London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202011249)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011249

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

2 September 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 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 the resident’s reports of pests in her property;

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an extractor fan in her bathroom; and

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy commenced in March 2019. Her property is one of three bungalows in a row. The other two properties are rented out by a different landlord.

In July 2020 the resident discovered a rat in the property. She had also noted evidence of them in her garden areas. She reported the matter to the landlord who instructed its pest control operative to investigate the issue. The resident has complained about the way the landlord handled the ensuing problem, as well as about two other issues, as set out above.

Scope

The resident has taken legal advice and solicitors have been instructed and carried out preliminary enquiries on her behalf. However, court proceedings have not been issued and are not expected to be. This is relevant because such action would normally prevent this Service from considering this complaint further. The resident has stated she would prefer her complaint to be progressed via this method.

By way of a resolution to her complaint, the resident is seeking a permanent transfer to alternative accommodation. The landlord’s handling of that application does not form part of this complaint and will not be considered as part of this investigation. It does, however, offer context to the situation.

The resident has expressed some concern about her communications with one of the landlord’s staff members. However, she did not raise that in her complaint and it will not be considered further here.

Summary of Events

As stated above, the resident discovered a rat in her property and reported this to the landlord on 25 July 2020. The landlord instructed its pest control operative who attended the property on 3 August 2020. A report from this visit noted that rats were running up the soil stack behind the toilet. The operative considered the external drain needed to be inspected for breaks and laid some bait in the meantime pending further investigations.

The landlord’s internal records show that on 10 August 2020 it logged a repair to rectify “very loose and lifted” paving slabs at the property.

The resident chased the landlord on 1 September 2020 having heard nothing further from it about the infestation. The landlord’s pest control operative then attended for a follow up visit on 11 September 2020. Its internal records show the outcome as being “rats in resident’s roof all nest in back yard, they are making the paving stones uneven so we need to get rid of the nests so we can repair the paving stones”. This was marked as a “critical repair”.

Further, the operative’s treatment summary noted that they had removed a panel within the bathroom and found all the bait previously laid had been taken. They noted that the issues were not just affecting this property (but others in the row too) and that “all have issues within walls and ceilings multiple burrows in front garden below slabs”. A recommendation for a camera survey of the drains was noted.

On 14 September 2020 the resident spoke with the landlord about the situation. Its records describe her as “very upset” as she had been told there were “100s of rat nests outside property”. It noted her report that she was enlisting the help of the local authority’s environmental health department. The landlord advised the resident it had booked the repairs for the paving slabs to take place in October but that the rats needed to be dealt with before the work was done as they were causing the problem.

The resident reported to the landlord that she had not stayed at the property since the last visit because she was too frightened to be there, and was temporarily lodging with a friend. The question of her being temporarily rehoused (decanted) was discussed with her and the landlord referred the matter to its relevant team. They questioned whether the works that were required would need her to be out of the property.

The resident chased the situation with the landlord on 16 and 18 September 2020 and the local authority, who had been approached by the resident for emergency housing, were chased on the 21 September 2020. The landlord’s internal records noted that it was not its usual procedure to decant residents due to such infestations.

The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 September 2020. She had spent the previous night in a homeless hostel and was aware that the other residents in the row (who are tenants of a different landlord) had been decanted from their properties. The landlord’s pest control operative reported to it that day that “the rats are in the walls, ceiling, pipes and under concrete so have completely taken over the property”. Later that day the landlord agreed to decant the resident to a hotel for three nights.

During the resident’s absence the landlord carried out a CCTV survey of the drains, descaled them and rectified any defects. It lifted paving slabs and filled rat tunnels with wire mesh and concrete. It then reinstalled the slabs and any surrounding holes. It also filled holes inside the toilet and blocked a gap inside a manhole which was considered to be an entrance/exit point.

