Newcastle City Council (202120870)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120870

Newcastle City Council

29 March 2023

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a pest infestation in her former property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident was a tenant of the landlord of a flat in a block until March 2021. She has vulnerabilities including mental ill-health that she reported to the landlord during her tenancy, but which it did not keep a record of.
3. From at least 23 April 2020, the resident reported the presence of bedbugs in her property to the landlord, which had been affecting various areas of the property, as well as her mental and physical health, furniture and belongings. It attended the property on eight occasions, on 14 and 28 May, 23 June, 7 and 27 July, 7 and 14 August and 14 September 2020, to complete pest infestation eradication treatment.
4. The resident reported on 2 October 2020 that she believed the pest infestation to be eradicated at the property. However, she also explained that she felt that she had to leave there because of the effect of the infestation on her mental health, subsequently moving out in March 2021.
5. The resident attempted to submit a stage one complaint on 28 April 2021, stating that it “took months” for the landlord to eradicate the pest infestation, during which her mental health “deteriorated”. She also disputed that it had received no other reports of bedbug infestations in her block, as she had spoken to other residents who had reported similar issues.
6. As a resolution, the resident requested to be compensated for the £200 cost of the removal of furnishings from the property into her new property, and the over £1,700 costs incurred as a result of having to buy new furniture and belongings. However, the landlord did not raise this as a formal complaint at the time, but it instead referred the matter to its insurance team, to which she submitted a claim that was declined by them on 8 December 2021, as they found that its handling of the pest infestation was appropriate so that it was not liable to pay her for this.
7. The resident subsequently informed this Service that she had not received a response to her attempt to submit a formal complaint to the landlord, and so we contacted it on 10 December 2021 to request a response to the complaint, which it accepted as a stage one complaint, and it responded to this on 5 January 2022. She then escalated the complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure on 28 April 2022, and it issued its final stage complaint response on 13 May 2022.
8. The landlord’s complaint responses stated that, as soon as it was made aware of a pest infestation, it provided prompt support to the resident and referred her to pest control. In addition, after reviewing its repair records for the block, it had found that no other properties had reported bedbugs there and therefore it did not have evidence to support this.
9. The landlord also stated that it had no evidence to suggest that it had advised the resident to dispose of any furniture, but that it had advised her that, for effective pest treatment, the furniture needed to be moved, as well as how to dispose of items safely. Therefore, it would not be providing her with compensation in relation to any disposed of furniture, stating that it had offered to refer her to its support team and a furniture service for this at the time, which she had declined due to the poor quality of the furniture they had previously given her.
10. The resident then complained to this Service that the landlord took an extended period of time to resolve the pest infestation, which ultimately led to her moving home and had affected other properties in the block, reportedly due to high temperatures there. She stated that she therefore considered it to be responsible for this, and also for the fact that she experienced ill-health and had to dispose of personal items and furniture due to the pest infestation, for which she sought compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. It is of concern that the resident reported to this Service and to the landlord how the pest infestation negatively impacted her mental and physical health, and damaged her furniture and belongings. We do not doubt her comments regarding the effect on her health, furniture and belongings, but this Service is unable to determine liability for damages for impacts on health and wellbeing or furniture and belongings, as we do not have the authority or expertise to do so. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident.

Policies and procedures

12. The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy states that it will work with pest control to arrange for the inspection and treatment of pests or infestations in its properties, and for the removal of waste after treatment and the reporting of repairs caused by pests. Its website advises its residents to contact pest control as soon as possible for treatment and post-treatment advice if they experience signs of bedbugs, for which pest control are to attend by appointment with the resident and in agreement with it.
13. The landlord’s complaints policy and this Service’s complaint handling code state that a stage one response should be provided within 10 working days, and a final stage response should be provided within 20 working days, with it only being able to extend these by a further 10 working days for a good reason with an explanation to the resident.

