London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202217811)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217811

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 August 2024

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:
1. Repairs to the dishwasher, washing machine and underfloor heating repair.
2. An infestation of mice.
A repair to a leaking waste pipe and hole in the living room wall.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record-keeping and complaint handling.

Background

Preliminary

It is perhaps convenient to explain here first that the complainant’s tenancy is not with London and Quadrant Housing Trust. London and Quadrant Housing Trust manages the resident’s home on behalf of one of its wholly owned subsidiaries. For convenience, however, we have still referred to London and Quadrant Housing Trust as ‘the landlord’ and the complainant as ‘the resident’ in this report.

The property

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom flat on the fourth floor of a purpose-built block of flats. He has a periodic assured shorthold tenancy dated 20 December 2021. The resident has occupied the property with his wife since December 2018. The resident and his wife have no vulnerabilities. The resident told the landlord in August 2022 that his wife fears mice.
The resident said he has been reporting the infestation of mice to the landlord since around July 2019. It is accepted by the parties that the landlord has arranged for pest control to attend the resident’s home on at least eight times between 2019 to July 2022.
On 2 August 2022, the resident formally complained about the landlord’s handling of the infestation. He said that the mice had chewed through the skirting boards and had damaged his blinds, sofas, and carpets.
In its stage 1 response on 12 August 2022, the landlord said:
1. it sent a pest control company on 20 July 2022 and 5 August 2022
2. it had agreed preventive measures with the resident between these appointments
3. it agreed to inspect the communal areas for evidence of an infestation
4. it would need to wait for the communal inspection report to decide if it was liable to pay compensation.
On 15 August 2022 the resident asked the landlord for compensation to cover his cleaning costs related to the infestation. On 21 and 22 August 2022, the resident reiterated that the mice had chewed through the walls and door frames and that they had damaged his bed, electrical items and throws.
On 10 October 2022, the landlord identified that a leak to a boxed waste pipe may have caused dampness to the living room wall. The landlord completed a mould wash on the same date and repaired the leak on 2 November 2022.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 5 September 2022 and 5 December 2022. In the later escalation request, the resident said:
1. he had been reporting mice since July 2019 and despite attendance by pest control, the mice were still present. On that basis, he instructed his own pest control firm
2. the mice had affected communal parts of the building and other neighbours
3. the caretaker had also reported the mice
4. the landlord had accepted, in August 2022, that the mice were in the communal areas
5. the mice had damaged his furniture as well as the doors and had urinated and left droppings all over his property
6. that contractors had left a large hole in his living room wall, and that this had let cold air in
7. the landlord had not told him when it would fit a carpet, and no one had returned to complete the paintwork
8. the landlord’s communication was poor, and it did not meet the promise of compensation it made at stage 1
9. he asked for a rent rebate as compensation for the time the infestation had been ongoing. as well as cleaning costs of £2,620 and the additional cost of heating his home due to the hole in the wall.
The landlord sent its final response on 22 February 2023. In it, it outlined the actions it took between 31 July 2019 to 14 February 2023. The landlord said:
1. there was no communal pest issue, and the mice infestation only affected the resident’s flat
2. it had found no evidence to either prove or disprove the resident’s comments that the caretaker reported mice
3. there has been one incident of another resident reporting mice in September 2020
4. it accepted there were failings with the carpet delivery and with its communication
5. it made an appointment for 24 February 2023 to replace the carpets and blinds
6. its plumbers attended the property on 2 November 2022 and repaired the leak, they completed the follow-on work to re-plaster the hole on 20 December 2022. The landlord accepted the repair was delayed
7. it would not offer a rent rebate or compensation for items the resident ought to have insured
8. it would not compensate the resident for cleaning costs (£2,620) as the infestation was not a communal issue
9. there was no clear evidence the infestation was a communal issue, so it did not accept it was at fault or that it failed to act reasonably
10. it awarded the resident £460 in compensation and said it would consider reimbursement of heating costs on the production of evidence
11. it would monitor the outstanding works and assess further compensation on completion of the works.
On 5 April 2023 the resident informed the landlord that there was no evidence of mice in his property at that time.
On 12 August 2023 the resident reported the presence of mice again. The landlord sent pest control on 22 August 2023. The landlord completed some recommended works on 8 November 2023. The resident informed the Ombudsman that he had seen mice in his home in March 2024 and early August 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The Housing Ombudsman is not free to investigate every complaint referred to this service. What we can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is governed by the rules set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme”). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider whether the complaint is one we have the power to investigate.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made before having exhausted a member’s complaint’s procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”

The resident confirmed to this service that he has not pursued complaints about these issues. After carefully considering the evidence in this case, the Ombudsman cannot investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the dishwasher, washing machine and underfloor heating repair (as set out in paragraph 1(a) above) as it has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. As a matter of fairness, the Ombudsman expects residents to give landlords a fair opportunity to respond to complaints before this service intervenes.

