London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202231513)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231513

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

10 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation in the property.
  2. This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom converted house which is owned and managed by a housing association. The property was let to the resident under an assured tenancy in 1998.

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house. It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The tenancy agreement also says the landlord will keep the plasterwork, internal and external walls, and pipes in good repair.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will deal with mice where a resident has been unsuccessful in dealing with the issues themselves, or there is evidence of a wider infestation. It aims to complete routine repairs within an average of 25 calendar days.
  3. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy which says stage 1 complaints are acknowledged by the end of the next working day and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are acknowledged 2 working days from when the complaint was escalated and responded to within 20 working days.
  4. Paragraph 1.7 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) says landlords must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. Paragraph 5.6 says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practise where appropriate. Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16 of the Code say that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint and any reasons for the decisions made.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy says the landlord will pay compensation where it gets things wrong and fails to provide a quality service and needs to put things right. It will consider compensation where it recognises the impact service failure has had on a resident. Examples include but are not limited to where it fails to follow its policies, procedures, or guidelines and this has a negative impact on the customer, where it fails to respond to or process a complaint within agreed response times and does not comply with the Code. It also says it will pay £20 where it fails to attend a booked appointment without good reason and/or without providing 24 hours’ notice.

Summary of events

  1. The resident reported mice in the property to the landlord on 10 November 2021. She said that she had tried shop-bought poisons and traps but that they did not work.
  2. The landlord arranged for a pest control contractor to complete pest control treatment works at the property on 23 November 2021.
  3. The pest control contractor visited the property on 23 December 2021 and in its inspection report noted low levels of mice activity, droppings under the kitchen units and large gaps to a back walls. It reported that it had laid 3 bait trays, applied foam to entry points and that proofing works and wire wool were required. The operative advised the resident to speak to her neighbours as the mice were most likely coming from there.
  4. The pest control contractor visited the property on 8 February 2022 and duplicated the same notes it had recorded on its previous inspection report.
  5. The landlord sent a works order for pest control to a different contractor on 29 March 2022. It asked the contractor to make an appointment with the resident directly using her mobile phone number. The landlord completed pest control treatment at the property on 6, 7 and 21 April 2022 and on 3 May 2022.
  6. The pest control contractor completed further treatment at the property and prepared a pest control report on 13 May 2022. The operative noted that the resident had not seen any signs of mice since its last visit. It reported a significant take of bait in the kitchen and where it had been laid. The operative removed all bait from the property and reported that no further visits were necessary.
  7. The pest control contractor completed treatment at the property on 8 June 2022 and on 15 July 2022 when it prepared a pest control report . The operative noted that the resident had not seen any signs of mice since the last visit. It removed plinths and found no fresh evidence of mice but found that some bait had been taken. The operative removed all bait from the property and reported that no further visits were necessary.
  8. The pest control contractor completed further treatment at the property on 23 August 2022 and on 5 and 21 September 2022
  9. The pest control contractor completed treatment at the property and prepared a pest control report on 20 October 2022. The operative noted that it had checked all bait, and none had been taken and that the resident had not seen any signs of mice. The operative removed all bait from the property and reported that no further visits were necessary.
  10. The pest control contractor again completed treatment at the property on 7 December 2022.
  11. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 December 2022 to report mice in the property and to discuss the treatment which she said did not seem to be working. The landlord confirmed that the contractor did not have any recommendations yet but were due to attend the next day.
  12. The pest control contractor completed treatment at the property on 21 December 2022 during which the resident discussed some proofing works her son had completed at the property.
  13. The pest control contractor completed treatment at the property on 6 January 2023 and on 14 February 2023. The operative checked all bait and reported that no bait had been taken and that the resident had not seen any signs of mice. There had been no new droppings, and the hygiene and housekeeping in the property was good. The operative recommended one more visit.
  14. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 8 March 2023. She said that the complaint was about the pest control treatment which she said had not been working. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on the same day. It apologised that she had had to raise a complaint for her concerns to be addressed. It also said that a works order had been raised for a pest control contractor to attend the property on 10 and 15 March 2023 when proofing work would be completed. It did not say if it had upheld the complaint, but it said that if the resident didn’t agree with its decision to let it know so that it could understand what she felt had not been addressed and how she would like to see the matter resolved. It said it would then consider her comments, discuss the complaint with a manager and if it couldn’t help any further, she could escalate the complaint to the next stage of the process.
