Guinness Housing Association Limited (202003807)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003807

Guinness Housing Association Limited

12 January 2021

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 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 refers to:

The Landlord’s response to the Resident’s report of a pest infestation at her property.
The Landlord’s complaint handling of this matter.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Outstanding issues

Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme states:

“the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.

The Resident has expressed dissatisfaction about the Landlord’s handling of her request for a plan of the drains in the area surrounding her property and has raised concerns about scaffolding placed near her property. The Ombudsman can only consider matters which have been raised with the Landlord as a formal complaint and which the Landlord has issued a final response to, under its complaints procedure. This is so the Landlord has the opportunity to address the complaint itself, before the Ombudsman becomes involved. Therefore, I am unable to consider these matters as part of this investigation. If the Resident completes the Landlord’s complaint process on these matters and remains dissatisfied once she has received its final response, she could refer the matters as a new complaint to the Ombudsman. In view of this, the current investigation focuses on the period up until the Landlord’s final response to the Resident’s complaint regarding pests in her property and its complaint handling of this matter on 11 August 2020.

Concerns about the actions of Environmental Health

Under Paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body”.

The Resident has expressed concern in relation to how both the Landlord and the local authority’s Environmental Health department (Environmental Health) have handled her reports of pests. Whilst this Service can address how the Landlord has managed her concerns, we cannot address any actions taken by Environmental Health. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to the local authority’s actions unless they refer to the local authority’s role as a social landlord, which in this case they do not.

Complaints about the actions taken by Environmental Health may be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Please note, before bringing a complaint to the LGSCO, if the Resident has concerns about the actions or findings of Environmental Health, she could take this up with the local authority through its internal complaints process.

Background

The Resident is a shared owner of the property; the Landlord is the freeholder.

