Home Group Limited (202104435)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104435

Home Group Limited

15 January 2022

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodents (rats) in her property and neighbouring properties.

Background and summary of events

Tenancy agreement, policies and procedures

  1. Section 4.15 of the tenancy agreement between the resident and the landlord confirms that it is the resident’s responsibility for keeping the property free from vermin, which includes rats.

Background

  1. The resident is a former tenant of the landlord. The property is a house.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s records confirm that the resident had first reported her concerns of a rodent infestation on 26 March 2021.
  2. On 23 April 2021, the landlord requested a CCTV drain survey for possible disturbance of rodents. This was completed on 29 April 2021.
  3. On 6 May 2021, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She reported that the estate was “overrun with rats”, and had been informed by the local authority that the rats were coming up through the sewer. She was unhappy that the landlord had informed her that it was her responsibility to arrange pest control which she could not afford, and she could not lay bait for safety reasons because there was a young child living in the property. She wanted to transfer to another property because of the rats.
  4. On 10 May 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it spoke with the resident, who had explained that she was staying with family due to her concerns about rats in her property.
  5. On 14 May 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that it was in the process of arranging a drain survey to be carried out at her property. Additionally, as a gesture of goodwill, it agreed to arrange for a pest control operative to visit her property. In respect to her request to move to another property on the estate, it did not consider this to be a “viable” solution as there was a possibility that the rat infestation may affect the new property as well. Also, all of the properties which were currently vacant on the estate had already been accepted by new tenants, who were waiting to move in. However, it would support her in her request to be rehoused, and it would also agree to waive the four-week notice period it usually required to terminate a tenancy.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint and requested compensation for the damages incurred as a result of the rodent infestation. She did not feel that the property was habitable for her family due to the infestation. It is not clear from the information provided exactly when the resident escalated the complaint.
  7. On 24 May 2021, the landlord requested both the resident and the neighbour’s garden to be baited for rats, with three visits needed to complete this work.
  8. On 28 May 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it had spoken with the resident, and it explained that it would be unable to decant (temporarily move) her as it had not been determined that her property was uninhabitable. Following this call, it also emailed her to explain that it needed further information in order to consider a claim through its liability insurance for her damaged belongings.
  9. On 4 June 2021, the contractor provided its recommendations for repairs, following its drain inspection on 28 April 2021.
  10. On 10 June 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it had spoken with the resident, and confirmed that it had authorised the removal of the kitchen, the filling of any holes in both the resident’s and the neighbour’s property, and to remove and re-lay the top layer of loft insulation. This work would be completed once it had received confirmation that pest control had removed all bait from the property.
  11. On 10 June 2021, the landlord received an update on the pest control visits. It confirmed that the resident had not been present during its visits, during which it had baited her property, and the neighbouring properties. It further confirmed that it had completed the second visit earlier that day, and had seen “very little, if any rat activity”.
  12. On 10 June 2021, the water supplier informed the landlord that there had been no evidence of rodents in its system, despite it having visited on two occasions.
  13. On 11 June 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that the contractor had carried out the repairs to address minor displacements, linear cracks and a small hole, as well as replacing the kitchen waste gulley which had slightly separated from the drain. It had checked this work with a post-work CCTV survey, and it agreed to clear, rake and weed the resident’s garden. This work was completed on 11 July 2021 and 20 July 2021.
  14. On 25 June 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows: It recognised that there were some repairs outstanding an set out the timescales when it was expected that the remaining repairs would be completed; however, it had made progress. Although this was its final complaint response, it would continue to offer her a single point of contact until it had concluded all actions to resolve the complaint.
  15. On 1 July 2021, the landlord’s records say that it had spoken with the resident, and it confirmed to her that there had been no evidence of rodents during any of the three pest control visits; therefore, it recommended no further pest control visits or baiting.
  16. On 8 July 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would be clearing her garden on 12 July 2021, as a gesture of goodwill.
  17. The landlord agreed with the resident to visit the property, on 16 and 22 July 2021, to clear and deep clean the loft, and apply a flea treatment. It’s records say it was unable to gain access to the property on both occasions to carry out this work. This work was subsequently carried out on 4 August 2021.
  18. Works to remove the damaged areas in the kitchen, fill any holes in both the resident’s and the neighbour’s property, and to remove and re-lay the top layer of loft insulation were completed on 6 August 2021.
  19. On 6 August 2021, the landlord issued a further complaint response to the resident. It explained that it was satisfied that it had taken all necessary steps to resolve her complaint and had found “very little to no evidence” of rat activity.
  20. Following the landlord’s final complaint response, the resident ended her tenancy as she felt unable to continue living in the property due to the rat infestation.
  21. The resident subsequently referred her complaint to this Service. She was dissatisfied as she did not feel that the landlord had carried out the work it had committed to doing in its final stage complaint response, including the holes not having been filled “properly” and her “gnawed” kitchen units had not been replaced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has requested that the landlord compensate her for her damaged personal belongings following her complaint of a rodent infestation. It is not within the scope of this investigation to determine the landlord’s liability for the resident’s damages from the complaint, in the way that a court or insurer might, because we do not have the authority to do so. However, we have considered whether the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports over rodents in her property and neighbouring properties was appropriate, and whether it acted in accordance with its legal obligation, policies, procedures and industry best practice.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has advised the resident that she can make a claim to its liability insurer for damage to her personal possessions. Landlords are entitled to use insurance policies to cover negligence claims and the landlord would not be obliged to consider a claim for damages outside the insurance process.  It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to suggest that the resident contact its insurer and it was not required to do anything further regarding her liability claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodents (rats) in her property and neighbouring properties

