Newcastle City Council (202128122)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128122

Newcastle City Council

24 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 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 complaint about pests, damp, subsidence and noise in her former property.

Background and summary of events

The resident was a tenant of the landlord between 1 February 2021 and 13 February 2022. The resident no longer resides in the property. The landlord is a local authority and employs a housing management organisation to act on its behalf. For clarity, this report will refer to both the landlord and its management organisation as “the landlord”.
The landlord has advised that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, however, the resident has advised both the landlord and this Service that she and her son have autism spectrum disorder.
The evidence provided by the landlord shows that between 17 March 2021 and 19 January 2022, the resident had reported pests, including carpet beetles, plaster beetles, woodlice and rats on multiple occasions. It shows that the landlord attended the property approximately 21 times. It carried out treatments for beetles three times on 17 March 2021, 9 April 2021 and 12 July 2021 and attended 16 times in relation to the resident’s reports of rats in her garden to place poison boxes or rebait the boxes. On several occasions, no bait was reported to have been taken. It also gave the resident advice regarding her reports of woodlice, mites and wasps during this period.
The records provided by the landlord show that an appointment was raised for 12 October 2021 to survey the property for damp and raise follow-on works.
The resident has advised that she initially raised a complaint with the landlord via a phone call on 16 November 2021 regarding the presence of various pests within her property and noise disruption from sirens and travellers in a nearby field. She advised that she raised a second complaint over the phone on 1 December 2021 related to the lack of response to her previous complaint and her request for additional glazing in the property, which she had not received a response to.
The landlord has advised that a further repair appointment was carried out on 13 December 2021 for “damp proof repairs”. On 23 December 2021, the resident reported that she believed her house was suffering from subsidence. She added that there were a lot of cracks, the floors were uneven and that she needed to strap furniture to the walls to prevent items from moving. The landlord’s internal records suggest an appointment was carried out on the same day. The landlord has advised that repairs to the external concrete paths, which were cracked, were carried out on 13 January 2022. The record provided by the landlord suggests that no damp issues were found.
The resident gave notice to terminate her tenancy on 19 January 2022.
On 21 January 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint in writing and explained the following:
1. She was dissatisfied that she had not had a response in writing to her two former complaints and wanted to escalate these.
2. She had identified an infestation of bugs, including carpet and plaster beetles, two months into the tenancy. Pest control had attended on several occasions. Her mother had bought carpets for her when she moved in to help her and her son settle; these cost £1380. The carpets were now damaged due to beetles, and she would not take these with her when she moved out. She advised that she would not have accepted the tenancy had she known of the infestation and that she had not been able to ask questions about the property once she had signed the agreement as the member of staff had given her an incorrect phone number.
3. She said that she had also reported woodlice and was advised by an operative that there was nothing they could do as pesticide would not kill woodlice. They noted that woodlice indicated damp in the property. Following this, an appointment was arranged to check for damp and mould, however the operative did not enter the property to carry out an inspection. She was then informed that the wrong operative was sent; another operative attended and completed a damp survey, but she had not had the results of this.
4. She said that she had asked for the landlord to fit secondary glazing to the windows in the property due to noise transference from the main road outside. She advised that the windows were measured on 11 August 2021, but she had heard nothing further until December 2021, when she was informed that the windows were already double-glazed. She expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication regarding this matter and that when she called, no one seemed to have a record of visits made to the property. She also noted that she had moved from her previous property due to noise and felt that the landlord should have known of the noise issues she would experience from a nearby cricket club and unauthorised traveller site before offering her the tenancy alongside her medical assessment.
5. She had raised concerns about subsidence on 24 December 2021. A surveyor had attended and taken photos. She advised that she had furniture strapped to the walls to stop them falling over due to sloping floors. The surveyor advised that they would write a report, however, the resident then contacted the landlord on 11 January 2022 and was informed that the surveyor had said there was no access to the property which was not the case. She expressed concern that there were no records and that there had been an inspection but no follow-up outcome. She advised that cracks in the walls of the property had widened and was concerned about her family’s safety.
6. She said that she felt staff members had been rude and dismissive of her concerns. On one occasion she was told “you accepted the property”, which she felt implied that the difficulties she was facing were her own fault. She had also been promised responses through email, which did not happen on a number of occasions. She noted the impact the issues were having on her and her son’s health and medical conditions.
7. The resident wanted secondary glazing in the property, the result of the damp survey and report regarding subsidence and her concerns related to the landlord’s conduct to be addressed. She also wanted to be compensated for the cost of her damaged carpets, the distress experienced and assistance with the cost of moving. She asked the landlord to pay her £3400. She understood that this was the amount that would be offered under a home loss payment. She acknowledged that she did not qualify for this payment, but believed she should be compensated as she felt she needed to move from the property due to the landlord providing a property which was not suitable for her needs.