Summary of events

The Resident initially reported pests in the communal areas serving her property on 21 November 2019 and advised that the pests were entering the loft in her property.
On 5 December 2019 the Landlord confirmed that it had contacted Environmental Health in relation to the pest issues.
The Resident called the Landlord on 5 June 2020 and advised that she still had an issue with rats. She had spoken to her neighbours who were having similar issues. She confirmed that a member of staff from the local authority had visited her property the previous year, although she felt she was the only resident attempting to resolve the issue.
On 8 June 2020 the Landlord emailed the Resident and apologised that she was still having issues with pests within her home. It stated that it had previously contacted the school nearby which led to the school attending to the shrubs and trees within their boundary. It said it had also made contact with Environmental Health, who had not advised of any follow-on action to take or served any notice of works to undertake. It explained that as a leaseholder, it would be the Resident’s responsibility to arrange for pest control as outlined in her Lease. It advised the Resident that Environmental Health would be the appropriate agency to initially report her ongoing concerns to; Environmental Health would then investigate, and the Landlord would work alongside Environmental Health where necessary.
The Resident responded the same day and stated that the problem was ongoing, and she could not force other residents to hire pest control companies. She stated that Environmental Health do not check the houses, which she noted were owned by the Landlord. She stated that she had arranged pest control for six months and that her complaint was not solely about the pest issue. She stated that she had not received any help from the Landlord and none of her complaints had been addressed.
On 21 Jun 2020 the Resident emailed the Landlord and stated the pest issue was still ongoing in all properties in the scheme. She stated that the electric cupboard in her property had now been foamed and meshed which had not stopped the issue. She confirmed that the poison in her loft was still being eaten by rats. She advised that Environmental Health did not seem to know how the issue was occurring. She requested that the Landlord provide her with details for its legal department the following day.
A complaint was raised on 23 June 2020 by the Landlord in acknowledgement of the Resident’s continued dissatisfaction.
On 24 June 2020 a telephone conversation took place between the Landlord and the Resident and the following points were discussed:
1. The Landlord and Resident both agreed that they had been told that the rats were coming from the nearby school. The Resident had contacted Environmental Health, who had visited the school, although no further action had been taken. Another visit to the school had taken place and she believed that the school had been ordered to manage the overflowing bins in its grounds
2. The Resident advised that the rat issue had been ongoing for eight months, she had paid for pest control to visit her property, and she had had any access holes blocked but the rats still returned. She believed that the issue was due to neighbouring properties owned and managed by the Landlord and felt the Landlord should do more to resolve the issue.
3. The Resident also stated that she had been told that the storm drains in the street were cracked and that her foul water drain connected to these. She suspected that this was a point of access for the rats. She had arranged for the water supplier to check her below ground drains and they were found to be intact.
4. The Resident stated that she had been told it was her responsibility to manage any pests; the Landlord confirmed that this was correct, although it identified that the issue may been more widespread. It advised that it would respond to the Resident once it had gained more information on the matter.
The Resident sent an email to both the Landlord and Environmental Health on 1 July 2020 and requested an update in relation to the school, other roads on the scheme and the drains.
Environmental Health sent an email to both the Resident and the Landlord on 1 July 2020 and advised that the school had completed a full inspection but had not found any burrows or rat runs around the area that joined onto the Resident’s property. The school had advised that they had laid traps and bait, cut back all the bushes and cleaned the bin store area. Environmental Health also confirmed that the drains had been inspected to ensure they were in working order and clear.
The Landlord responded to the Resident on 1 July 2020 and confirmed that it had visited its residents and had reinforced what actions households could do to minimise vermin in the area. It had requested that residents tidy their gardens and for any bulky rubbish to be removed which it would monitor. It had cut back an area of land in the scheme, but no evidence of rat activity was found. It stated that it was working with its residents to ensure pest control was in place. It said it would monitor the actions it had requested from its residents over the coming weeks, to ensure they were completed in a timely manner.
The Resident emailed the Landlord the same day and stated that the other gardens in the scheme were still untidy with rubbish and requested this to be followed up. She advised that there was still a problem somewhere as the issue was ongoing.
On 6 July 2020 the Resident emailed the Landlord in relation to her complaint and requested that the Landlord provide a response.
The Landlord delivered its stage one complaint response to the Resident on 7 July 2020 over the phone. Its records state that the complaint was not upheld for the following reasons:
1. The Landlord had given consistent information to all residents within the scheme that pest control would be their responsibility. It stated that this was confirmed in all occupation agreements. It had sent letters out to each property reminding its residents of their obligations and had provided guidance on keeping their garden and home rat-free by removing possible sources of food or shelter.
2. It had voluntarily contacted Environmental Health requesting that it identified anything further that the Landlord could do to resolve the issue. Environmental Health had advised that the Landlord was meeting its requirements and it had not identified any areas of concern.
3. Environmental Health had identified a possible source where the rats may have been coming from and this was being addressed. The source was not on land owned by the Landlord.
4. The Landlord had contacted the school near to the Resident’s property and requested that any shrubs or trees which could be used as a shelter for the rats were removed. The school had complied with this request and removed the shrubs and trees.
5. The Landlord stated that it had complied with its obligations as a Landlord and gone above what was expected in order to try and resolve the issue. It stated it would continue to work with Environmental Health and its residents.
On receipt of this response, the Landlord’s notes state that the Resident accepted the outcome, although felt the Landlord could do more to address the issue with rats. She stated that she had contacted other neighbours, one of which stated that they had rats inside of their property. She also advised that she had spoken to a roofer working on her property who advised that the back gardens of the neighbouring properties were very untidy. The Landlord explained that it had not been told about any rat issues in the neighbouring properties but would contact the neighbours to see if anything had changed. It also stated that it may be able to organise an inspection of the other properties, but this would be above its obligations.
On 16 July 2020, the Resident emailed both the Landlord and Environmental Health. She provided photos of where the rats had buried under her grass in the garden of her property. She expressed concern that the rats were now invading her garden. She stated that she had cemented her kitchen floor to fill in any holes. She requested an update in relation to the rented properties in the scheme because, although the tenants of these properties had said they did not have any pest issues, she believed that the rats were coming from those properties into her garden. She stated that she had organised for pest control to visit other properties on her road and there had been findings of pests in two of the properties, but she did not feel she should be the person to organise and resolve this matter.
Environmental Health responded the same day and stated that it would contact the school again and would update the Resident when it had more information. It had not received reports of pests at any of the other properties nearby but if other tenants were having issues, they should contact Environmental Health directly. The tenants should also be paying for pest control on their own properties and the Resident should not be doing this.
The Resident responded the same day and stated that she could not force others to resolve the matter. She wanted an explanation as to why the Landlord had stated that Environmental Health had resolved the issue when it was still ongoing.
The Resident emailed the Landlord on 28 July 2020 and stated that following several emails, she had not received any further updates in relation to her complaint which was unacceptable. She requested that the Landlord contact her so that she could finalise her complaint and proceed to the Ombudsman.
The Landlord called the Resident on 28 July 2020 to provide an update in relation to the inspection which had taken place and its further stage one response. It explained that the inspection had taken place, although it could not provide the findings as this would be a breach of GDPR (Data Protection) regulations. It advised that another member of staff had been in touch and the Resident stated that this was not the case and that she had been waiting for four weeks to receive an update. The Resident requested for her complaint to be escalated; she confirmed that her complaint was not about the rats, but the level of service she had received from the Landlord. The Landlord reiterated its previous position that it was not responsible for pest control in its residents’ homes and that Environmental Health had not raised any further concerns. The Resident explained that she had seen an email sent from the Landlord to her neighbour which stated that Environmental Health had confirmed the source of the rat problem. The Landlord stated that it had not made this claim. The complaint was then escalated to stage two of the Landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
The Landlord wrote to the Resident and provided its stage two complaint response on 11 August 2020. It stated that the complaint would not be upheld because it was the Resident’s responsibility to deal with pest control. It had sent letters to all of its residents reminding them of their obligations and had provided guidance on keeping their properties pest-free. It had also asked its residents to contact Environmental Health should they have a pest problem. It stated that it had taken steps to identify how widespread the pest problem was within the scheme and had been consistent with the information it had provided. It stated that it had worked alongside Environmental Health who had not made any suggestions on any actions that it could take. Environmental Health would be inspecting the school to see if there was anything else to be done on the school grounds. It had inspected all of its properties to identify any behaviour which may have been contributing to the issue and would continue to do so. It would continue to work alongside Environmental Health and would be arranging for the drains to be inspected; it stated it would keep the Resident informed of the findings.

