Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Cornwall Housing Limited (202407068)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407068

Cornwall Housing Limited

9 January 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rat infestation at her property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She had resided at the property, described as a 2 bedroom, semi-detached bungalow, since 2017.
  2. The landlord has advised it has not recorded the resident as experiencing any vulnerabilities. However, the Ombudsman has noted the resident raised concerns regarding her mental health and suicidal ideation within her correspondence with the landlord.

Scope of investigation

  1. Although the resident has advised this Service that there have been ongoing issues regarding rats and pest infestations since 2016, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence (from either party) that shows the landlord received any reports related to rats prior to her contact in March 2024. The landlord also looked at the same period within its complaint investigation. For these reasons, the Ombudsman’s investigation will focus on how the landlord handled these reports and responded to the issue from March 2024 onwards.

Summary of events

  1. Records show the resident contacted the landlord on 19 March 2024. In a phone call, she said she had been “ignored for 3 weeks” and was feeling suicidal. She raised several concerns other than those under consideration in this complaint but also stated that, if she did not receive a response by the following day, she would attend the landlord’s office “with her dogs and the rats that are eating everything”. Diary notes of the conversation state that the resident declined to identify herself during the call but, based on the issues discussed, the landlord worked out who was calling.
  2. The resident also sent an email to the landlord the same day, saying it “can have (its) manky rats” as it would not do its job. In correspondence that went into the following day, the landlord said it was happy to attend her property to “inspect” it but mainly appeared to be responding to concerns about anti-social behaviour as it discussed completing a risk assessment and suggested mediation. It said it was limited in the support it could offer if the resident “continue(d) not to engage” and restricted access to her property. The resident replied to advise that the property was “accessible to view the rats”.
  3. The resident sent further emails on 21 and 22 March 2024 which contained pictures of rats she claimed to have caught at her property, some of which she stated were 17.5 inches long and “bigger than (her) cat”. She stated they had only grown so much because there had been no effective pest control in place and that, as she was now taking charge of pest control, she intended to charge the landlord £50 for each rat she had caught so far (3). She raised concerns about the impact of the situation on her mental health, said the landlord would be liable for any veterinary costs incurred and that a pet rabbit and her babies had died as a result of the rat infestation. She also claimed that the situation was being worsened by food waste recycling and neighbours feeding the birds and that the landlord had ignored the situation so far.
  4. On 29 May 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It set out its understanding of the complaint (“there has been a lack of action…regarding an alleged rat infestation at your home”) and went on to make the following comments and findings:
    1. To investigate the complaint, it had spoken to relevant staff, reviewed its records and spoken to the resident on 26 March 2024.
    2. The first record it had of the resident reporting issues regarding rats “in/around (her) home” was an email received on 20 March 2024. It noted the resident had also sent “a number of subsequent emails”.
    3. The resident had called the landlord on 26 March 2024 and stated she wanted to deliver a rat, which she had caught, to its offices.
    4. It had notified her during later conversations that it “did not have provision to remove rats from the outside of our properties” and that this was up to tenants to arrange. It advised it had offered to attend the resident’s property with a surveyor to “look at any issues” that she had. However, it stated the resident had declined this offer and stated the landlord could not attend until it had provided answers to questions she had emailed separately. It agreed to do so, but stated its response would not refer to “historical cases or issues that relate to staff that no longer for (the landlord)”.