Scope of investigation

For clarity, the Ombudsman has investigated:
1. The landlord’s handling of the infestation of mice
2. The landlord’s handling of the leaking waste pipe and hole in the living room wall
3. The landlord’s record-keeping
4. How the landlord handled the complaint.

The infestation

The landlord’s repair policy states that it will be responsible for resolving issues with vermin where:
1. there is evidence of a wider issue in common parts or where the infestation affects multiple properties
2. the resident has been unable to successfully deal with it themselves.
Landlords are responsible for any infestations that are caused by their failure to repair the structure and exterior of the property. For example, where there are holes in walls which a landlord has failed to repair within a reasonable time, resulting in vermin accessing a property. The landlord was also under a duty to ensure that the resident’s property was fit for human habitation at the start of and during the tenancy. This includes being free from any hazards caused by pests like food poisoning or disease. This is under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, sections 9A and 10 and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. It is not obliged to rectify issues, however, that are the result of a failure by the resident.
The evidence confirms the resident’s position that he has been reporting issues with mice in his home since July 2019. In July and August 2019, the landlord found holes around pipes in the resident’s utility room, the storage cupboard and the kitchen units. The pest control reports from 2019 recommended that the landlord block these holes.
Notably, there is no suggestion that the holes in the walls were caused by the resident or a failure on his part. That indicates the landlord was on notice of disrepair that it was responsible for in the resident’s home and the possibility that vermin were accessing the property because of that disrepair. The evidence does not show what the landlord did in respect of these findings in 2019.
The landlord has provided an invoice for ‘pest control work’ dated 31 August 2019. This does not show what works were completed or by when. Landlords would usually treat vermin by using bait boxes, poisons or setting up traps. This would usually be accompanied by ‘proofing’ works to seal any possible entry points. The evidence does not demonstrate the landlord took any of these actions promptly.
The evidence shows that it was not until 7 December 2021 that the landlord filled in holes in the kitchen around the “kitchen-floor edge” and around the “sink waste pipe”. There is no evidence to suggest that these works have previously been done or that they needed to be done again.
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman cannot be satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably or in line with its repair or pest policy between 2019 and 2021. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
Following the resident’s complaint on 2 August 2022 the landlord inspected the resident’s property on 5 August 2022 and 31 August 2022. While this was not unreasonable, as the timescales were in line with its pest policy, it is not clear why the landlord did not complete the works required in 2019 much sooner.
Following pest control’s inspection of the property on 5 August 2022, it reported to the landlord that the infestation was “low level”. The resident referred to the landlord as having “sealed the door” on 8 August 2022 but it is unclear what this related to from the repairs records.
When pest control attended on 31 August 2022, it reported that there were gaps in the resident’s balcony and “lots of droppings under the kitchen units”. There is no evidence the landlord sealed the balcony until 23 December 2022. This was 114 days later. The Ombudsman considers that this was an unreasonable length of time.
The landlord sent pest control again to the resident’s property on 11 October 2022 and it found some droppings behind the kitchen kickboards but noted they may have been old. Following an inspection on 25 October 2022, the landlord found that something had taken the bait in the kitchen and the balcony. The evidence from 25 October 2022 was that there was mice activity and so the landlord refilled the bait and continued to monitor the situation. This was a reasonable response at the time, but it is not clear if this would have been necessary had the landlord acted sooner in 2019.
The landlord’s evidence is that it agreed to fill in the holes in the resident’s door surround and gap on the floor. This was booked for 1 November 2022. The landlord records the works as having been completed on 14 November 2022, but the resident has disputed this. The Ombudsman has seen an email from the landlord sent on 16 November 2022 indicating this job was still outstanding. On balance, the work was unlikely to have been completed on 1 or 14 November 2022. If it had been the landlord would not have acknowledged the work as outstanding in an email on 16 November 2022.