Assessment and findings

The Landlord’s response to the Resident’s report of a pest infestation.

The Landlord’s Estate Management Policy states that the Landlord would be responsible for pest infestations in communal areas. The Landlord’s website confirms that homeowners would be responsible for managing pests within their own home or private garden and directs residents to Environmental Health run by the local authority for assistance on these matters. It would be appropriate for the Landlord to communicate with Environmental Health in relation to any concerns regarding pests in its communal areas.
The Resident initially reported pests in her property, which the Landlord advised would be the Resident’s responsibility to manage. The Resident then stated that other tenants of the Landlord were also experiencing issues with pests. The Landlord took steps to involve the local authority’s Environmental Health team and sent letters to its tenants advising them of their obligations and responsibilities when it came to pest control. It carried out inspections of the common areas and other tenants’ gardens in order to gain evidence of pests and liaised with the nearby school in order to prevent the pests.
The Resident expressed dissatisfaction as she believed the Landlord could have done more to support her with pest control. The Landlord acted appropriately by involving the services of the local Environmental Health team following the initial report of pests in November 2019 and reiterated that pests within an individual property would be its residents’ responsibility. This is in line with the information provided on its website and in the Resident’s Lease. Evidence shows that the Landlord continued to communicate with Environmental Health on the matter. It was reasonable for the Landlord to rely on Environmental Health’s direction in its decision to take action as Environmental health would provide specialised understanding and information regarding pests and pest control. The Landlord has confirmed that Environmental Health had been involved in the case in 2019 and 2020 and had not ordered the Landlord to carry out any action during this time. Ultimately, as pest control within the Resident’s property was the Resident’s responsibility, and Environmental Health had not ordered the Landlord to take any action with regard to the common areas of the scheme, the Landlord has acted reasonably in its handling of the Resident’s reports of pests.
Despite not being obliged to do so, the Landlord has taken steps to contact other residents on the scheme who had stated that they did not have any issues with rats. It was reasonable that the Landlord or Environmental Health would not take action at this point because, if no other residents came forward about issues regarding pests, they could conclude that the issue was not widespread. Furthermore, despite there being no widespread evidence of pests, the Landlord took further action to inspect the local area and its tenants’ properties for pests. It was reasonable that the Landlord could not share information in relation to other residents and whether pests were apparent in their properties as this would be a breach of GDPR regulations which state that residents’ personal information should not be shared without their consent.
The Landlord had acknowledged that the local school may have been the cause of the pests. The Landlord would have no control over the action taken on school grounds, although it was reasonable for the Landlord to ask the school to remove any shrubs and trees which may provide shelter for any pests. It is noted that the Landlord was not obliged to do this. The responsibility for pest control would fall to the school and ultimately Environmental Health.
In short, there has been no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its handling of the Resident’s reports of pests as the Landlord has taken reasonable steps to involve the services of its local Environmental Health team, it has contacted multiple residents to discuss their responsibilities and asked if they were experiencing pest issues, and it has taken steps to find the source of the pest infestation. It is recommended that the Landlord continues to carry out regular inspections of its properties in this scheme to determine if any behaviours may be contributing to the pest issue. It is recommended that the Landlord continues to maintain contact with Environmental Health about the pest issues in any common areas of the scheme and takes any action which is recommended by Environmental Health and support the Resident as far as its obligations allow.

The Landlord’s complaint handling of this matter.

