Longhurst Group Limited (202112155)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112155

Longhurst Group Limited

23 March 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation, and the repairs required to resolve the issue.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident lives in the property with her son who she states has a mental health disability. The resident has mobility difficulties.
  2. The resident initially reported issues with mice and rats in her property in 2019. She raised a complaint with the landlord regarding its handling of the matter at the time. This Service investigated the complaint and determined that the landlord had offered reasonable redress in response to the delay in carrying out mouse proofing works in the property at the time.
  3. During December 2020, the resident reported hearing scratching in her kitchen and loft. An inspection was carried out at this time and evidence of pest activity was found. Throughout January 2021 there were several visits to the property by a pest control company who laid bait. In February 2021 it was established that there was no evidence of a continued infestation but there were several access points around the property for rodents, including gaps under skirting boards, areas in the loft, underneath the kitchen units, and holes in several walls which would need to be addressed.
  4. An appointment was arranged for 12 March 2021 but contractors did not complete any work at this stage due to insufficient time being allocated. They also said that the resident would need to move her kitchen appliances before work could begin. The resident disputed this as previous contractors had moved her appliances to carry out work. She was unable to move these herself due to her disabilities and was unable to get anybody else to do it because she was shielding due to Covid-19 at the time. Following this, she was informed that the jobs would be closed as the landlord was in the process of renewing its repair contracts and was due to hire a different company.
  5. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in late April 2021. She was dissatisfied that no work had taken place on 12 March 2021 and that there was no support in place to assist vulnerable tenants. She was also unhappy with the length of time it was taking to complete repairs and felt that the proofing works had not been completed properly in 2019. She included information about several appointments which had been missed or failed. She also referred to adverse effects on the health of herself and her son and questioned the landlord’s assertion that it was not aware that she was a vulnerable resident. She asked for the landlord to carry out the works and provide access to a named housing officer for further support.
  6. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that the holes were new and that the work had been completed correctly in 2019. It apologised for the poor handling of the current repairs and explained that it was in the process of renewing contracts with its repairs and pest company. This process had taken longer than expected. It acknowledged that communication had broken down and that the work scheduled to the resident’s property had not been transferred to the new contractors, causing further delays. On 4 June 2021 it was established via an inspection that the proofing works had been completed throughout the property and holes had been filled with wire mesh to prevent access to pests. The landlord also agreed to carry out further works to replace the resident’s bath panel which had been damaged, additional work to seal gaps around the front door, and repairs to the guttering at the back of the property. It appointed a housing officer as a point of contact for the resident and offered £200 compensation to acknowledge the overall impact on the resident and her family.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with how the repairs had been handled. She explained that only the work to the skirting boards and a hole in the airing cupboard had been completed. She was not satisfied with the ‘temporary’ wire wool proofing which had been carried out. She wanted these areas to be plastered and sealed properly. She added that the landlord said it would only agree to replace the bath panel with a white one which was not the style currently in place. She also noted that she had purchased two plug-in pest repellents and had been feeding two stray cats to keep her property free from rodents; she wanted the landlord to reimburse her for the associated costs. She added that she had not heard from the landlord regarding her previous insurance claim for damages to her property in 2019 and wanted a response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the pest proofing works and the resident’s family’s medical conditions. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her family’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident and her family experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
  2. In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has asked the Ombudsman to review her complaint related to the landlord’s handling of pest-proofing works carried out in 2019. In accordance with paragraph 39 (o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not investigate matters which the Housing Ombudsman has already decided upon. Therefore, the issues relating to the resident’s complaint about pests in 2019 will not be considered in this investigation, as they have already been investigated by this Service.  Details of this case will be used in this report for background information only and this report will focus on events from December 2020.
  3. As part of her complaint to this Service, the resident has raised concern that the landlord has refused to replace her bath panel with a similar replacement and stated that the current bath panel was a health and safety risk. She added that she was dissatisfied with the proofing carried out and wanted the holes where wire mesh had been fitted to be plastered and sealed. As these are separate issues to the complaint raised with the landlord, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these issues itself through its complaint procedure. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get these matters resolved.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation and the repairs required to resolve the issue.