  15. The resident phoned the landlord on 10 March 2023 to report that the pest control contractor had not attended the appointment that had been scheduled for that day, nor had it provide her with notice that it had been cancelled. She asked if the appointment for 15 March 2023 was still scheduled. She also asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
  16. The pest control contractor completed treatment at the property on 15 March 2023 and on 4 April 2023 when it prepared a pest control report . The operative inspected all areas for points of ingress and found holes in the kitchen but was unable to find any further access points. The operative injected 3 sites with rodent bait prior to blocking it with appropriate materials.
  17. The resident submitted a new online complaint to the landlord on 5 May 2023. She said that she had had a mouse infestation for over a year and had made previous complaints. She said that a pest control contractor had been to the property to fix the problem but that she still had mice. She said that the contractor had been due to attend the property that day between 8am and 1pm but that it had not arrived by 12:45pm and that she had had to take more time off work. She asked the landlord to use a different contractor as she considered that the contractor was not efficient or competent.
  18. The pest control contractor completed treatment at the property and prepared a pest control report on 5 May 2023. The report said that the operative had inspected all areas for points of ingress and had found bite marks in the kitchen where a mouse had been trying to escape. It had been unable to find any further access points. The operative injected the space with rodent bait prior to blocking it and clearing droppings to help it identify the presence of mice on future visits.
  19. The pest control contractor completed treatment at the property on 16 May 2023. The contractor recommended that the fireplace should be bricked, and repairs completed to the flue to prevent mice accessing the property.
  20. The pest control contractor completed treatment at the property and prepared a pest control report on 19 May 2023. The report said that the operative had inspected all areas for points of ingress and had found holes in the hall cupboard and the gas pipe by the front door. It was unable to find any further access points. The operative injected the spaces with rodent bait prior to blocking them.
  21. This Service wrote to the landlord on 2 June 2023 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint about pest control by 16 June 2023. The landlord sent an internal email the same day that said it had already responded to the matters at stage 1 and for the matter to be escalated to stage 2.
  22. The landlord emailed a stage 2 acknowledgement to the resident on 5 June 2023 which said that it would provide a response to her by 29 June 2023. It said that that it tried to call her on the same day but there had been no answer.
  23. The landlord raised a works order to remove the gas fire, board, and a vent on 12 June 2023.
  24. The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 15 June 2023. The landlord listed 16 dates when it had completed pest control treatments in the property. It also said that the resident had complained that the contractor had only poisoned and baited and had not carried out any other work and that her son had carried out proofing works, but the rodent issue had remained. The landlord said:
    1. It had reviewed its handling of the stage 1 complaint and confirmed that it had raised 2 works orders for 10 and 15 March 2023 but that the contractor had not attended the appointment on 10 March 2023 which it had apologised for.
    2. It had first received pest control reports from the resident on 10 November 2021 and 2 visits had been conducted on 23 December 2021 to inspect and proof the property.
    3. It had scheduled a further appointment which it completed on 14 February 2022.
    4. Further pest issues were reported on 29 March 2022, and it had raised a works order on 6 April 2022 following an error with issuing a previous order.
    5. The contractor had attended the property on 13 May 2022 and had noted that the resident had not seen any mice since the last visit was carried out. It checked the property and confirmed that mice had taken bait. The contractor removed the bait and had concluded that no further visits were necessary due to there being no sightings since the previous visit.
    6. It recognised that the resident had thought works were not conducted on every visit, but that this was part of the baiting, monitoring, and recording of mice activity that the treatment entailed.
    7. The resident had reported a further issue on 25 May 2022 and works order was raised for a contractor to visit on 8 June 2022. When it returned on 15 July 2022 it had removed baits as no sightings had been reported and baits had been taken.
    8. The contractor attended again on 18 August 2022 and on 20 October 2022 during which its reports had indicated that there had been no sightings or evidence of mice, so all bait was removed.
    9. The contractor attended on 21 December 2022 and had found mice droppings behind the kickboards. The resident discussed the proofing that her son had completed with the contractor as her son was of the view that additional proofing would be required at the entry point.
    10. When the contractor returned in January 2023 and February 2023 there had been minimal activity, but it recommended a further visit which it attended on 15 March 2023 following a missed appointment on 10 March 2023. The contractor blocked holes in the kitchen and bathroom and left bait.
    11. It attended on 5 May 2023 and located bite marks in the kitchen. It cleared droppings, blocked the access points, and left bait. The contractor reattended on 19 May and found holes in a hall cupboard and to the gas pipe by the front door. It left bait and blocked the holes.
    12. It had spoken to the resident on 9 June 2023 as she had reported that the pest control issues remained. The landlord subsequently spoke to the contractor about any further steps that it could take to address the issues and it agreed to arrange for a surveyor to attend the property.
    13. The resident had been unhappy that proofing had not been completed sooner following the visit in December 2022.
    14. It apologised for its delay in addressing the pest control and offered the resident £300 as compensation. It detailed the award as £100 for service failure, £100 for distress and inconvenience and £100 for time and effort. It said that it would offset the payment against any rent arrears and post any remaining funds onto the rent account.
    15. It signposted the resident to this Service.

Events that took place after the completion of the internal complaint procedure.