The landlord’s records suggest that a technical surveyor visited the property on 28 January 2022. However, the Ombudsman has not been provided with the details of this visit.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 9 February 2022 and advised the following:
1. It explained that it needed to remove non-standard items from the property prior to the resident’s tenancy. This involved bathroom fittings and non-standard decorations. There was no evidence that it had needed to treat the property for pests prior to the resident’s tenancy beginning.
2. It explained that it would not provide additional glazing in the property as the property had double glazing. It apologised if the resident was led to believe that this was the case.
3. It advised that it did not have any records of inspections for damp or subsidence. It confirmed that a further survey had taken place. It accepted that it had not responded to the resident and that she was not updated following the previous surveys.
4. It explained that it did not record telephone conversations and was not able to review the conversations she had with its staff. It had spoken to the staff members involved who did not believe that they were rude or dismissive.
5. It noted that the resident’s medical assessment completed prior to her tenancy advised that the resident would benefit from a semi-detached or detached property rather than a communal block due to her previous experiences with noise nuisance. It confirmed that the property had met the criteria. It acknowledged that the unauthorised traveller site would cause some concern and advised that it had not previously been made aware of noise from a cricket club.
6. It apologised for its communication failures, including its failure to keep the resident up to date and lack of clear responses to her previous complaints in November and December 2021. It confirmed that it had made recommendations to improve communication and record keeping internally.
7. It said that it could not agree to a home loss payment as the resident did not qualify for this. It also did not agree to compensate the resident for her carpets as there had been no evidence of an infestation during the period prior to the resident’s tenancy beginning. It said that the resident could raise a claim through its liability insurance if she believed that it was at fault and provided the relevant details.
8. It offered £500 compensation in recognition of the mistakes it made in dealing with the resident’s situation and said that this was towards her moving expenses.
The resident’s tenancy at the property ended on 13 February 2022.
The resident escalated her complaint via letter on 16 February 2022 which was received and acknowledged by the landlord on 7 March 2022. She explained that she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered. She felt that this was insufficient in relation to the landlord’s handling of pests within her property and the lack of communication or update provided following surveys carried out for damp, secondary glazing and subsidence. She advised that she wanted to be compensated the equivalent of a home loss payment (£3400) due to her needing to leave the property because of the issues, or for £2000 to cover the cost of her carpets, removals and connection of her washing machine and cooker at her new property.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 18 March 2022 and advised the following:
1. It confirmed that it had no records of pest treatments being carried out at the property prior to the resident’s tenancy and it had received no further reports of pest issues since the tenancy ended. It did not uphold the resident’s request for compensation for her carpet as it believed that the resident was able to take this with her when she ended the tenancy and her insurance claim had been declined.
2. It accepted that there had been a delay in its service in response to the resident’s concerns regarding damp and subsidence. It acknowledged that the time and trouble spent by the resident in seeking to resolve her complaint was more than it would reasonably expect and apologised for the impact this had on the resident.
3. It said that it could not agree to a home loss payment as the resident did not qualify for this. It did not agree to the resident’s request for £2000 and confirmed that it offered compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
4. It apologised for the avoidable inconvenience and distress caused to the resident and increased its compensation offer to £700.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service in March 2022 as she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord as it was less than the costs she had incurred by moving from the property. She felt that the landlord had blamed her for the pests and disputed that there were no pest issues before her tenancy began. She wanted the landlord to offer a minimum of £2000 to cover the cost of her carpets, removal costs and the reconnection of her washing machine and electric oven in her new property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As part of her communication with the landlord and this Service, the resident has advised that the issues she experienced within the property impacted her and her son’s mental health conditions and wellbeing. It is not within the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property. This would include internal walls, floors and plasterwork but not internal painting and decoration.
The landlord’s repairs policy includes expected completion timescales for different types of repairs. It confirms that emergency repairs should be attended to within four hours. Urgent repairs should be completed within one, three or seven working days depending on urgency. Routine repairs should be completed within 15 working days and planned maintenance should be completed within 40 working days.
The landlord has confirmed that pest control falls under the responsibility of the local authority and is provided at no cost to the landlord’s tenants. The guidance states that the pest control service treats a variety of common pests including mice, rats and a range of insects. They do not treat things likes slugs, spiders and woodlice as these creatures are normally a sign of another problem such as damp.
Under section 29 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, the landlord shall make a home loss payment where a resident has been a legal tenant who has been required to move by the landlord as a direct consequence of its plans to improve or redevelop a property. A home loss or disturbance payment only applies where a resident is required to move from their home permanently under these circumstances.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaint process. At stage one, the landlord should issue a response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about pests, damp, subsidence and noise in her former property.

