MHS Homes Ltd (202002094)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002094

MHS Homes Ltd

11 June 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 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 response to the resident’s reports of rodents in her property.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

As per the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, residents are responsible for pest control, unless in communal areas, but it is responsible for repairing the structure of its properties, including the walls and kitchen units.
The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure states that it aims to handle all stage one complaints within seven working days and all final stage complaints within 15 working days. If it needs longer, it will inform the resident of this.
The complaints policy and procedure also refers to the closure of complaints, which includes instances where there has been no contact from the resident after ten working days, despite attempted contact from its complaint investigator, unless it has been made aware of a potential delay.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a three-bedroom maisonette.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that the issue of rodents at the resident’s property was first reported to it by her on 11 July 2019. This Service has been provided with no further information regarding this report.
On 17 July 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to make a stage one complaint to it that her property was infested with rodents. This was particularly concerning for her as her baby had been crawling on the floor where there were signs of rodent activity. The resident felt that there was a rodent issue due to there being gaps between the walls and the kitchen cabinets, and so she suggested that it take off the cupboards, secure the walls, and then re-install the kitchen. Other concerns were raised which do not form part of the complaint to this Service.
On 24 July 2019, the landlord recorded that it attended the resident’s property to inspect the issues reported by her. Following this inspection, it confirmed that it would raise a job to “overhaul the kitchen units and fill the holes” on 29 August 2019.
On 9 September 2019, the resident emailed the landlord again, which is summarised below:
1. She explained that rodents were still present in her kitchen.
2. She also confirmed that the landlord’s operatives did visit the property. However, they did not move any kitchen units; instead, they “just went under the units and blocked visible holes”. As a result, the resident raised concerns that the “work was not up to standard”, which made her feel “very” anxious.
3. She highlighted concerns over her son’s health as a result of the above issues, as he had been feeling sick. The resident therefore requested the landlord arrange for the completion of the above work.
On 10 September 2019, the landlord emailed the resident, in which it confirmed the following:
1. It had spoken to the manager overseeing the work to the resident’s kitchen cupboards.
2. The operatives did not need to remove any kitchen units, as they could see the access points for the rodents in both her kitchen and garage, which it had blocked.
3. The resident would now need to contact pest control, or lay poison herself, as rodents may still be in the property.
On 11 September 2019, the resident responded to the landlord, stating the following:
1. She explained that she could not lay poison due to having a young child who was crawling around her property.
2. She had moved her fridge to check behind this and it was clear that holes had not been filled, with further evidence of rodent activity also being seen. The resident provided photographs in evidence of this.
3. She felt “disrespected” and was “shocked” at how she had been treated by the landlord.
On 12 September 2019, the landlord responded to the resident and apologised that she was experiencing the above issues. It confirmed that it had raised the fact that holes had not been filled, and that evidence of rodent activity remained, and that its repairs team would carry out the work to address this by removing the necessary kitchen units, blocking all of the visible holes to prevent rodents entering the property, and arranging for all of their droppings to be removed.
On 17 September 2019, the resident emailed the landlord, stating the following:
1. She had heard nothing further from the landlord and was therefore referring her concerns to the local authority’s environmental health team.
2. It was the landlord’s responsibility to deal with the issue of rodents getting in through holes in the walls, as it was the landlord’s property.
3. The resident had lost trust in the landlord, and she wanted all of the ground-level kitchen units to be replaced, the holes in the garage to be blocked, and pest control to investigate. She also requested a new cooker due her existing cooker being infested.