  1. The resident emailed this Service on 14 August 2023 to confirm that she was in contact with the landlord about blocking in her fireplace and the flue around the boiler which the pest control contractor had recommended on 16 May 2023. She confirmed that mice had not returned to the property since then but that the work was required to prevent a future infestation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation in the property.

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s first reports of mice in the property on 10 November 2021 by arranging for a specialist pest control contractor to inspect and treat the property. The resident had told the landlord that she had not been able to address the matters herself. It was therefore appropriate and in keeping with its policy for the landlord to respond to the matter itself.
  2. The landlord arranged for its specialist contractor to attend the property within 8 working days. This was a reasonable time for the landlord to have taken to attend the property. Furthermore it was appropriate for the landlord to have commissioned the services of a specialist contractor to treat the pest control matters.
  3. The landlord arranged for 2 further pest control treatments to be completed in December 2021 and February 2022. It is evident that the contractor’s reports for these 2 visits had retained the same inspection notes. The landlord subsequently made arrangements for a different contractor to complete further treatment works. This was a reasonable response for the landlord to have taken to ensure any treatments it commissioned were completed appropriately.
  4. The contractor undertook a series of appointments at monthly intervals between March 2022 and June 2023, which were arranged either as a follow-up appointment after treatment, or in response to the resident’s further reports of mice. It responded to the pest control issues by discussing the sightings with the resident, identifying droppings and access points, using bait, and blocking holes. It was reasonable for the contractor to have used different techniques to remedy the matter and for it to have attended regularly to monitor and treat the matters.
  5. The resident reported that her son had completed proofing works in the property in December 2022 to the contractor and that she had considered that further proofing might be required. It is not clear to this Service when the resident raised her concerns about proofing with the landlord, but it is noted that the landlord referred to the matter in its stage 2 complaint response. Notwithstanding, it was reasonable for the landlord to have relied on the expertise of a specialist contractor in the diagnosis and treatment of the pest control matters.
  6. The contractor advised the landlord to block the fireplace and flue access points on 16 May 2023. The landlord subsequently held further discussions with the contractor on 9 June 2023 about any additional work that may be required to eradicate the mice. The landlord subsequently arranged for a surveyor to visit and raised a works order to complete the work that the contractor had recommended on 12 June 2023. It is noted that there were delays in completing works to the fireplace due to concerns about asbestos and that this matter was not concluded until after the landlord had issued its final complaint response.. Notwithstanding, it was reasonable for the landlord to have explored all options to address the pest control matters following the advice it had been given by the contractor. Furthermore it was appropriate for it to have raised works orders to complete the repairs it had been advised to undertake.
  7. It is evident that in December 2021 the contractor advised the resident D to contact her neighbour as the mice may have accessed her property from the neighbouring property. It is not clear from the evidence whether the resident did so, or whether the landlord had made arrangements to address both properties at the same time. Notwithstanding, the resident reported that the contractor had resolved the rodent issue in an email she sent to this Service in August 2023 which indicates both properties had been treated.
  8. The landlord reviewed its handling of the pest control matters in its stage 2 complaint response in which it recognised that the time taken to address the pest issues had caused detriment to the resident. It apologised for the delay and awarded a compensation payment to her. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of a service failure, and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  9. The landlord apologised to the resident and resolved the rodent infestation which evidenced that the landlord had been fair and had put things right. It also offered the resident £300 as compensation. This amount was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings. Furthermore this amount was in line with the provisions of the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance.
  10. Whilst the landlord has not demonstrated learning overall its response provided redress that satisfactory resolved the resident’s complaint. Consequently this Service find reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

  1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
    1. Indicated in its stage 1 response that it would consider and respond to the resident’s reasons to escalate the complaint first, before escalating the matter to stage 2 of the complaint procedure. This effectively created a 3-stage complaint process.
    2. Did not respond to the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 which she had emailed to it on 10 March 2023.
    3. Did not respond to the resident’s complaint of 5 May 2023 to advise how it would treat the complaint she had submitted using its online procedure. This resulted in the resident contacting this Service to ask the landlord to respond to the complaint in June 2023.
    4. Did not indicate if it had upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and at stage 2 of the procedure in its complaint responses.
  2. When a landlord is at fault it need to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord did not consider its handling of the resident’s complaint when reviewing the housing services it had provided. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to consider the impact of its complaint handling delays and recognise that they had caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. An award of compensation is therefore ordered below.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation in the property.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

  1. The landlord employed a specialist pest control contractor to complete treatment works in the property. The treatment was successful but took longer than was reasonable to fully eradicate the mice. The landlord provided compensation to the resident for the detriment its delay had caused her.
  2. The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code during its handling of the resident’s complaints. The landlord failed to investigate its own complaint handling and therefore consider whether compensation for its complaint failings was appropriate.

Orders and recommendations

  1. In addition to any previous compensation issued and within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £100 in compensation for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures

The compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to inspect the property to assess if any outstanding pest control repairs are required. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and this Service details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.