Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202120682)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120682

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

3 July 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 the landlord’s handling of a bed bug infestation and disposal of the resident’s personal property.

Background

The resident experienced a bed bug infestation in his flat. He reported this to his landlord in 2019. He requires oxygen to manage a medical condition and receives care.
The landlord visited the resident between 2019 and 2021 to treat his property with insecticide but this was unsuccessful. The landlord decanted the resident to another property in August 2021 to deep clean his flat, this led to the landlord disposing of his belongings.
In October 2021, the resident complained that his landlord had not resolved the bed bug infestation and prevented him from taking his belongings with him when he moved. The resident alleged that his landlord failed to secure an oxygen supply following the move. He also claimed that the landlord had disposed of possessions without adequate compensation.
In its stage one response dated 16 November 2021 the landlord stated:
1. The bed bugs had been present in the resident’s flat for a while.
2. Pest control attended the resident’s flat in March 2019 and noted that the property already had a heavy infestation which required several follow-up treatments. It also advised the resident to bag up his bedding and clothing and wash them at a hot temperature to reduce the risk of further bed bug infestation.
3. Pest control attended twice in March 2019, and again in April 2019 and treated the resident’s flat for bed bugs. Pest control again needed to conduct further treatment of the resident’s home on four further occasions between January and February 2020 because of a heavy infestation.
4. Later in September 2020 pest control attended twice and once again in October 2020. Between 2019 and 2020, it attended and treated the resident’s property ten times due to a heavy infestation.
5. Pest control reported that it gave the resident advice on reducing the infestations and what he needed to do but the resident did not follow this advice. The resident refused to allow carers to clean his flat.
6. In 2021, on three occasions the resident refused pest control to treat his property, stating the treatment was not necessary. The resident would not allow the carers to clean and in July 2021 the infestation was so severe that it needed to deep clean his flat and decant him.
7. Social services supported the resident with the move, and he was not allowed to take anything with him to stop any contamination. It only disposed of the resident’s belongings after specialist cleaning contractors advised they were contaminated with bed bug eggs. The landlord provided replacements.
8. The landlord understood that the items that were disposed of were of value to the resident but, due to the level of infestation in the property and the risk of re-infestation in his new home, these items required disposal.
9. It provided the resident with a fridge freezer, bed, sofa, and microwave whilst social services arranged for his carers to provide the resident with new clothing. It accepted that the items provided were not the same value or quality to those destroyed but that it provided the resident with replacements at no cost to him.
10. Had the resident heeded the advice from pest control it would not have been necessary to move him or destroy items.
11. It would not agree to compensation but offered to provide the resident with replacement crockery, cutlery, and cooking utensils and a handheld vacuum cleaner and a large fridge freezer as a goodwill gesture.
On 17 November 2021, the resident requested an escalation to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process stating that he wanted compensation for a TV, two designer suits and bedroom furniture. He claimed that he would not have had an infestation had his landlord properly treated his flat in the first place.
On 7 December 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 and stated:
1. It was the resident’s responsibility to arrange contents insurance and although it was sorry that he had lost two designer suits it would be unable to compensate for this.
2. It had offered household items including a fridge freezer, a hand-held vacuum cleaner, crockery, cutlery, kitchen utensils, bed, sofa, and a microwave oven as a goodwill gesture. As the bed bug infestation was not down to a service failure this was a generous offer.
3. Pest control officers attended his previous property during 2019 and 2020, and on seven occasions during 2021 but could not gain access on three occasions.
4. The care agency commissioned to visit reported that some carers were resistant to entering the property due to the infestation. In response, a series of planning meetings happened to discuss how to meet the resident’s care needs.
5. The carers were not responsible for moving his oxygen, but his social worker could have assisted with moving his oxygen had he brought it to their attention.
The resident remained unhappy with the compensation offered claiming that the bed bugs were present in his flat before he moved in.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The complaint involves issues relating to the provision of care and the actions of the local authority in relation to its social care and services function. The Housing Ombudsman Service is only able to investigate complaints about councils in respect of their housing activities so far as it relates to the management of social housing. This Service has no power to investigate the local authority’s actions carrying out environmental or pest control functions or its social services functions. This is set out in paragraph 41(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
It falls within the responsibility of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to consider complaints about the delivery of adult social care or environmental protection services. Therefore, any aspect of the complaint that concerns the actions of the adult social care department or pest control and which does not relate to the provision or management of social housing is outside the scope of this investigation and has not been investigated.