Further, the landlord’s pest control operative also made a review visit (25 September 2020) and reported that a burrow had been found in the front yard of the property and which had been baited. It recorded that previous proofing had been carried out under the bath and toilet inside the property. The operative’s report concluded “another visit is recommended for this site”.

On the 25 September 2020 the resident contacted the landlord as she was due to leave her temporary accommodation. She was advised it was safe to return to the property and its operative would return for a final inspection in two weeks’ time although no evidence has been provided by the landlord showing this actually took place.

At this point the resident contacted her MP for support who, in turn, raised the issue with the landlord. On 29 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the MP in response. It confirmed that its operatives had visited the property and laid bait, undertaken work to the drains and underneath paving slabs and filled gaps around the toilet internally to block an access point there. It confirmed an inspection had been carried out after these works and in its opinion there were no signs of any further infestation either internally or externally. It confirmed the resident had been temporarily decanted from the property but had now moved back in. The landlord committed to monitoring the situation moving forward.

On 22 December 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that there was no electricity in the property. Its records show it was aware that there was a water leak, and this might be affecting the electrics. An electrician attended the same day and reported that he suspected a circuit had been damaged by rats chewing through wires. The resident spoke to the landlord the next day. Its record described her as “very unhappy, very tearful”. It instructed its pest control operative to reattend the property.

That visit went ahead on 29 December 2020. The operative reported that they had baited in the toilet and under the bath; that they had witnessed “minimal rat droppings” and had found no activity in the kitchen. The resident spoke to the landlord the next day and was informed that the treatment would be carried out three times and if any further works were required, such as sealing access points, the landlord would act accordingly.

On 5 January 2021 this Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf having been contacted by her requesting help to make a formal complaint about the situation. The resident had reported being too frightened to use the outside areas of her home or to leave windows open in case the rats gained access to her property. She had also reported that contractors were reluctant to come to the property to carry out repairs because of the infestation. The resident had understood from the landlord’s pest control operatives that the rats were nesting in the foundations of the property.

The landlord spoke with the resident on the 7 January 2021 to clarify her complaint and it was noted that whilst the rat infestation was the main issue, she was also concerned that there was no extractor fan in her bathroom and that there were mould issues in the property. The landlord wrote to the resident formally acknowledging the complaint that day and committed to providing its response by 20 January 2021.

On 15 January 2021 the landlord responded to a further enquiry from the resident’s MP. It confirmed what action had been taken to date and that a further appointment was already planned for its pest control operative to attend for around 22 January – the exact date to be arranged. In concluding, the landlord committed to arranging for one of its maintenance operatives to visit the resident and check the overall condition of the property.

A follow up visit was carried out on 8 January 2021. The operative’s report stated that whilst the bait laid at the previous visit had not been touched the resident was still reporting she could hear activity on a daily basis and that a repeat visit was still required.

On 25 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report an issue with damp and mould in her bathroom, kitchen and front door area.

Also on 25 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one complaint response. It identified the resident’s areas of concern as relating to rat infestation, no fan in bathroom and mould in her property. Its response was as follows:

It confirmed it had received a report of rats in the property on 27 July 2020 and a works order had been raised to investigate the problem. An inspection was carried out and bait laid but the resident had recontacted the landlord to report she had seen rats both inside and outside the property and did not wish to stay there. It was arranged for CCTV to be carried out of drainage to identify where the access point was.

A temporary decant from the property for “four nights” commencing 22 September 2020 was arranged whilst work was carried out to the drains. The contractor also lifted paving slabs to treat void areas. An access point was identified in the toilet, and it was filled and baited, as well as the living room area.

Subsequently an inspection by the landlord’s pest control officer and its surveyor found the property to be pest free. The resident moved back in with a monitoring visit arranged for two weeks subsequent to that.

On 8 January 2021 the property was attended again when the resident believed there was further rat activity, with a further visit scheduled for 1 February 2021.

The landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in getting its response to this issue to the resident and offered compensation of £10.

