Leicester City Council (202016164)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016164

Leicester City Council

1 February 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 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 concerns the landlord’s response to reports of:
   1. rubbish being left in communal areas and fly tipping.
   2. a mice infestation in the block.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of a 1-bedroom flat on the second floor.
3. The landlord’s weekly warden rota notes rubbish, furniture and litter is picked up on Mondays and bin areas and ground floor areas are cleared on Wednesdays.
4. The conditions of tenancy in effect from March 2020 state residents are responsible for treating or removing vermin, pest, and other animals such as mice, amongst others. Residents must report the presence of such vermin in the home.

Summary of events

5. In June 2019, it is noted that mice were reported in the block and the landlord attended to treat 2 properties where the infestation had been reported. It sought to locate the entry points and raise any repairs which were required. The landlord was unable to access the resident’s property but baited the surrounding area and left a calling card for him to make contact. No contact was made within the month and the matter was closed.
6. In October 2019, the landlord sought an update from environmental health, on the action taken relating to the mice infestation and it was advised that the resident had not made contact following the visit in June and the job was closed in September 2019.
7. In September 2020, the resident complained of the mice infestation in the walls and roof space of the property. The landlord responded at stage 1 noting it had only ever had one request in June 2019 relating to mice and it had attended and left a calling card. As this was not responded to, the matter was closed. It noted that as the request had been made and paid for by the housing department, it was his responsibility to respond and rearrange the appointment. It noted he could contact the pest team to reattend.
8. In October 2020 the resident complained that items were being left in communal areas by the neighbour and there was fly tipping on the estate.
9. On 17 November, the resident complained that he had advised the landlord of rubbish left outside by the neighbour and it had not responded. He had informed it of fly tipping on the estate indicating the estate was going downhill and the landlord had not noted how it planned to stop the deterioration. He had not heard anything in relation to the offer of free treatment for the mice in his walls.
10. On 1 December the landlord provided its final response. It noted that following his reports of items being left in communal areas, it had written to the neighbour to remove this, and it had to allow the neighbour the opportunity to do so. It accepted that rubbish should be placed in the bins provided and action would be taken if necessary. It noted it would usually allow 14 days following which a housing officer would attend to ensure the rubbish had been removed, however given the Covid-19 restrictions and the second lockdown in force at the time, only essential visits to the most vulnerable residents were being completed. It noted however that following a visit on 20 November the rubbish had been cleared.
11. The landlord explained following his reports of fly tipping its estate agents removed the items and it had attempted to contact him by phone, but to no avail. The landlord noted it would write to update him instead. It advised it was best to report issues via its customer service team, so the enquiry could be picked up by the appropriate officer sooner. It apologised that it had not contacted him by letter sooner, given he was not contactable by phone, but given the current situation, priority work took precedent. It requested that contact preferences be updated to avoid future delays.
12. The landlord noted in relation to the offer of treatment for the mice infestation, as it had no further reports of an infestation from others in the building and the resident had not provided access to the pest team in June 2019, the offer was no longer available. It noted he had been advised of the date of the appointment by phone and a calling card had been left and he had failed to make contact within a reasonable time. The landlord noted the resident could still seek treatment at his own cost by contacting the pest control team.
13. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman in March 2021, as he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

14. It must be noted that the complaint raised by the resident was during the course of the Covid lockdown restrictions in place.
15. Following the resident’s reports of rubbish in communal areas, it was reasonable that the landlord provided the resident responsible with an opportunity to remove the rubbish. The landlord should have allowed the usual 14 days; however, it took much linger than this. Whilst this would ordinarily constitute a failure, as noted the restrictions in place limited the landlord’s ability to take everyday actions. This was not a choice by the landlord, but guidance set by the Government. This resulted in the landlord working under special circumstances, which saw no home visits or face to face visits being conducted unless in an extreme emergency and only urgent cases such as domestic violence, harassment, or threats to life.
16. The landlord clearly explained this to the resident and also apologised for any inconvenience caused. The Ombudsman does understand the resident’s concerns given that he had experienced mice in the property and any source of rubbish could cause the infestation to reoccur. However, this must be balanced against the landlord’s inability to carry out its routine inspections, which was of no fault of its own.
17. As such whilst the landlord delayed in taking action following the rubbish being left and the fly tipping on the estate, this delay was outside its control and therefore does not amount to a failing.
18. The reports of mice infestation relate to a period in 2019 over a year prior to the formal complaint. As such there is no evidence that the mice infestation was a problem at the time of the resident’s complaint. In any event in line with the tenancy conditions, any existence of pest within a residents’ property, is its responsibility to resolve. The Ombudsman does note that the landlord requests that residents inform it of pest within their properties, this is good practice to ensure that there is not a widespread issue for which the landlord would then seek to assist in resolving, as it did in June 2019. Given that no other residents at present had raised the matter, it was reasonable that the landlord advise the resident that he was responsible for resolving the issue.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 54 there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of:
    1. rubbish being left in communal areas and fly tipping.
    2. a mice infestation in the block.

Reasons

20. The landlord provided an adequate explanation why it had delayed in clearing rubbish and fly tipping from the estate.
21. The landlord explained that its previous offer to pay for pest control was no longer available and it was the resident’s responsibility in line with the tenancy to resolve the pest issue.