The landlord discovered holes in the kitchen on 7 December 2022 behind the “kickboards”. It is unclear when these appeared as there is no note of holes from the pest control visits on 31 August 2022 and in October 2022. On 7 December 2022, pest control recommended that the landlord deal with all access holes to prevent the mice from gaining access.
The landlord’s position was that the infestation was isolated to the resident’s home and there was no evidence of mice in the communal areas of the block or affected other residents. The Ombudsman notes that the resident strenuously disputes this. The landlord’s evidence is that all communal inspections done up to 12 November 2022 did not reveal the presence of mice. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord inspected the communal areas in the block of flats on 24 January 2022, 10 February 2022, 3 March 2022, 25 October 2022 and 12 November 2022 but found no mice activity. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take as they were in line with their repair and pest policy to assess whether the cause of the infestation was communal.
However, this service has also seen evidence from 16 November 2022 that suggests other residents reported mice and that there were gaps on the roof and holes in the bin store. The Ombudsman has also seen an email from 25 November 2022 sent by the landlord referring to other residents reporting mice. The Ombudsman has also seen an email the landlord sent on 7 December 2022 to say that there was no evidence of an “abnormal infestation” as most areas in the block were clean. This indicates that there was some level of infestation in the common parts. The Ombudsman notes that the resident told the landlord on 16 December 2022 that he had found a mouse in the communal hallway. This all points to a potential wider presence of mice in the block.
The landlord told the resident at stage 2 that the only resident it had evidence of that reported mice intrusion was in September 2020. It also indicated that it had not seen any evidence from the caretaker who the resident said had seen mice. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord ought to have arranged another inspection and spoken to the caretaker. This would have been reasonable and proportionate given there may have been a wider issue. The Ombudsman cannot be satisfied, therefore, that the landlord’s position that this was isolated to the resident’s home was entirely correct. We have made an order about this.
When the landlord attended on 13 January 2023, it reported that there were holes in the kitchen, boiler cupboard, and hall cupboard. The landlord also noted on 13 January 2023, that the resident reported mice on the roof. It is not clear whether the landlord had notice of the holes before the inspection on 13 January 2023.
The landlord’s evidence is that it blocked the holes in the kitchen, boiler cupboard and hall cupboard on 13 January 2023 and attended again on 19 and 25 January 2023. The resident told the landlord on both occasions that he felt the work done was insufficient as there were still mice in his home. The landlord has provided a report dated 27 February 2023 showing photographs of the completed works. While these photographs show the balcony door and kitchen it is unclear what work the contractor completed.
The landlord inspected the roof on 14 February 2023 and found no evidence of mice. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s actions were reasonable. This is because it inspected the roof within a reasonable time (a month) of it becoming aware of possible mice activity on the roof terrace (13 January 2023).
The landlord also responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of mice on 23 January 2023 and 3 February 2023. It sent out pest control contractors on the 31 January 2023 and 10 February 2023. The contractors found no evidence of an ongoing infestation on either visit.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident did not report mice again until 12 August 2023. The landlord sent out pest control contractors on 22 August 2023, this was a reasonable and timely response. The contractors recommended the removal of the washing machine and dishwasher to allow further work to seal any possible entry points around them. The Ombudsman considers the landlord was not at fault for not doing this before then as there is no evidence the pest control contractors recommended this before.
The repair records show the landlord completed this workon 8 November 2023 which was 78 days later. This was an unreasonable delay and outside the timescales in the repairs policy. In the absence of any evidence to explain why this timescale was necessary or outside the landlord’s control, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord was at fault for this.
The resident has told us that, after 8 November 2023, he has only seen mice in March 2024 and early August 2024. This indicates that the works may have been somewhat successful but may not have removed all entry points. The Ombudsman has therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to consider whether it should reinspect.