Pest infestation

14. In this case, the resident reported from at least 23 April 2020 that she had an infestation of bedbugs in the property, for which the first treatment was carried out by pest control within three weeks on 14 May 2020, by appointment with the resident and in agreement with the landlord. This continued for a total of eight visits, at least once a month, for a further four months, until 14 September 2020. Therefore, the evidence shows that the landlord acted promptly to begin treatment of the infestation via pest control and, as such, acted in accordance with its neighbourhood management policy and website.
15. The resident stated that it took “months” for the infestation to be treated and eradicated in the property. While this Service understands that pests can be distressing to live with and the effects this could have had on her, it was understandable that the pest infestation treatment took numerous attempts to resolve the problem completely, as these often require multiple visits to ensure that the infestation has been fully treated. It was also reasonable for the landlord to rely on the relevant qualifications, expertise and experience of pest control for them to find it necessary to take a total of eight visits over four months to completely eradicate the pest infestation at the resident’s property, in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary.
16. Therefore, failings on the landlord’s part in response to the resident’s pest infestation reports would not necessarily be identified as having occurred only on the basis of how long the treatment took or how many visits had occurred, if these had occurred reasonably. For example, multiple visits would have been required if a pest infestation was still found to have been present in the property by pest control following their earlier visits, which was shown by the evidence provided. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord failed in its obligations, as it continued to arrange for pest control to treat the pest infestation that was present in the property until this was eradicated.
17. This Service understands that the pest infestation would have been very distressing for the resident, and we are not questioning her decision to dispose of items which had been affected by the pests. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was responsible for causing the pest infestation, and the available evidence suggests that it took reasonable action to resolve the issue once it became aware of this, by arranging pest control treatment in her property.
18. The landlord also responded appropriately to the resident’s request for it to pay for any items that were disposed of and her moving costs to her new property as a result of the pest infestation. This is because it referred her to its insurance team to consider her claim for these, which was necessary to determine its liability to pay her damages for her furniture, belongings and moving costs, as it did not have the authority or expertise to do so itself in the way that a court or insurer might. The landlord additionally offered the resident assistance with these at the time by offering to refer her to its support team and a furniture service.
19. The resident also reported that she had contacted other neighbours to discuss her pest control issues, and that she was advised by them that they too had a pest infestation. In the absence of any evidence to this effect and the landlord’s repair records for her block showing that no other properties had reported bedbugs, however, this Service can only state that the evidence shows that no other residents had reported such pests to it. Therefore, it was reasonable for it to only arrange pest control treatment for the resident, and to inform her that it had received no other reports from the block of pests.

Complaint handling

20. The resident attempted to open a stage one complaint on 28 April 2021, but the landlord did not treat this as a complaint initially, and instead referred her to its insurance team, which meant that a stage one complaint response was not provided to her until 5 January 2022, following a request from this Service on 10 December 2021. It should have instead recognised that she was dissatisfied with the service that she had been provided with regard to the handling of the pest treatment and acknowledged and responded to her explicit statement that she wished to make a complaint about this at the time, without our involvement.
21. This was a failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, and not in line with its complaints policy’s obligation for it to reply to her stage one complaint within 10 working days, as well as to only extend this by a further 10 working days for a good reason with an explanation to her. However, while this response was delayed by a significant period of time of around seven months, there is no evidence that she chased it to respond to her complaint instead of waiting for its insurance team’s response to her claim on 8 December 2021 before contacting this Service on 10 December 2021. Therefore, this has been taken into consideration in the compensation award below.
22. The landlord also responded to the resident’s final stage complaint of 28 April 2022 within its complaints policy’s 20-working-day final stage response timescale on 13 May 2022, which was appropriate. It nevertheless did not keep a record of her vulnerabilities, including mental ill-health, that she reported to it during her tenancy. This was unreasonable, and so the landlord has been ordered below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to recording and retaining details of residents’ vulnerabilities, so that these are noted and kept in every case.
23. To remedy the unreasonably lengthy delay that required a request from this Service for a stage one complaint response to be issued, the landlord has been ordered below to pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the impact that its failings had on her. This compensation is in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests amounts from £100 for cases where there has been a service failure which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact. The landlord has also been ordered below to review its staff’s training needs with regard to their application of its complaints policy, and of our complaint handling code and remedies guidance, to seek to ensure that its failings in her case do not occur again in the future.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in her former property.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

26. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £150 compensation within four weeks, in light of its complaint handling failures in her case.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to recording and retaining details of residents’ vulnerabilities, so that these are noted and kept in every case.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to their application of its complaints policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/ and remedies guidance at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, to seek to ensure that its failings in her case do not occur again in the future.
27. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.