, which the landlord was confident would prevent rodents entering via the toilet. It remains unclear whether this was the recommended drainage work referred to by the resident previously, due to the lack of records provided to this investigation. It is also noted that the resident first reported that the toilet may be a possible access point in July 2021 and yet works were not completed to the toilet cistern until March 2022, far in excess of the landlord’s 28-day timeframe for completing routine repairs. The landlord has provided no explanation for the delay in identifying and addressing this issue and this failure was not identified in its complaint responses.
The resident’s claim that the property was already infested with rodents when she moved in was identified as one of the elements of the complaint but was not addressed in the response. Reference was made to arrangements for the council to clear and maintain overgrown land close to the resident’s property. From the evidence seen by the Ombudsman there are conflicting assumptions as to ownership of the land. An internal email in January 2022 indicates that a review of the estate map had shown land adjacent to the resident’s property, which had become overgrown, belongs to the landlord. This point should be clarified to avoid future problems for the resident and other tenants.
The resident continued to report pest activity following the final complaint response and the landlord arranged for further inspections, where rat activity was observed. The landlord then ordered significant additional works to prevent rodents from accessing the property. The action taken after the landlord had dealt with the complaint is relevant to this investigation because it suggests that a more thorough and proactive approach to tackling the rodent infestation may have been possible and that action could have been taken at an earlier stage.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation at her property since July 2021. The landlord failed to conduct adequate inspections and to escalate its response following the reports of an ongoing problem. It reverted to its general policy that dealing with rodent infestations within the home and garden was the responsibility of the resident, despite previously accepting that it would take responsibility for certain works and treatment due to the condition of the property when let. It was only following the resident’s third complaint that the landlord completed works to block access points, to clear overgrown open space and to undertake work on drains. The drainage works had been identified by pest control contractors more than twelve months earlier as likely to be a cause of the problem and the delay in carrying out further investigations and completing any required works was not acceptable.
The landlord offered £350 compensation for the inconvenience the resident experienced as a result in the delay in actioning recommended works to resolve problems with the drains. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for a range of between £250 to £700 where there has been considerable failure but may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Given the impact of the infestation on the resident’s living conditions and the fact that she had to pursue 3 complaints before effective action was taken, the Ombudsman considers that an increase to the amount of compensation awarded is appropriate.
The landlord noted that court fines had been imposed following the resident’s failure to allow access for gas safety checks. There is no evidence seen by the Ombudsman that the resident notified the landlord in advance that she was leaving the property to live elsewhere. The Ombudsman does not consider that it would be reasonable to order the landlord to reimburse the resident for these costs when it was unaware that she had left the property. In any event, the resident would still be required to permit access for gas safety inspections, in accordance with the conditions of her tenancy agreement. If the resident wishes to challenge the fine, then she should do so via the courts.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused due to infestation

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that where the landlord considers that ‘we cannot reasonably carry out necessary works with you and your household remaining in your home, you will move to suitable temporary accommodation until the works are complete’. The resident originally indicated that she wanted to be rehoused temporarily while work to deal with the infestation was completed but later made clear that she was seeking permanent rehousing.
The stage 2 response of April 2022considered the resident’s claim that she could not live in the property since it was not safe. The landlord said that it had seen no grounds to conclude that the property was uninhabitable. In reaching this conclusion, the tenancy officer appears to have relied on the visual inspection of the surveyor, who deferred to the pest control contractor to assess the extent and impact of the infestation. As established, only an external inspection by pest control was completed and there is no evidence that the landlord assessed theimpact of the internal infestation, and any required repair works, on the living conditions of the resident and her 3 small children.
The resident maintains that the state of the property is detrimental to her physical and mental health and that of her children. The landlord quoted its management transfer policy as stating that it only allows residents to be moved in the most exceptional circumstances where the individual’s life is at risk. Clearly a move to the scarce resource of a new home must be fair and in line with policy. However, the allocations policy contains a wider discretion for the landlord to decide that, in exceptional circumstances, it is in the landlord’s interests to transfer a tenant to alternative accommodation.
Although the Ombudsman cannot compel the landlord to move the resident to another property, no evidence has been provided to this investigation to demonstrate that the landlord gave adequate consideration to whether a move was appropriate in the circumstances. There is also no evidence that the resident was advised of her right to request a review of the decision that she was not eligible for a management transfer, provided she did so in writing within 10 working days.
There is no evidence of discussions with the resident about her housing need. The resident was focussed on a management transfer because her previous move had been through this route. However, it may also have been possible for the landlord to consider with the resident her priority for a housing transfer under the allocations policy and what, if any, prospects there might be for rehousing as a potentially high priority applicant. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused due to a rodent infestation.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord to pay the resident £200, in addition to the £350 already awarded, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
2. The landlord to pay the resident £100 in recognition of the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
3. The landlord identifies whether there are any outstanding works recommended by the pest control contractor, and if the landlord agrees that these are necessary, ensures that they are completed.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:
1. The landlord clarifies who owns and manages the open land adjacent to the resident’s property and, if owned by the landlord, that it arranges for appropriate, regular maintenance.
2. If it has not already done so, the landlord arranges for a housing options discussion with the resident and for the conclusions of this discussion to be communicated to the resident in writing.