    5. It quoted an abusive voicemail the resident had left on or around 3 April 2024 and advised that, due to the nature of her comments, it was then unable to attend her property.
    6. However, it acknowledged that it “could have responded…in writing” to advise the resident it considered that “pest control in/around (her) home” was her responsibility, and it could have provided her with links to, or details of, its relevant policies. It apologised that this did not happen and restated the section of its Repairs Policy which related to pests.
    7. It partially upheld the complaint because it did not provide the resident with written confirmation of its position regarding the rats at her property at an earlier stage. It offered a further apology and £100 compensation.
    8. It stated it understood how the issue had made the resident feel and encouraged her to make contact “in order to book a visit” to her property.
  5. On 11 June 2024, the resident sent the landlord a lengthy email in reply to its stage 1 response, much of which concerned matters not included within this complaint. However, issues she did raise included:
    1. She had made the landlord aware that the rats were “extremely big and (a) well established family” and were also “destroying” her property but she had been ignored. She had never been given the option of the landlord arranging a pest control visit who would “take control of the situation”, only being offered a visit by her Housing Officer and a surveyor.
    2. She had paid for a pest controller to attend and “sort the rats out” and had not been told that this was her responsibility under the terms of her tenancy.
    3. The landlord had not clarified what a visiting surveyor would actually do about the rats and had instead only confirmed it would not pay the invoice she received from the pest controller.
    4. The rats had killed 4 of her pet rabbits and, so far, she had destroyed 11 large rats and was still baiting the area at her own expense.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 12 July 2024. It repeated its understanding of the complaint, and noted the resident had advised she remained unhappy with its response. It noted the resident wanted its stage 1 response to be reviewed and considered that her “actions” and what she had said previously were not an excuse for the landlord’s failure to act regarding the reported pest issue. In its review of the complaint, it stated it had reviewed its correspondence with her and spoken to her on 11 July 2024. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
    1. It agreed with the findings it had made at Stage 1 and agreed that it “could and certainly should have responded…in writing much earlier” to advise the resident that dealing with pests within her home was her responsibility.
    2. Its position on pest control, outlined within its Repairs Policy, should have been made clear to her the first time she reported the issue of “rats in/around (her) home”.
    3. It again quoted the relevant section of its Repairs Policy and advised it was partially upholding the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that its failure to confirm its position at an earlier stage may have meant the resident did not feel the need to “continue to contact (it) about this issue” and the stress she had experienced may have been reduced.
    4. It offered a further apology and reiterated the £100 compensation offer it had made in its Stage 1 response. It also stated that “once the…rat infestation…has been taken care of” by pest control (to be arranged by the resident), it would be “happy to attend and ensure…any potential access points for the rats are sealed to prevent access” to her home. It also stated its lack of communication had been “addressed internally with those involved” and it would review the information available for tenants regarding pest control issues.
  7. In correspondence with this Service on 5 November 2024, the resident advised she had taken her own action regarding pest control and there was “no presence” of rats at that time. However, she said continuing to deal with the issues herself was not “sustainable or permanent” and complained she had had to buy pest control products at her own expense. She said the situation impacted on her mental health and also caused her to communicate with the landlord in a frustrated manner “which may be considered aggressive”. As an outcome to the complaint, she wanted the landlord to take responsibility for the pest control and to pay an increased amount of compensation which reflected the time she had spent dealing with the issues herself.