The Landlord’s Complaints Policy states that it would aim to resolve all complaints within ten working days of receiving them. It would discuss the complaint with the resident and keep them informed at regular intervals about what actions it was taking to resolve the issue. If the resident remained dissatisfied with the stage one complaint response, they could escalate their complaint to stage two, where the complaint would be reviewed within a further ten working days.
The Resident had been in communication with the Landlord prior to a complaint being raised; she expressed concern on 8 June 2020 that her complaints had not been addressed. Following further communication, a complaint was raised on 23 June 2020. The Landlord continued to communicate with the Resident and provided a stage one complaint response on 7 July 2020 via phone. The Landlord continued to communicate with the Resident and arranged inspections to other properties. Following the inspection, the Landlord provided an additional stage one complaint response on 28 July 2020 and confirmed the complaint would not be upheld.
It is noted that the Resident had expressed dissatisfaction in relation to the Landlord’s responses on 8 June 2020; however, the Landlord did not consider this to be a complaint until 23 June 2020. It would have been appropriate for the Landlord to address the Resident’s concerns as a complaint at an earlier stage, although the Resident was not significantly disadvantaged by this as the Landlord continued to communicate with the Resident via phone and email in relation to her concerns during this time and was taking steps to address the pest issue.
The Resident sent emails chasing the stage one complaint response which suggests that she was unsure as to whether the response given by telephone on 7 July 2020 was the Landlord’s stage one response to her complaint. Furthermore, the Landlord continued to engage with the Resident under stage one of its investigation following this response and has stated to this Service that its stage one complaint response was provided on 28 July 2020. It is noted that the stage one complaint response issued on 28 July 2020 would be 15 days outside of its ten-working day timeframe as set out in its Complaints Policy. When the Resident expressed dissatisfaction in relation to its response on 7 July 2020, it would have then been appropriate for the Landlord to address her further concerns at stage two of its complaints procedure.
The Landlord has not satisfactorily managed the Resident’s expectations of how the complaint would be handled and the Resident has been inconvenienced due to this lack of clarity as it had provided more than one stage one complaint response as to why the complaint would not be upheld. It would have also been appropriate for the Landlord to provide a formal written stage one complaint response to ensure the Resident understood that this had been addressed and to provide a written record of its position for audit purposes.
The Resident had stated that none of her previous complaints had been addressed and that her complaint was in relation to the way she had been treated by the Landlord in respect to her report of pests which had not been acknowledged. This Service cannot make a determination based on the Landlord’s previous actions, although it is noted that whilst the Landlord has not explicitly mentioned its customer service in its final response, it has explained the actions it had taken to support the Resident. It has maintained its position that it had acted beyond its obligations to assist her in relation to her concerns about pests which reasonably addresses the Resident’s concerns in relation to its customer service.
In summary, there has been service failure in respect of the Landlord’s handling of the Resident’s complaint. The Landlord should have provided its stage one complaint response in a clear way to ensure the Resident understood and did not need to chase for further updates. In recognition of the inconvenience caused to the Resident as a result of having to chase a clear response, the Landlord should offer an award of compensation. It is also recommended that the Landlord reviews its complaints processes to ensure it provides written responses to its residents at stage one of its complaints process, to prevent the stage one investigation being extended past its timescales set out in its Complaints Policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its handling of the Resident’s reports of pests.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the Landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The Landlord has acted in line with its obligations and addressed concerns related to pests in common areas of the scheme. It has reiterated that pests within the Resident’s property would be her responsibility to manage. It has maintained contact with Environmental Health which has not ordered the Landlord to take further action. The Landlord has also acted reasonably by contacting other residents in relation to pest concerns, inspected the gardens of other properties, and contacted a nearby school in order to identify any potential source for the pests. The Landlord was not strictly obliged to take such action but has acted reasonably in doing so in this case.
The Landlord’s stage one complaint response to the Resident was unclear as it stated it had provided two stage one responses. The Resident had chased the Landlord for a complaint response, suggesting this was not supplied in a clear way. This has inconvenienced the Resident as she has needed to contact the Landlord for further clarity and assurance that her complaint had been responded to.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:
1. The Landlord is to pay the Resident £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused as a result of its unclear communication in relation to its stage one complaint response.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Landlord continues to carry out regular inspections of its properties in this scheme to determine if any behaviours may be contributing to the pest issue.
It is recommended that the Landlord continues to maintain contact with Environmental Health about the pest issues and takes any action which is recommended.
It is recommended that the Landlord reviews its complaints procedure to ensure it provides all complaint responses in writing to give additional clarity to its residents. Once it has provided a complaint response it should consider any further concerns at stage two of its process rather than extending its stage one investigation.