On 18 September 2019, the landlord responded to the resident. It confirmed that it was looking to complete the work by 9 October 2019. The landlord had also instructed a pest control contractor to support in resolving the resident’s issues by carrying out pest control for the whole area.
On 19 September 2019, the landlord’s pest control contractor emailed the landlord following their visit to the resident’s property on 18 September 2019. They highlighted the following:
1. The pest proofing work carried out by the landlord was “not very good”, with holes still evident behind the fridge and cooker, by the gas boiler pipes, and around pipes in the resident’s toilet, as well as rodents present throughout the resident’s property, who also reported a rodent problem in all of the neighbouring properties.
2. They also found possible access points for the rodents into the building, via holes around the main electrical cable going into the building, a broken air vent, broken cladding tiles, and holes under concrete.
3. They confirmed that they could lay bait in the resident’s property, but if the issue affected the wider building, as suggested by the resident, then this baiting was not likely to address the problem and they would need to arrange entry to inspect and bait the neighbouring properties.
On 24 September 2019, the landlord’s records confirm that the local authority’s environmental health team had visited the resident’s property on the previous day. They confirmed that there was a “severe infestation” of rodents in the property. The environmental health team highlighted that “extensive” pest proofing needed to be carried out, and that a baiting programme would need to be undertaken immediately, and in connection with the proofing works to be effective, requesting that the landlord contact them about this as soon as possible.
The landlord recorded that its pest control contractor had first attended the resident’s property on 26 September 2019 to lay bait. It also highlighted that the work to fill the holes there “was not sufficient”, and that they would re-inspect these after the work had been completed.
On 9 October 2019, the landlord’s records confirm that it completed the work required by its pest control contractor to remove and re-fix the resident’s kitchen units and make good the above holes, as well that it carried out an environmental clean at her property.
The landlord recorded that, on 10 October 2019, the pest control contractor visited the resident’s property to complete their second inspection there, finding rodent activity in just one section of her kitchen.
The landlord’s records confirm that, on 4 November 2019, its pest control contractor visited the resident’s property for their third inspection there. They found “no activity on the bait”, although the resident had stated that mice were still being seen in the property. The contractor removed the bait and closed the job. They also highlighted that the resident had suggested that other properties were suffering with rodents, which they could not evidence on inspection.
On 6 November 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to highlight that rodents were still present at her property, and that they had not been eating the poison traps. She stated that she would therefore be sending it pictures showing this in a separate file.
On 7 November 2019, the landlord responded to the resident to confirm the above work that had been undertaken by its pest control contractor. It also highlighted that it had carried out the recommendations made from the local authority’s environmental health team, and that its contractor had confirmed that no other properties were affected, and therefore it was seeking further advice on how to proceed. The landlord requested the photographic evidence, as mentioned by the resident in her earlier email, to continue its investigation of this.
The above requested information was not received by the landlord from the resident, according to its subsequent correspondence with the local authority’s environmental health team on 12 December 2019. The landlord confirmed that, as a result, it had emailed the resident on 27 November 2019 requesting contact within ten days, or the stage one complaint about this would be closed. As no response was received by it from her to this, it closed the complaint.
On 21 May 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to advise the following:
1. There was still an issue with rodents in the property. She again reported that the work completed had “not been done up to standard”, as only two of the kitchen units there had been removed.
2. She acknowledged that she had missed an appointment for work in the kitchen, which she did not rebook as she was monitoring for rodent activity that was now being seen in her kitchen, living room, and bedrooms.