With regard to the fan in the bathroom the landlord agreed it would look into it in principle but could not currently take any action as it was only carrying out emergency repairs.

On the question of damp and mould the landlord confirmed it had raised a work order for its contractor to inspect the relevant areas within the property.

The landlord’s pest control operative made the follow up visit on 1 February 2021 as planned and reported that they had noted the pavement in a neighbouring front garden had subsided “possibly caused by rats”. The operative had baited the drain and noted a repeat visit was required.

The resident reports that the neighbour had the paving slabs renewed on 23 February 2021. She states that both herself and her neighbour overheard the attending surveyor saying to a workman that there were 1500 rats at least under the foundations of the three bungalows in the row.

On 4 March 2021 this Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf requesting that her complaint be escalated to stage two of its complaints procedure. The reason given by the resident was because the bait put down on 1 February 2021 had been eaten evidencing that the problem still persisted.

On 7 March 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord to report she had had to kill a rat in her kitchen and that she could hear their activity all day long. She had contacted the pest control operatives direct and asked for a further visit but she considered they were meant to be monitoring the situation and had failed to do so. The landlord’s internal note of the conversation recorded that it needed to keep the resident updated and that its previous solution of asking its pest control operatives to monitor the situation had not worked as they did not have any visit scheduled without prompting from the landlord.

On 23 March 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that a large amount of rubbish had accumulated in the communal areas and that paving slabs in the back garden had lifted up and needed repair.

The landlord’s pest control operative attended the property again on 25 March 2021. Their report stated that a plumber had removed panels looking for the stop cock and had found a lot of rat droppings but none of the bait left under the bath or behind the toilet had been taken. The operative noted that a repeat visit was required.

On 29 March 2021 the landlord updated the resident’s MP with the current situation. It confirmed the initial infestation had been dealt with but the resident had reported an electrical failure in December 2020 and its operative considered it might be related to a pest issue. The landlord’s pest control operative had reattended and had reported “that it is not a rat infestation”. However, it went on to confirm a further four visits had taken place and that at the last one none of the bait laid previously had been taken. The work to repair the paving was booked for 4 May 2021.

On 7 April 2021 this Service chased the landlord about the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to the next level of its complaints procedure. The landlord noted it was behind with these but would assign the case to stage two shortly. On 8 April 2021 it raised a further order with its pest control operative because “rat infestation still present within property and in communal areas”.

On 13 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage two complaint response. It noted that following its telephone conversation with the resident on 7 April 2021, the reasons for her continuing dissatisfaction were:

There had been a lack of communication from the landlord in relation to the complaint.
The rat infestation had not been resolved.
There was no extractor fan in the bathroom.
There was mould which needed to be cleaned and treated.

The resident had reported in that conversation that she was still experiencing rat activity. The landlord confirmed it had spoken to its operative and “rat proofing is needed in the bathroom to stop the rats returning” but a plumber would need to attend beforehand to remove various panels. This had been arranged for 19 April 2021 with both plumber and pest control operative in attendance.

With regard to the bathroom extractor fan, an inspection had been delayed due to the landlord only carrying out emergency repairs, but this could now go ahead, and an appointment would be arranged in the next ten working days.

The mould issue was to be addressed at an appointment on 2 June 2021, this being the earliest the landlord’s operative could attend.

Having reviewed the resident’s complaint, the landlord concluded that the service it had offered to her in respect of the pest infestation was not to the standard it aimed to offer. It stated the situation should have been managed more effectively and completed more swiftly. The landlord apologised for this along with the service and communication the resident had received following her complaint about the situation.

The landlord offered compensation of £355 which it broke down as follows:

£ 25	Late response to stage one complaint
£ 25	Failure to escalate complaint to stage two on 4 March 2021
£ 50	Lack of communication
£180	Distress between July 2020 and April 2021
£ 50	Time and effort
£ 25	Delayed damp inspection

On 14 April 2021 the landlord visited the property and considered the installation of an extractor fan. It concluded that a window fan would cause more potential problems with pests. Further, the resident had an opening window with privacy glass in it which could be used to allow steam and condensation to escape. In addition, there was a “trickle vent” which could be opened even when the window was closed to allow air flow/circulation.