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that the landlord would be responsible for resolving infestations of mice or rats in properties with vulnerable tenants. It outlines a 21-day target timescale for repairs which would not be considered an emergency. The landlord’s policies do not specifically reference expected timescales for the completion of work following an infestation of mice. However, the landlord would be expected to provide the resident with expected timescales of such work and evidence of its continued monitoring of the matter. The landlord’s compensation policy states that £10 compensation would be payable where the landlord fails to provide a resident with notice of a cancelled appointment. It would not offer compensation for anything that would usually be the resident’s responsibility.
  2. In this case, it is not disputed that the pest proofing works to the property took a significant amount of time to complete, furthermore the resident was not adequately updated on the timescale for these works and there were several missed or failed appointments. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for an inspection of the property following the resident’s reports of pests in December 2020. The evidence shows that several pest control appointments took place until it was established that there was no continued infestation in February 2021.
  3. The landlord has acknowledged that there was then a delay to the proofing works being carried out due to it being in the process of renewing its repair contracts with different companies. There was a breakdown in communication and the repairs were not handed over to the new contractor which led to further delays. It admitted that it had not maintained regular communication with the resident and that several call-backs were missed which caused inconvenience. It has also acknowledged that the resident’s complaint was not acknowledged correctly and said that it would provide further training to its staff to prevent issues such as these in the future which was reasonable.  
  4. In her communication with the landlord, the resident was dissatisfied that she had been told that she would be responsible for moving her kitchen appliances despite not being able to do so due to her disability and that the landlord had stated that it had no record of her or her son’s disabilities. Whilst the landlord attempted to put things right by confirming that appliances would be moved by contractors under its new contract it did not respond to the resident’s enquires as to why these had been moved previously by the same contractor. It has also failed to provide any clarity regarding its records of her or her son’s disabilities. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping processes to ensure resident vulnerabilities are correctly recorded. It should ensure that the resident and her son’s disabilities are accurately discussed and if relevant recorded, if it has not already done so.
  5. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident for its communication failures and the repair delays. It attempted to put things right by arranging a post inspection to check the works were completed and appointing a housing officer to support the resident at her request.
  6. It also offered £200 compensation in view of the impact on the resident. The landlord has not specified the breakdown of this payment in its complaint responses, however, its internal records confirm that this was comprised of various amounts in recognition of several missed or failed appointments, various call-backs which were missed, the time and trouble spent by the resident chasing information, its failure to recognise the resident and her son’s disabilities, telling her that no one could help her to move the appliances, and that it did not deal with mice infestations. In this case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided a breakdown of its compensation offer in its complaint responses rather than state the amount was for the overall impact caused. As such, the landlord did not satisfactorily demonstrate to the resident that it had fully considered and acknowledged the individual issues they had raised. The complaint responses do not otherwise suggest that issues such as missed appointments or miscommunication regarding moving appliances and her disabilities had been considered which is likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate given the impact on the resident by the landlord’s failures. The proofing works took over 4 months to complete, with the landlord acknowledging repeated communication failures.
  8. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards of between £50-£250 where there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. In this case, it is evident that the resident had spent considerable time and trouble chasing responses and correcting mistakes which necessitated in an unreasonable level of involvement by the resident. It would therefore, be more appropriate for compensation in the range of £250 to £700 to be awarded. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that awards in this range should be considered where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include failure to carry out repairs over an extended period of time and communication failures which resulted in significant involvement by the resident. The landlord should offer further compensation to the resident in view of this, as set out below.
  9. The resident has also asked for compensation to account for additional expenses she had incurred by feeding two stray cats in order to protect her property from pests and purchasing pest repellants. The landlord would not be obliged to pay for these costs as the resident chose to buy them without consulting the landlord, and they were alongside the work carried out by the landlord. The landlord would only be expected to consider reimbursing residents for costs that had been reasonably incurred and that the landlord would otherwise be responsible for providing.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation and the repairs required to resolve the issue.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £300, comprised of:
      1. The £200 previously offered during the landlord’s complaint procedure in recognition of the overall impact on the resident and her family.
      2. An additional £100 in view of the time and trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord ensures that the resident and her son’s disabilities are accurately recorded if it has not already done so.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident regarding her insurance claim for damage to her belongings in 2019 as a result of the pest infestation and confirms its position.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss the proofing works, including whether the wire mesh is the final repair or whether the gaps will be plastered. This will be dependent on the appropriate expert advice about what works will proof the property against rodents.