3. She also felt that she had been ignored when she had asked about her sofas, which had been damaged by rodents, as well as reporting that she had not been called to confirm that her stage one complaint had been closed.
On 19 June 2020, the resident referred the complaint to this Service for the first time, stating the following:
1. She had been affected “physically, emotionally and financially” as a result of the rodent infestation. The resident raised concerns over the health of her children, as well as about damage to her sofas and kitchen items.
2. She felt that the landlord should remove all of the lower kitchen cabinets, fix all of the holes in the property properly, and install new kitchen cabinets. The resident also suggested that it should provide her a rent-free period, as the work had not been completed properly, along with paying her for the cost of all of the items damaged by the rodents.
On 8 July 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint to confirm the following:
1. It had checked the communal areas of the resident’s block and found no rodent infestation there. Therefore, if the rodents were still present in her property, she would need to contact the pest control contractor herself and arrange for further treatment by them, as residents were responsible for pest control in individual properties and it only treated communal areas.
2. It had previously treated the resident’s property as a gesture of goodwill, and it had carried out all of the work recommended by its pest control contractor, and the local authority’s environmental health team following their visits there.
3. It had therefore closed the complaint as it was not deemed responsible for addressing the rodent activity. It also confirmed that it would look to re-attend the resident’s property, once pest control had been carried out there again, for it to complete any outstanding works there.
On 21 August 2020, this Service wrote to the landlord to request it complete its complaints procedure and respond to the resident within 15 working days.
On 28 August 2020, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. It had agreed to pay for pest control and baiting at the resident’s property, and had completed the repairs recommended by the pest control contractor and the local authority’s environmental health team on the above dates. No further evidence of rodent activity was seen by the final contractor’s visit on 4 November 2019, and therefore they closed the case.
2. It did not receive any further contact from the resident following its correspondence to her of 27 November 2011, for which it checked for updates from her with the local authority’s environmental health team on 12 December 2019 that had received none, and therefore the landlord closed the complaint.
3. Following receipt of the resident’s complaint in May 2020, it confirmed that there were no outstanding repair work orders following the review of its handling of her initial complaint.
4. Therefore, it was suggested that the resident seek her own pest control contractor, with it committing to carrying out any suggested repairs from them, as well as inviting her to contact it to book any outstanding repairs that she believed were still to be completed.
The resident then complained to this Service again that rodent infestation at the property was getting worse, as they were chewing through the pest proofing mesh there and making a mess, but that she could not afford a pest control contractor that she deemed the landlord to be responsible for instructing. She explained that this was due to its outstanding and poor quality repairs at the property, as well as because of hazards there.
This Service subsequently contacted the landlord in order to obtain the above information, and it also informed us that it had provided the resident with the above pest control contractor as a gesture of goodwill to apologise for her inconvenience arising from the low quality of its initial works at the property. It additionally told us that it had sought remedy this by increasing the amount of information that its operatives received onto their personal devices prior to and during appointments.
Moreover, the landlord confirmed that it was reviewing its approach to pest control to have a more proactive, joined-up approach to repairs prior to infestations with its pest control contractor and the local authority’s environmental health team. It also stated that, as it had not clearly explained its complaints process to the resident or provided her with an escalation route or closure confirmation for this, it had now introduced standardised complaint templates that clearly stated escalation routes, as well as confirmation that complaints had been closed and any subsequent options for residents.