The visit went ahead on 19 April 2021 with work being done to fill in rat holes behind the panels in the bathroom with expanding foam and wire mesh.

On 20 May 2021, the resident disclosed more of her personal situation to the landlord, from a medical and emotional point of view, which confirmed that she was a vulnerable tenant and the landlord discussed this with her on 21 May 2021. The resident was looking for a transfer to another property on medical grounds.

On 26 May 2021 the landlord’s pest control operative reported to it that its recent inspection had revealed no pests in the bathroom, kitchen or rear garden of the property. It had identified some evidence of “burrowing” to the front right-hand side of the property which had been temporarily filled with a permanent solution to be actioned in due course. The contractor was arranging to remove debris/rubble from the outside area as a precaution.

On 2 June 2021 the landlord’s operative attended the property to deal with the damp and mould issue. Also on that day the landlord noted it needed to arrange a further joint attendance of its plumber, electrician and pest control operative “for rat proofing”.

Agreements, policies and procedures

The landlord’s Repairs Policy includes its service standards. It states that for routine repairs, they will be carried out at “the earliest opportunity”.

The landlord’s Routine Repairs Responsibilities Policy confirms that it is responsible for dealing with rat infestations. That policy states that the cleaning and treating of mould due to condensation is the resident’s responsibility. When dealing with repairs reported by vulnerable tenants, the landlord commits to considered whether the defect is putting the resident at risk because of their physical or mental health.

The landlord has a Complaints Policy which details how it will handle complaints. That policy does not cover situations where the landlord is facing a legal claim or court action.

Where a complaint is covered by the policy, the landlord will operate its two-tiered approach. Stage one involves an investigation with the aim of resolving the complaint. Stage two involves a review where the customer remains dissatisfied. Its timescale for a response is detailed as 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two respectively.

The landlord operates a Compensation Policy which sets out its approach to awarding compensation. It provides for discretionary compensation payments and goodwill gestures where there has been a failing in the service it offers but does not set out how they should be calculated.

The policy states that when assessing compensation, the landlord will take into account the cause of the issue; whether the customer has specific needs made worse by the issue; and the difficulties experienced by the customer when living with the issue and in dealing with/communicating with the landlord about it.

The policy sets out a £10 payment where it has failed to respond to a complaint within the timescales published in its Complaints Policy.

Assessment

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in her property.

There is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for dealing with any rat infestations at the property. Contrary to the resident’s suspicions of a longstanding problem predating her tenancy, the landlord has produced its summary of its attendances for repairs, and so on, dating back to 2009 and this is the first entry for rat infestation on it.

When the first report was made on 25 July 2020 the landlord responded in a reasonable period of time with its pest operative attending a few days later on 3 August 2020.

The evidence shows the landlord’s stated approach is to offer three sequential visits to lay bait, identify works and monitor the situation. Despite this, and despite the operative recommending a drains survey take place, nothing further happened after this first visit until after the resident chased the matter up at the beginning of September 2020. Even then it was almost another two weeks before a second visit took place on 11 September 2020. Once again, a recommendation for a drains survey was made.

By this time the scale of the infestation had been made known to the resident. The situation had escalated and was worse than anticipated. She reasonably reported feeling unsafe and did not wish to stay at the property. The evidence shows the resident is physically limited (as well as emotionally susceptible) and the landlord’s records showed her as a vulnerable tenant from the outset.

Notwithstanding this, it took repeat telephone calls from the resident, the local authority housing team, and a visit from a neighbour for the landlord to offer a decision on an emergency decant whilst the works were carried out – and this took over a week.