Assessment and findings

  1. From the information available, the landlord appears to have responded promptly once the resident raised concerns about rats in or around her property. While the Ombudsman acknowledges and understands that the resident states the issue had been going on for some time – and that the landlord had “ignored” her reports – this investigation has not seen evidence of any previous reports that had not been responded to. Following receipt of her emails in March 2024, the landlord replied within a day and offered to attend her property and carry out an inspection.
  2. While it would have been helpful if the landlord had specified what the inspection would look to assess – particularly given the resident had raised several other issues via her correspondence with the landlord – its offer to attend the property was reasonable, as visiting would have been an appropriate step towards assessing the situation. It should also have responded when the resident advised the rat infestation would be visible at her property without the landlord needing access at any appointed time. While the landlord has advised the Ombudsman it subsequently did attend the property a month later, it acknowledged this was without the resident being aware it had done so. This was indicative of poor communication by the landlord and the resident was therefore unaware of the action it had taken. This led to a further sense that she was being ignored.
  3. The Ombudsman also notes that, aside from advising that it had carried out an unannounced visit to the resident’s property when it provided its evidence submission for this investigation, there is no other reference to this visit within the landlord’s records. This is not appropriate and indicates poor record keeping by the landlord. It advised the Ombudsman that, during its attendance in April 2024, it did not identify any current rat activity. While this Service acknowledges the photographic evidence of captured rats that the resident sent the landlord in March 2024, the landlord’s assessment in April 2024 that there were no current issues therefore appears reasonable given the resident stated she was undertaking pest control measures herself at that time. However, it still should have had contemporaneous notes regarding its attendance and assessment, and it is a concern that it did not.
  4. Regarding the landlord’s position that it was not responsible for pest control in and around the resident’s property, while the resident’s tenancy agreement does not make any reference to pest control, its Repairs Policy contains a list of repairs and maintenance issues that it considers to be a resident’s responsibility. The list includes “pest control”. The policy goes on to state that residents are responsible for “pest control within (their) home” and outlines that they need to “contact (the local authority’s) environmental health (team) for advice, support and help in the first instance”. It also says they can contact the landlord if problems persist after any initial treatment. The landlord’s policy clarified it would be responsible for addressing pest control issues where they are present “in a communal building or are present in more than one home”.
  5. From the information seen by this Service, there is no evidence that the landlord received other reports which suggested any infestation was affecting communal areas or any properties other than the resident’s. The information available also suggests the resident’s attempts at carrying out pest control proved successful, as the landlord did not see any rat activity when it attended in April 2024 and in her complaint correspondence in June/July 2024 the resident also said there was no presence at that time.
  6. While the resident’s strength of feeling is noted and the distress an infestation can cause is acknowledged, the landlord acted in line with its policy. The landlord’s communication over the issue should have been better, about the purpose of its proposed inspection and when this was carried out, and that pest control remained the resident’s responsibility. Given that residents may not have ready access to the landlord’s specific repairs policy, the Ombudsman suggests the landlord could consider providing additional information regarding a resident’s responsibilities within their tenancy agreements, which are presently silent on the issue of pest control. This would ensure greater clarity and transparency and may help prevent some of the confusion seen within this case. A recommendation regarding this has been made at the end of the report.
  7. The landlord could also have considered exercising its discretion to take further steps itself in the circumstances – such as arranging an assessment by a pest controller – given the sense of distress the resident reported. However, the Ombudsman considers it was entitled to rely on its policy, which clearly states pest control is a resident’s responsibility.
  8. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord also stated it was happy to attend the property once the infestation had been dealt with, to seal any potential access points into the resident’s home. This was an appropriate step for it to take and indicated a willingness to help ensure the problem did not reoccur. However, it would have been more helpful had the landlord either offered to attend at an earlier stage to identify any proofing repairs which may have prevented rats from accessing the resident’s property, or otherwise explained why it would only offer to attend once the issue was resolved, rather than when the resident reported the rats were still entering her property.
  9. Also, within its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that it should have been clearer regarding its position about who was responsible for pest control in the first instance – and the terms of its policy – at an earlier stage and that its failure to do so caused confusion and frustration for the resident. It was appropriate that it recognised this failing and the impact it had on the resident and its relationship with her. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, its offer of an apology and £100 compensation was proportionate in the circumstances.
  10. While the resident advised this Service she believed the landlord should have paid an increased amount of compensation to reflect the time and effort she took in dealing with the rat infestation herself, its offer of compensation related to its poor communication, rather than any failure to organise or carry out pest control. As the Ombudsman considers the landlord was entitled to act in line with its stated policy and decide not to accept responsibility for any initial pest control treatment, its offer of compensation (which, as above, related to its communication over the issue) was appropriate and amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.
  11. However, the Ombudsman notes there is a lack of evidence that the landlord appropriately acknowledged or responded to the resident’s reports of the impact the situation was having on her mental health, and her reference to suicidal ideation within some of her correspondence. The Ombudsman is aware the resident also submitted other complaints and had correspondence with the landlord regarding other matters over a longer period, and it may therefore have addressed these issues elsewhere. It is of concern, however, that when providing evidence to this investigation, the landlord advised it was not aware of the resident experiencing any vulnerabilities. The landlord is therefore reminded of the importance of having up to date and accurate records which reflect a resident’s circumstances, and which will enable it to provide relevant support where necessary, as well as to consider whether any reasonable adjustments or safeguarding actions are required.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable redress made by the landlord which resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord was entitled to act in accordance with its repairs policy, which states that pest control is, in the first instance, a resident’s responsibility. It acted reasonably in identifying that its communication over this position should have been better and it offered appropriate redress for this failing.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Review this case to identify whether it followed its safeguarding policies and procedures following the resident’s disclosures about her mental health and establish whether any further staff training or policy reviews are required.
    2. Review the resident’s records to ensure any mental or physical health issues she may have reported are recorded properly and it should contact her – if appropriate – to obtain further relevant information if required.
    3. Consider reviewing the wording of its tenancy agreements and include more detail around a resident’s responsibilities regarding repairs and pest control.