Repairs to skirting boards, walls and door frames

Part of the resident’s complaint about the handling of the infestation was how it handled the subsequent repairs to the skirting boards, walls and door frames. We have detailed this here for clarity, but this forms part and parcel of the landlord’s handling of the infestation of mice.
The resident reported that the mice had chewed through his skirting boards, walls, and door frames on 2 and 21 August 2022. The landlord was responsible for repairing these under the resident’s tenancy agreement. There were delays with the landlord repairing the skirting boards and door frames. According to the landlord’s records, it completed work to rub down the skirting and doors affected by mice damage and infill and paint them on 14 April 2023.
The landlord has provided a completion report with photographs of the completed repair and paint work signed off on 18 April 2023. While the landlord was aware of the damage in August 2022 it was reasonable, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, for it to wait for the work to fill in the mice entry points to complete before doing repair and decorative work. This is because it would not make sense to do repair and decorative work until it was clear the mice infestation was over as otherwise damage would likely reoccur.
The landlord blocked the holes by the end of February 2023 on the available evidence. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the repair and painting work completed within a reasonable time of this.

The replacement of the carpets

Similarly, the resident explained that the mice damaged the carpets and blinds. The landlord was responsible for the resident’s blinds and carpets under the resident’s tenancy agreement. The landlord’s notes relating to the tenancy stated it was responsible for the interior including “white goods, carpets and curtains.”
The landlord knew that the mice had chewed his carpet and blinds on 2 August 2022. On 21 August 2022, the resident added that the mice had made a hole in the third bedroom carpet. On 22 August 2022, the resident explained to the landlord that the mice had chewed carpets in two bedrooms, with one having a dead decomposed mouse on it.
The landlord’s contractor dropped off a roll of carpet on 12 September 2022 but left this on the ground floor of the block. The landlord’s account is that following this, the resident told its contractors he was not available to allow the landlord to fit the carpet until the week commencing 26 September 2022.
The landlord’s position is that the resident refused the carpet fitting on 6 October 2022 unless the contractor also replaced the carpet in the office. The resident disputed this.
The landlord told the resident on 13 October 2022 that it would fit the office carpet separately from the bedroom carpet as they were separate jobs. It is unclear whether the office carpet was the same as the other bedroom the resident said needed carpet replacement or a different room.
The Ombudsman is unable, on the available evidence, to determine who was responsible for the delay in fitting the carpet from September to October 2022.
The landlord replaced the bedroom carpet on 13 December 2022. This is after it told the resident on 18 October 2022 that it was just waiting for its contractor to reattend to fit the bedroom carpet and take measurements for the office carpet. The available evidence does not explain why it took the landlord another two months from October 2022 to fit a bedroom carpet. In the absence of an explanation for the delay, the Ombudsman cannot conclude the delay was reasonable.
On 13 January 2023 the resident told the landlord that all his carpets needed to be replaced as the mice had damaged them, although he did not specify the exact damage.
The landlord told the resident on 22 February 2023 that it would replace the carpets after the infestation had stopped. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take in the Ombudsman’s opinion. It would not have made sense to replace the carpets for a second time while the mice were present.
As set out above, the landlord completed the work to block entry points at the end of February 2023. It replaced all the carpets on 9 August 2023.
The evidence shows that there were some delays in the landlord replacing all the carpets between then because:
1. On 5 April 2023, the landlord queried with the resident why the carpet it replaced in December 2022 needed to be replaced again. This was not reasonable, as the landlord ought to have inspected the carpet to see if it required replacement
2. The landlord stated the resident refused to allow its contractors to replace the carpets in May 2023, as he wanted “high-quality carpets”
3. The landlord refused a quote for the carpets in July 2023
4. The landlord’s carpet contractor allegedly not being able to contact the resident about fitting in July 2023.
The Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable of the landlord to consider different contractors and quotes to ensure value for money. However, the landlord ought to have inspected the carpets already in place for their size, style, specification, colour and quality and obtained 3 or 4 quotes based on this. This is likely to have reduced the level of delay and any dispute.
The Ombudsman cannot conclude that, in the absence of evidence that the resident delayed matters, the landlord acted reasonably. This is because the landlord has not provided evidence to support its claim that the resident had unreasonably refused carpets or was not contactable over this five-month period. On the contrary, the evidence this service has seen is that the resident was keen to have carpets fitted and even offered to arrange this on 21 July 2023.

The replacement of the blinds

As with the carpets the evidence shows that on 22 February 2023, the landlord told the resident that it would replace the blinds when the infestation had been resolved. This was reasonable to prevent a recurrence of damage.
The landlord said it replaced the blinds at some point between July 2023 to October 2023. The landlord said it did this in July 2023 while the resident suggested this happened in either September or October 2023. The Ombudsman is unable to determine the date the landlord replaced the blinds on the available evidence. Either way, the final works were completed in November 2023, so this was not necessarily a delay. Whilst it is clear there is a record-keeping failure, there is no evidence that the landlord delayed replacing the blinds.