The landlord’s records note that it would not normally agree to a decant in this situation and this might explain why the landlord delayed in reaching its conclusion. However, given the situation, the landlord might reasonably have been expected to act more quickly. The decision itself was appropriate given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the situation she found herself in.

During the resident’s absence works were carried out and she moved back in with a review promised for two weeks’ time. There is no evidence this was done. In the Ombudsman’s view, given what had transpired and the vulnerability of the resident, this was entirely inappropriate. Furthermore, at the end of October 2020 the landlord advised the resident’s MP it was monitoring the situation when there is no evidence that it was doing so.

Towards the end of the year the resident experienced some problems with her utilities – a water leak and an electricity fail. It was at this point that the issue was raised again. This time the three sequential visits did take place, albeit there was a delay between the second and third and the resident was applying pressure by making a complaint and involving this Service and her MP. The landlord’s operative reported the bait was not being taken but the resident strongly refutes this. At the end of the third visit (1 February 2021) a further visit was recommended by the landlord’s operative but there is no evidence this was actioned at the time. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acted on this recommendation.

Since then, the situation has remained unresolved. The resident reports overhearing a conversation where the ‘hundreds of rats in the foundations’ were being discussed. She has made further reports of sightings/noise and raised concerns about rubbish being an attraction for pests. She has also reported disturbed paving stones outside the property (which proved to be significant previously). The resident has continued to involve her MP and this Service.

The landlord has responded and carried out further visits and works. However, the evidence demonstrates that it is working on the basis the situation was resolved whilst the resident was decanted from the property the previous September, and that the current reports were just routine repairs to be responded to retrospectively as and when they arose. There is no evidence of a proactive approach on its behalf.

The landlord has accepted its handling of the situation could have been better and it was appropriate that it made that admission. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord failed to fully appreciate the impact of the situation on the resident – whose distress reached crisis point in May 2021.

This approach is demonstrated in its correspondence with the resident’s MP when the reassurance was given at the end of October 2020 that the landlord was monitoring the situation when they were not. In January 2021, the landlord then told the MP that the overall condition of the property would be checked to reassure the resident when there is no evidence this was done. Finally, in a letter of 29 March 2021 the landlord told the MP there was no rat infestation between December 2020 and March 2021 when there was some evidence which suggested there was continuing activity. In the Ombudsman’s view the correspondence gave a somewhat more optimistic report than was reasonably the case.

Indeed, the landlord confirmed in its March 2021 letter that it had received a report of a trip hazard to the garden path, namely disturbed paving slabs, which it would be repairing in due course. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord might reasonably have seen this as a potential indicator of a continuing problem given it had occurred previously at the property (and next door) as a result of the infestation of rats. Instead, it was being treated as a routine repair without the cause being investigated. Further, given the resident’s physical disability the landlord might reasonable have been expected to deal with this repair sooner.

By way of a resolution to the resident’s concerns the landlord has offered compensation. It has offered £25 for its delay in providing its stage one complaint response and £25 for its delay in acting on the resident’s escalation request. Both sums are appropriately offered, as the landlord correctly identified that these delays had taken place. Indeed, its compensation policy provides for a smaller sum of £10 for such a delay.

In terms of the landlord’s handling of the infestation it has offered compensation of £180 for the resident’s distress, £50 for its lack of communication and £50 for the resident’s time and effort, making a total of £280. The landlord’s Compensation Policy sets out that it will offer compensation in appropriate situations but not how it is to be calculated.

The resident has been experiencing problems on and off for a number of months. The evidence shows she has had to be the driving force in keeping the momentum going for repeat visits, taking the time and trouble to chase the landlord and involve her MP and this Service. The resident’s distress and upset is recorded in the landlord’s internal records in a number of places. She was kept waiting for a week for a decision on her emergency decant. She is not convinced the problem has finally been dealt with and the Ombudsman shares her concerns.