Assessment

It is noted that the resident has raised concerns over her and her children’s health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her family’s health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court or insurer might. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused her.
The resident initially raised concerns over rodents in her property on 11 July 2019. It is recognised that, under the landlord’s responsive repairs policy above at paragraph 2, residents were responsible for such issues, unless they were in communal areas. It was therefore not obliged to take action for this at this stage, if she had sought only pest control from it, because it was only required to repair the property’s structure, including the walls and kitchen units, under the policy.
The resident further raised the rodent infestation issue with the landlord on 17 July 2019, also highlighting repair concerns over her kitchen walls and cabinets. It therefore inspected the property on 24 July 2019, within the seven-day target timescale in its complaints policy and procedure, as detailed in paragraph 3 above. The landlord agreed to fill in the holes that its inspection had found there, scheduled the work for 29 August 2019, and communicated this to the resident. This was fair, and in accordance with its responsive repairs policy.
Although the landlord did attend to carry out the above work, this was not completed to a good standard. During an email exchange with the resident from 9 to 12 September 2019, as detailed in paragraphs 9 to 12 above, it acknowledged that it had failed to complete these repairs fully, which it subsequently addressed with further pest proofing works on 9 October 2019.
The resident therefore waited for over 12 weeks from 17 July to 9 October 2019 for suitable repairs to be carried out to the property’s structure to seek to resolve the pest infestation there, which was inappropriate. Service failure has therefore been found on the part of the landlord for this delay, which added to the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble to the resident, and there is no evidence that it considered offering her financial compensation for this directly.
The landlord nevertheless also instructed and paid for a pest control contractor to support the resolution of the resident’s complaint about the rodent infestation at her property. This was a reasonable action to take by it, and evidences its desire to address her concerns about this. They visited the property three times on 26 September, 10 October and 4 November 2019, as detailed in paragraphs 17, 19 and 20 above, after which they found no activity on the bait that they had laid, and therefore closed the case.
The above findings were disputed by the resident, however, who reported that rodents remained in the property, and committed to sending evidence of this to the landlord. This was nevertheless not received by it, despite it attempting to contact her and the local authority’s environmental health team to obtain this on 27 November and 12 December 2019, respectively, as detailed in paragraph 23 above, and it therefore closed the complaint.
This was in accordance with the landlord’s complaints and policy procedure, as detailed in paragraph 4 above, which permitted it to close complaints if it had not heard from the resident after ten working days despite attempting to contact her. This was fair action for it to take, as it needed evidence to refer back to its pest control contractor, which she had failed to provide to it after stating that she would do so.
Some six months after the resident’s last email on 7 November 2019, she raised further concerns with the landlord on 21 May 2020 that the work that it had completed had again not been up to standard, and that she had been ignored when discussing the damage caused to her sofas and kitchen items from rodents. It then provided her with a summary of the complaint and of the above actions that it had undertaken in its final stage response to her on 28 August 2020, as per paragraph 28 above. However, the landlord failed to provide any information regarding the resident being able to submit a liability insurance or other claim for her above damages, and so service failure has also been found on the part of the landlord for it not addressing this aspect of the complaint.
In the resident’s initial referral of her complaint to this Service, as detailed in paragraph 25 above, a rent-free period and the reimbursement of her damages were requested in compensation for her complaint. It is not within the authority of this Service, however, to order or recommend changes to rent or the payment of damages because we do not have the legally-binding power necessary to do so in the way that a court or tribunal might. As per paragraph 32 above, we have therefore instead considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident.
In short, the landlord acted appropriately in arranging for pest control at the property, and in carrying out the required repair works there. Its pest control contractor closed the case due to a lack of evidence of rodent activity, and the resident failed to provide evidence when she disputed this. The actions taken by the landlord were generally reasonable and appropriate.
However, the landlord failed to carry out adequate repairs when it should have done, which added distress and inconvenience to the resident, and an additional five weeks’ delay to the completion of its remedial works for its initial pest proofing between 29 August and 9 October 2019. The omission of a fair and reasonable consideration of direct financial compensation to the resident for this was a service failure on its part. The landlord also did not address the resident’s concerns regarding her damaged sofas and kitchen items.
As per this Service’s remedies guidance, compensation awards of £50 to £250 may be used where service failure has been found which impacted the resident, but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered below to pay the resident direct financial compensation which is appropriate to this guidance, and to reflect its above failings.
The above compensation has been calculated, however, to take into account the fact that the landlord paid for its pest control contractor to attend the resident’s property on three occasions, as a goodwill gesture in recognition of its failures, for which she and not it was responsible for under its responsive repairs policy. It has also been ordered below to provide her with details on how to submit a liability insurance claim for her damaged belongings, and to re-inspect the property and carry out any outstanding pest proofing works there.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way it responded to the resident’s reports of rodents in her property.

Reasons

The landlord agreed to arrange repairs and pest control to address the resident’s concerns, and followed the advice of its pest control contractor and the local authority’s environmental health team. It did not receive evidence to the contrary, and so it closed the complaint about this in line with its complaints policy and procedure.
However, the landlord did not complete the above pest proofing repair work to an adequate standard, which resulted in further delays in resolving the matter. It also did not address the resident’s concerns over damage to her sofas and kitchen items or consider offering her direct financial compensation for its above failings.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident £100 compensation within four weeks, for the delays, distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by her as a result of its handling of her reports of rodents and of her formal complaint about this.
2. Contact the resident within four weeks to provide her with details on how to submit a liability insurance claim for her damaged belongings.
3. Re-inspect the resident’s property within four weeks and arrange to carry out any outstanding pest proofing repair work required to the property.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks of this determination to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.