Conclusions on the handling of the infestation

The landlord conducted at least 20 pest control visits to the resident’s property between 4 August 2021 to 8 November 2023. It was appropriate of the landlord to involve pest control as these were experts in dealing with mice infestations. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman considers the landlord is responsible for maladministration on the basis that:
1. The landlord cannot show it acted reasonably or in line with its repair or pest policy between 2019 and 2021 on the available evidence. The lack of evidence indicates the landlord did not respond to some of the repairs the landlord was responsible for. This was a significant failure
2. The landlord took reasonable steps to inspect communal areas for a mice infestation up to 12 November 2022 but not thereafter. The Ombudsman cannot be satisfied that the landlord’s conclusions, that infestation was isolated to the resident’s home, were sound given the available contrary evidence
3. There was an unreasonable delay in sealing the balcony between 31 August 2022 to 23 December 2022
4. The Ombudsman cannot be satisfied that the landlord completed the work to fill in the holes in the resident’s door surround and gap on the floor on 14 November 2022
5. There was an unreasonable delay in completing the proofing works between 22 August 2023 to 8 November 2023 based on the available evidence
6. It was reasonable to wait until there was evidence that the infestation had been resolved before replacing the carpets and blinds. However, based on the available evidence there was an unreasonable delay of two months from October 2022 to 13 December 2022 to fit the bedroom carpet
7. The landlord’s failure to provide evidence of when it replaced the blinds or the reasons for the delay in fitting them meant that we cannot be satisfied that it acted reasonably.
The landlord offered the resident £460 compensation in total, £240 of which related to:
1. £120 for missed appointments
2. £120 compensation related to the carpets.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that he would like a rent rebate from the landlord because the property was unhabitable during the period of the infestation.
The Ombudsman can consider awarding compensation based on rent where there is evidence that the landlord’s service failure significantly impacted the resident’s use and enjoyment of their home. In this instance, there is no evidence that the resident’s property was completely unhabitable or had no rentable value (the fair market rent for a rented property) because of the mice. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence, in the form of a report or any notices from the council, that shows the property was unfit to occupy for the entire duration of the tenancy or for any smaller periods.
Whilst it is accepted that the resident’s use and enjoyment of his home was impacted, even had the landlord acted much more quickly in its response, the building may still have been affected by mice. That means there is no evidence that the landlord’s failures were solely responsible for the impact on the resident’s enjoyment of his home. In this case, it is not appropriate to consider rent as a basis for compensation. The proper basis to award compensation here is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s award for distress was insufficient considering matters have been ongoing since 2019. Taking into account the failures as highlighted above; there was likely some considerable upset and frustration to the resident for its handling of the infestation. In particular, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident’s wife feared the mice. As living with mice would likely cause significant distress the Ombudsman has awarded compensation to take this into account.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on Remedies indicates awards of up to £1,000 for considerable distress and inconvenience. Given that not all the landlord’s actions were unreasonable and that there will have been some unavoidable upset caused by the presence of the mice in any event, the Ombudsman considers £1,000 compensation would be appropriate in the circumstances to recognise the upset caused.

Financial losses

The resident told the landlord that the mice had damaged his sofas, cushions, throws, bed, mattress, and electrical items by either defecating or chewing on them. The resident asked the landlord for compensation for the following:
1. £1,010 to replace a couch
2. £1,200 to replace a king-sized bed and mattress
3. £779 for a replacement television
4. £300 for other appliances like lamps, speakers and an air-conditioning unit
5. £2,620 spent on cleaning costs.

Totalling £5,909

The resident was responsible for insuring personal belongings under the terms of his tenancy agreement. The landlord advised the resident to either make a claim on his home contents or to make an insurance claim with its insurer known as a ‘public liability’ claim. It was appropriate that the landlord referred the resident to its insurer to consider this.
Whilst this service can award compensation for financial loss, the resident has not produced evidence of the damage caused or the cost of placing him back into the position he would have been in had the mice not damaged his goods. In these circumstances, it would not be fair for the Ombudsman to determine the financial loss without this evidence as it would be speculative and would either cause the landlord to pay too much or too little. Therefore, the landlord’s liability insurer should consider this.