The landlord’s response to the bed bug infestation

The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to say that there was a bed bug infestation at the resident’s property before the start of his tenancy or that the resident reported an infestation before 2019.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states he must take all reasonable steps to keep his home free from pests and report any infestation as soon as possible. The evidence shows that the resident reported the infestation in 2019 and that the landlord attended his property three times in 2019, seven times in 2020, and four times in 2021 to treat it for the infestation. The Ombudsman is of the opinion that the landlord acted reasonably in connection with the reports of the infestation. It attended the resident’s property many times to perform pest control treatments. There is no evidence that the landlord had failed to treat the resident’s flat for the infestation or that it had caused the infestation.
There are many reasons why pest control measures may prove ineffective or protracted. The evidence indicates that the resident was unable to follow advice about washing clothes and sheets due to his medical condition. This would have reduced the effectiveness of the treatments. The resident claims that his carers should have done the washing but failed to attend. The landlord accepted that there were issues with his carer’s attendance. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord, in its role as a landlord, was not responsible for organising carers or responsible for cleaning the resident’s property internally.
The resident asserts that he was unable to remove belongings from his flat before his decant. The evidence indicates that social services informed the resident in August 2021 that he would need to move. The resident was told that given the scale of the infestation the resident’s flat needed a deep clean. It was appropriate for the landlord to decant the resident because it could not deep clean until the resident’s flat was empty. The landlord’s explanation of why the resident could not take items with him was appropriate as it was working to contain and eradicate the infestation.
The landlord’s position is that it had to dispose of the resident’s belongings, on the advice of its cleaning contractors, to eradicate the bed bugs because of the scale of the infestation. The Ombudsman’s role is to decide whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable and whether it followed a proper process. It is appropriate for a landlord to act on the advice of specialists as they have expertise. The landlord explained that it had to dispose of the resident’s belongings, including TV and bedroom furniture, because there were eggs present and this would cause recontamination. The landlord’s actions, in disposing of belongings, were reasonable and based on the advice of its cleaning specialists.
However, this Service would expect landlords to itemise and photograph the items it intended to dispose of and inform the resident in advance, seeking his agreement, if possible, except in an emergency. There is no evidence the landlord did this. Its failure to do this would make it hard, if not impossible, for the resident to make a claim for insurance. This is because he would be unable to substantiate the value of any claim. It is therefore ordered that the landlord replace the resident’s television and bedroom furniture (or reimburse the resident the cost of any of these items he may have purchased). The landlord is also recommended to pay a contribution towards the cost of the resident’s suits upon receiving some proof of the designer items from the resident.
In mitigation this Service notes that the landlord acted swiftly to replace items it disposed of apart from a television, the two designer suits and bedroom furniture. The landlord replaced the resident’s fridge freezer, a hand-held vacuum cleaner, crockery, cutlery, kitchen utensils, bed, sofa, and provided a microwave oven. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it acted fairly in seeking to replace items of which it had disposed as the resident was vulnerable and had experienced loss. However, the landlord has accepted that the value and quality of the items replaced are less. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have made an inventory and agreed the value of the resident’s personal belongings.
The resident also claimed that he was unable to access any oxygen from his flat for two weeks after the move. The evidence shows that social services assumed responsibility for helping the resident move to the decant. Social services confirmed that the resident had not asked for help to move oxygen. If the resident is dissatisfied with the level of care provided to him by adult social care, it is open to him to refer his complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for consideration. The fact that social services assumed responsibility for the move does not mean that the landlord had no responsibility for this. It offered a decant and should have taken steps to satisfy themselves that the resident had access to oxygen. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it took any steps to enquire about the resident’s oxygen or chase social services about it.
It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the destruction of his items and its failure to consider the resident’s need for oxygen.
The landlord’s complaint policy requires it to respond to complaints at stage one and stage two of the landlord’s complaint policy within 15 working days and 20 working days respectively. If it cannot respond to the complaint within 15 working days, it will notify the resident of this and offer a revised timescale for responding. The landlord’s response to the resident’s stage one complaint was three working days outside the published timescale but this was a minor infringement and caused no detriment.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of an infestation of bed bugs and the loss of personal property at the resident’s former property.

Order

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. pay the resident £500 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the destruction of his personal belongings and lack of oxygen supply at his decant.
2. replace the resident’s television and bedroom furniture (or reimburse the resident the cost of any of these items he may have purchased provided on a like for like basis).

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its processes around how it communicates with residents about the destruction of resident’s personal belongings to see if any safeguards are needed.
The landlord is recommended to pay a contribution towards the cost of the resident’s suits upon receiving proof of purchase from the resident.