London & Quadrant H T (201908355)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201908355

London & Quadrant H T

4 February 2021


Our Approach

  1. 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.
  2. 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 response to the resident’s reports regarding a rodent infestation at her property and the amount of compensation it subsequently offered.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 11 December 2013. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint policy.
  3. The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes it will award a fixed amount of £10 where it failed to provide a response and £20 for missed appointments. The policy also notes “we will not pay compensation for loss of earnings due to service failure. However, we may offer a goodwill payment in recognition of the time and trouble the customer may have taken to get the issue resolved.” Appendix 5 of the policy notes that for routine defects (i.e. non-emergency/urgent defects), it will award £2 per day, with a maximum of £100.
  4. The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes in Appendix 1, Part E, that the landlord is responsible for rat and mice infestations. Part E and F note that the landlord is responsible for internal and external walls. Part F notes that the resident is only responsible for holes caused by “installation of residents’ utilities, such as satellite dishes.”

Summary of events

  1. On or around 16 April 2018, the resident reported a mouse infestation at her property, noting that “there appears to be massive holes in the concrete running down the side of the wall in the corner where the sink is,” allowing the mice to enter.
  2. The landlord replied on 11 May 2018 and advised it would only arrange for pest treatment for certain pests, which did not include mice. It advised the resident should arrange her own pest treatment. It further advised that “as per your tenancy agreement and our repairs policy you would also be responsible for blocking any holes within the property.”
  3. The landlord has provided this service with its repair logs which noted that on 20 February 2019, there were internal discussions by the landlord that fire repair works had previously been carried out on the property, which may have resulted in the holes. It further noted it would arrange for its pest control team to address the holes.
  4. On 1 March 2019, the resident emailed the landlord and noted that they had discussed the holes being the cause of the rodent issue. She noted the landlord had “assured me that yourself and a surveyor would be down to inspect the cellar” and advised that the repair work had not been completed. She further advised that she had “a phobia to mice” and that she “had to vacate the property some weeks ago for my own safety.” The landlord responded on the same day and sought to arrange a time to attend the property. It also noted it had attempted to attend the property on 26 February 2019, but her “pod” had been locked.
  5. On 5 April, the resident arranged for an independent fire report to be completed. The report noted “gaps between steel and brickwork,” “gaps between ground and bottom on fire door which will allow spread of fire and smoke,” and a “hole … leading straight outside for ventilation purposes.” The report commented on how these issues related to the property’s fire risk but did not mention them in the context of the rodent infestation. The report also noted, however, that there were “gaps in flooring which will allow spread of rodents from basement to ground floor.”
  6. On 17 April 2019, the resident made a formal complaint through the landlord’s online complaints system regarding the ongoing infestation. The landlord contacted the resident on the same date to arrange a further inspection. The resident replied and advised her availability. She further advised that she was currently “vacant from the property as I have mice back in my flat again for the 4th time since December 2018.”
  7. The landlord has advised this service that it received a telephone call from the resident on 10 May 2019 requesting an update on her case. The landlord advised her the case had been resolved. The resident noted that she had not received any apology from the landlord and so requested the case be reopened. She further noted she “was unable to live in the property for a period of time approx. 8 weeks.”
  8. On 24 May 2019, an internal landlord communication noted that the resident had also expressed concerns that her patio doors did not fit correctly which was allowing mice to enter the property. It requested that a member of its maintenance team attend the property to inspect the issue. Between this date and 27 June 2019, the resident and landlord exchanged a number of emails discussing availability for it to visit, resulting with the landlord attending the property on 27 June 2019.