  1. The resident initially raised concerns over rodents in her property on 26 March 2021. It is recognised that, under the tenancy agreement, residents were responsible for such issues. It was therefore not obliged to take action for this.
  2. The landlord nevertheless arranged and paid for pest control visits to support the resolution of the resident’s complaint about the rodent infestation at her property. This included visiting the neighbouring properties, to understand the full extent of the issues on the estate.
  3. Following its third visit on 1 July 2021, it had found no activity on the bait that it had laid, and it had also received confirmation that the water supplier had also found no evidence of rodents; therefore, it closed the case. This was a reasonable action to take by it in view of the lack of activity following its pest control visits, as there had been no evidence to support the reported concerns over an infestation. Furthermore, it agreed to clear her garden as a gesture of goodwill, which evidences the landlord’s desire to resolve her complaint.
  4. The resident had requested she be moved property as a result of the reported infestation, in her stage one complaint on 6 May 2021. The landlord explained in its stage one complaint response on 14 May 2021, that it would support her in being rehoused to another estate, and it would waive its usual notice period. This was fair of the landlord, as it has evidenced its willingness to support the resident in achieving her desired outcome following her complaint.
  5. The resident subsequently raised concerns over the habitability of the property for her and her family in her final stage complaint. The landlord responded to this aspect of her complaint by informing the resident that it did not have the evidence to support a property transfer and was further addressed in its final stage complaint response on 25 June 2021. It was reasonable for the landlord to need evidence to support a property transfer, which in this case was not forthcoming, as the pest control operative had failed to find evidence of an infestation. The presence of an infestation in itself would not automatically mean that a property would be considered to be uninhabitable. It would only be seen as uninhabitable if the infestation was very severe and could not be resolved through pest control visits. The landlord suggested that it would reconsider its position regarding the transfer request if the resident provided evidence from the local authority’s Environmental Health department to show that the property was uninhabitable.
  6. It is understood that the resident wanted to move to another property on the estate, However, the landlord has explained that at the time when the resident requested a transfer, all the available properties on the estate had already been assigned to new tenants. The landlord would not be able to offer the resident a property on the estate which had already been offered to other tenants.
  7. The landlord acted appropriately in arranging for pest control at the property and carrying out the required repair works there. Its pest control contractor closed the case due to a lack of evidence of rodent activity, and the resident failed to provide evidence when she disputed this. The actions taken by the landlord were generally reasonable and appropriate. It is of concern that the resident has reported concerns over the quality of the work it had carried out following her complaint, and it is therefore recommended below that the landlord carry out an inspection of her property, to understand if any follow-up work is required.

Determination (decision)

  1. 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 rodents in her property and neighbouring properties.

Reasons

  1. The landlord agreed to arrange repairs and pest control to address the resident’s concerns. Following the repairs, the landlord confirmed that there was no evidence that the infestation was continuing and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to carry out any further action in respect of this issue.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident to explain how she can make an insurance claim for her damaged belongings.