The landlord might reasonably be expected to increase the compensation offered to the resident from £280 to £500 as a fairer sum to reflect her distress, time and trouble and to reflect its failings in communication and monitoring of the situation. With the £50 offered for the delays in its complaint handling this makes a total of £550.

However, compensation does not deal with the problem itself and an order will be made for the landlord to once again survey the current state of the property (inside and outside) to ensure that there is no ongoing pest issue and no further entry points.

A recommendation will be made for the landlord to consider instructing its pest control operative to conduct review visits of the property at the end of September and November 2021.

A further recommendation will also be made for the landlord to liaise with the landlord for the other bungalows in this row (the evidence demonstrates the landlord is aware of its identity) if this has not already been done, to check what reports/action they are currently handling.

Finally, the resident’s preferred solution is to be permanently rehoused elsewhere. The landlord has been assessing this request. It will be recommended that the landlord take into account this Service’s comments about its failure to fully appreciate the impact of this situation on the resident, when reaching a conclusion.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an extractor fan in her bathroom.

The resident requested an extractor fan be installed in her bathroom. The landlord carried out an inspection and deemed it was not necessary because there was an opening vent and a trickle vent already available. No evidence has been produced to demonstrate that the landlord’s conclusion was unreasonable. No failing in the service provided by the landlord on this point has therefore been identified.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

There is evidence that the resident reported damp and mould in the property in January 2021. The landlord’s Repairs Policy provides for an attendance to routine matters at the first available opportunity. However, its Routine Repairs Responsibilities Policy states it is for the resident to resolve such an issue.

There is no evidence that the damp and mould were caused by anything the landlord did or did not do and these issues are common in all sorts of residential homes.

The landlord committed to attending the property anyway but it’s operative could not attend until 2 June 2021 and the landlord reasonably accepted that this was inappropriate in that it represented a delay. It offered compensation of £25 which, in the Ombudsman’s view, represented reasonable redress for the matter complained of.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in her property.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for an extractor fan in her bathroom.

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

Once the resident had reported a rat infestation and an initial visit had taken place, there was a delay on the landlord’s part in progressing the work recommended to take place to deal with the issue.

When it became apparent the problem had deteriorated and was worse than anticipated the landlord kept the resident waiting for a week before giving its decision about whether it would agree an emergency decant to a hotel. She had to spend a night in a homeless shelter as a result – being too frightened to go home. The resident is vulnerable and this should have been taken into account.

Once the landlord’s planned works were complete and the resident returned to the property, it failed to arrange a review or monitor the situation despite leading the resident’s MP to understand that it was doing so.

The resident had to provide the impetus for further works/visits and so on between December and March 2021 when there were signs of a recurrence of the infestation. Since then the matter has drifted and may not have been fully resolved. The landlord accepts the service offered on this issue has fallen below the standard it might reasonably be expected to provide.

The landlord acted reasonably in inspecting the resident’s bathroom and concluding it did not need to install the extractor fan.

The landlord acted appropriately in recognising there had been a delay between the resident reporting damp and mould and it arranging a visit for the matter to be dealt with. It offered reasonable redress to the resident by way of compensation of £25 for this delay.

Orders and/or Recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay compensation to the resident totalling £550 in recognition of the impact on her as a result of its service failings.

The landlord to once again survey the current state of the resident’s property (inside and outside) to ensure that there is no ongoing pest issue and no further entry points.

The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider instructing its pest control operative to conduct review visits of the property at the end of September and the end of November 2021.

The landlord to liaise with the landlord for the other bungalows in the row the resident’s property is situated in, if this has not already been done, to check what reports/action they are currently handling/taking.

The landlord should take into account this Service’s comments about its failure to fully appreciate the impact of this situation on the resident, when reaching a conclusion on her request to be permanently rehoused elsewhere.

The landlord to re-offer the £25 compensation to the resident for the delay in its damp and mould inspection, if this has not already been paid, as this recognised its service failure and the above findings are made on that basis.