  9. On 12 July 2019, the landlord advised the resident of the actions it had taken. It advised its repair team had assessed that the property was “adequately proofed,” and that “all holes were sealed as this was necessary to complete the works properly.” The landlord has provided this service with copies of internal communications from its repair team confirming the same. It also advised the resident that “the patio doors are secure and do not need any repairs or replacement.” It noted that following the works, there had been no further sightings of mice, and that it would subsequently be closing the complaint.
  10. On 24 October 2019, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She noted that there had been five rodent treatments at her property since November 2018 and advised that on four occasions she had “vacated the property on several occasions for safety and hygiene reasons.” She advised she had been staying at her mother’s property during these periods which had resulted in additional expense. She further advised that the stress of dealing with this issue had caused her existing illnesses to “relapse that was stress related which contributed to my [medical] condition.” She also noted that there had been three missed appointments without an apology from the landlord. She further advised that her “friends and family had to be drafted in to pull bath panels off and fill holes under bath leading to cellar.” She also expressed concern that her previous complaint regarding the infestation had been closed without informing her. She advised she wished to claim compensation for the “inconvenience I have endured,” including the cost of her fire safety report, a refund of rent for the periods she was vacant from the property, and for the additional petrol costs she incurred as a result.
  11. The landlord provided a formal response on 1 November 2019. This response did not identify itself as a response under the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, nor did it advise the resident how she could request an escalation. Regarding the lack of response received prior to closing the initial complaint, the landlord apologised and advised it had now trained its staff in its new complaints handling procedure to avoid this occurring again. Regarding the resident’s request for a refund of her rent due to her relocating, the landlord advised that its pest control report noted that there was “low pest activity and the situation was manageable and able to proceed.” It was therefore “unable to find any evidence to suggest you needed to vacate the property.” Similarly, the landlord advised it was unable to refund the resident’s petrol costs for the same reason. This service has not been provided with a copy of this report.
  12. The landlord also noted it had now received a copy of the resident’s fire safety report but advised it would not refund the costs as it had not given any authorisation for the resident to obtain a report. Regarding the resident’s comments that her friends were required to complete the works, the landlord advised that its “records show proofing works were carried out in February 2019” and that it had arranged for further works to be completed in April 2019, however, “when [the pest control team] attended, they reported proofing had already been carried out by the resident.” It was therefore “unable to find any evidence to suggest [it had] failed to carry out proofing works.”
  13. The landlord agreed that the resident had experienced stress and inconvenience caused by the length of time the issues had been ongoing and that its response to the resident’s initial complaint was below the standards it would expect. It agreed to award compensation as a result. It also agreed the resident was entitled to compensation for its missed appointments. It subsequently offered the resident £240 in compensation, made up of £60 for “disruption to daily life,” £30 for its “failure to respond to initial complaint,” £60 for the “missed appointments,” £60 for “poor service distress,” and £30 for “time and effort.”
  14. The resident replied on 13 November 2019 and advised she did not accept the compensation as the amount was “woefully inadequate” to reflect the landlord’s service failure. She subsequently requested a formal review on 9 December 2019. The landlord provided its stage two response on 10 December 2019. It advised that the “compensation awarded is fair, proportionate and in accordance with [its] complaints and compensation policy,” and that “the compensation offered will not be increased.”