The repair of a leak and hole in the wall

It is unclear when the resident reported dampness on the room wall. This is because the landlord has not provided complete repair records which was a record-keeping failure. It also means that we cannot be satisfied the landlord acted in line with its repair policy. The landlord’s final response says it noticed a possible leak in the living room where a boxed waste pipe was on 10 October 2022. It said it booked an appointment on 18 October 2022 for leak detection. The landlord attended to this on 2 November 2022 and repaired a leak in a waste pipe.
The landlord left a hole in the wall and the waste pipe exposed for 7 weeks until it returned on 20 December 2022. This was a service failure given it was winter. The landlord had also said on 12 December 2022 that it would repair this within 24 hours.
It must be acknowledged that this was during a period when the resident was reporting mice in the property. Therefore, a further access point may have allowed mice to enter the resident’s home, as the landlord noted on 7 December 2022.
Although the landlord offered compensation of £120 for this failure, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that this was insufficient. This is because the hole affected the resident’s enjoyment of their living room.
The landlord did offer to consider the increased heating costs subject to the resident providing evidence of bills and that was appropriate. There is no evidence the resident has provided that evidence.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident £150 per week for the period this repair remained outstanding. This equates to £1050 and recognises the impact for the period. This recognises there will have been some distress and inconvenience caused as well as an increased heating cost. This is reasonable to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy has a 2-staged process. The landlord must:
1. respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of logging and acknowledging the complaint
2. respond to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days of the date of escalation
The resident complained to the landlord on 2 August 2022 and the landlord responded on 12 August 2022. This was in line with its complaint policy.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 5 September 2022 and again on 5 December 2022. There is no evidence the landlord escalated the complaint until 5 December 2022. This delayed the complaint process by three months which was unacceptable.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 February 2023, this was 54 working days after the second escalation request and only after the Ombudsman instructed the landlord to respond. This was not appropriate.
The landlord offered the resident £50 for its failures in complaint handling. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not proportionate to the failure and the distress that was likely caused to the resident by that delay.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it stated that it could not offer a rent rebate. The Ombudsman is of the opinion that this statement was misleading as the landlord’s compensation policy allows for these. This is where residents cannot use part or all of their property because of the landlord’s failure. For example, where a landlord fails to meet its repairing responsibilities, or where it causes prolonged and unreasonable disruption.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 2 that it would consider further compensation but there is no evidence that it has. This is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Record keeping

The resident complained to the landlord about missed appointments. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with complete records of the appointments it made which is a record-keeping failure. In its stage 2 response, it told the resident that there were a “number of appointments which have not been kept” however it was unable to see full details as appointments are not always recorded directly by contractors. It is, therefore, not possible for the Ombudsman to know exactly which appointments the landlord missed.
A landlord must be able to demonstrate it has kept to the law, its policies, the Ombudsman’s Code and the Regulatory standards with reference to accurate and appropriately detailed records.
Landlords have a public function in providing social housing to their residents (albeit it was not in this case). As with any other public service, such as the NHS, councils and the police, there is a clear obligation on landlords to create and maintain accurate but proportionate records of its actions, interactions with residents and decision-making. This creates an audit trail to ensure that it can effectively monitor and manage its housing functions and activities.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019 states “the landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, and pre and post inspections…”
The service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023 found that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify what actions were wrong or inadequate.” The landlord’s lack of oversight of its contractors’ record-keeping is likely to have contributed to the poor communication the resident experienced, delays and added to their distress.
Moreover, the landlord’s comments that its contractors do not always create records are indicative evidence of a systemic issue with the landlord’s record-keeping concerning repairs. This is likely to give rise to not only further complaints by residents but also further findings of maladministration by the Ombudsman for repairs and record-keeping.
It is not necessary for the Ombudsman to make orders on this, given our Special Report (paragraph 49 investigation) into the landlord coupled with our record-keeping findings identified across several other cases this year. The Ombudsman needs to point out, however, that continued findings and orders against the landlord will have financial and reputational consequences for it. We have made recommendations, but ultimately it is up to the landlord how it changes its record-keeping practices moving forward.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated the complaint about the dishwasher, washing machine and underfloor heating because this was not raised as a complaint by the resident and so has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a mice infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the leaking waste pipe and hole.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report
2. contact the resident to establish the level of any mice activity in his property to date. The landlord must then consider whether it would be appropriate to send a pest control company to re-inspect the works and report if any further work is needed
3. arrange an inspection and two periodic follow-up inspections of the communal areas, including the communal bin, bike store and roof by an independent pest control firm to identify if there is any evidence of mice activity in communal areas. The landlord must provide the resident and Ombudsman with a copy of the report together with any related recommendations within 28 days of the date of this determination and 5 working days of both follow-up reports
4. pay the resident directly £2,300 less any compensation payments already made (instead of the £460 offered at stage 2) made up of:
  1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in dealing with the mice infestation
  2. £ 1,050 for the loss of enjoyment of the living room for 7 weeks between 2 November 2022 to 20 December 2022 because of a hole in the wall
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling
5. The landlord must share this report with its head of repairs and maintenance in respect of record keeping. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so.
6. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord may wish to introduce a policy or charter which sets out expectations for repair staff and contractors on creating and maintaining robust, accurate and proportionate information. This could set out what good record-keeping looks like with examples.