Assessment and findings

  1. Following the resident’s initial reports of a mice infestation caused by external holes in her property, the landlord advised that both the type of infestation, and the repair of the holes were the resident’s responsibility. The landlord gave a list of the types of infestation it dealt with, which included rats, but not mice. Given that the resident is not an expert on rodent identification, and no formal inspection of the infestation had taken place, the Ombudsman would also have considered it best practice to carry out a reasonable inspection to determine the type of infestation, which it did not do. Additionally, the landlord’s responsive repairs policy specifically notes that infestations of either rats or mice are the responsibility of the landlord. The incorrect information given to the resident by the landlord led caused her confusion and distress and led to an increased delay in the infestation being addressed.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy also specifically notes that the landlord is responsible for the repair of both internal and external walls. It is evident that the holes in question were not caused by any installation by the resident. The landlord has provided this service with a copy of the tenancy agreement, which is silent on the responsibility of the repair of walls. Similarly, this incorrect information caused further confusion and distress for the resident and again led to an increased delay in the infestation being addressed. Given that the landlord’s policies noted it was responsible for the repairs and addressing the infestation, it was therefore appropriate that it eventually agreed to carry out treatments and repairs and articulated this to the resident in March 2019.
  3. It is evident that between March and June 2019, there were multiple communications between the resident and the landlord to attempt to arrange repair visits. The resident has expressed her dissatisfaction that these were not all replied to in a timely manner and that the landlord did not effectively communicate its decision to close the resident’s initial complaint. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord addressed these service failures in its initial response and apologised accordingly. It was also appropriate that it advised the steps it had taken to prevent this occurring again.
  4. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord’s initial formal response did not identify itself as a response under its internal complaints procedure, nor did it signpost how the resident could request a review. This would have caused the resident additional confusion and delay to the resolution of her complaint.
  5. It is evident that the landlord’s communication issues, incorrect information, and failures in complaints handling caused the resident distress and inconvenience and delayed the resolution of her complaint. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged these failures in its formal response and made an offer of compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy notes it will pay £10 for an instance of a failed response. Its offer of £30 exceeds this and is also in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see in this type of situation. The Ombudsman also considers it appropriate that the landlord offered £60 for “poor service distress,” and £30 for “time and effort,” which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, appropriately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the initial incorrect information and the faults in its complaints handling.
  6. Similarly, the landlord’s compensation policy notes it will pay £2 per day for delays to repairs of routine defects. Given that the delays to the completion of the repairs were caused by the difficulty in arranging the availability of both parties, in addition to the landlord’s communication issues, the Ombudsman considers its offer of £60 to reflect the “disruption to daily life” to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. In her complaint, the resident noted three instances of missed appointments, which the landlord acknowledged and appropriately offered compensation for. The amount of £60 offered was in line with its compensation policy and also in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see in this type of situation.
  8. Regarding the resident’s complaint that she was required to “draft” her friends and family to assist with the repair works, this service has not been provided with any evidence to suggest that the landlord was unwilling to complete the works during this period of time which would have required the resident to make her own arrangements. While the resident noted in March 2019 that she was still awaiting completion of the works, it is not evident that the resident communicated with the landlord that it was her intention to subsequently complete the works herself. Given that the landlord continued to liaise with the resident about completing further inspections, the landlord’s finding that it was unable to find evidence it had failed to carry out the works was therefore reasonable.
  9. Similarly, given that the landlord had accepted that the holes in the external walls were a possible entrance point for the rodents, it is not evident that the fire report was required, especially as the commentary within does not refer to the holes in the external walls in the context of rodents entering the property. It is also not evident that the resident discussed with the landlord the need to commission the report, nor did the landlord agree to cover the costs of any report. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to refund the costs of the report and it was appropriate that it clearly articulated its position and reasoning in its initial response.
  10. While the resident did advise the landlord that she had chosen to leave the property due to the infestation, it is not evident that this decision was made following any professional reports or advice that the property was unfit for habitation. It is also not evident that the resident sought the landlord’s agreement that it would cover any costs associated with her relocation, or to refund rent during this period. While the Ombudsman notes the resident expressed her phobia of mice had caused her to leave the property, the Ombudsman considers the landlord discharged its responsibilities as it acted reasonably in arranging for multiple instances of treatments at the property (which is not disputed), whilst also taking steps to determine the root cause of the issue and complete works accordingly. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to offer compensation in relation to this part of the complaint and it was appropriate that it again clearly articulated its position and reasoning in its initial response.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaint concerning its response to the resident’s reports regarding a rodent infestation at her property and the amount of compensation it subsequently offered.

Reasons

  1. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its service failures in complaints handling and missed appointments and offered reasonable compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result. It also appropriately apologised and set out how it would improve its services in the future.
  2. The landlord clearly articulated its position and reasoning for refusing the resident’s claims for compensation relating to her leaving the property and for obtaining her own fire risk assessment, which the Ombudsman considers reasonable.