In this case, the resident remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord in respect of the costs associated with moving from the property and has also disputed that there had been no pest issues within the property prior to her tenancy beginning. Within its complaint responses, the landlord has not disputed that there were multiple communication failures, including that it had not provided the resident with the correct staff contact number at the start of her tenancy, had not managed her expectations regarding her request for secondary glazing following her reports of noise transference, had not provided clear responses to her initial complaints made in November and December 2020, and failed to keep her updated following several inspections in response to her reports of damp and subsidence. It also noted that it was not able to find records of these inspections, which meant that visits needed to be repeated.
It is not disputed that the resident’s property was subject to a number of pest-related treatments, including for rats, carpet beetles and plaster beetles, between 17 March 2021 and 17 January 2022. The landlord advised within its complaint responses that it had not carried out any pest related treatments prior to the resident’s tenancy commencing on 1 February 2021. The landlord has provided the void report for the property which details works carried out prior to the tenancy beginning. The report shows that extensive work to various rooms took place, including: removing and renewing flooring and floorboards, refitting skirting boards, removing existing wallpaper and priming walls for paint, plastering and renewing elements of the bathroom. There is no evidence to suggest that pest treatments were needed at this time or that the works were the result of a pest infestation.
The landlord has also advised that it had received no reports of pests either prior to the resident’s tenancy beginning or after it had ended. It has provided repair records for the property detailing repairs from 12 March 2020 to 23 January 2023. These records do not show any pest related repairs from before or after the resident’s tenancy. A landlord would rely on its residents to report issues such as pests so that treatment could be carried out. While the lack of reports from other tenants would not confirm that the property was entirely pest-free prior to the resident’s tenancy commencing, the evidence provided shows that the landlord had not identified or been made aware of pests within the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on such evidence when responding to the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman has seen no other evidence to suggest that the property suffered from a pest infestation at an earlier stage.
Given the resident’s request for compensation for her damaged carpet and her belief that the landlord was liable for this, it would have also been appropriate for the landlord to have considered whether her reports of pests had been handled within a reasonable timeframe, whether reasonable steps were taken to re-inspect the property following treatment and its overall position as to whether actions taken had been in line with policy and procedure, or successful. The landlord failed to confirm its position within its complaint responses to the resident. It is noted that the resident had not raised any specific concerns related to the landlord’s handling of her reports or carpet beetles or rats, and the landlord’s failure to consider this may not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint. However, it would have been appropriate in order to respond to the complaint more fully and demonstrate how it had acted appropriately in response to the resident’s concerns.
It was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to its public liability insurers in order to make a claim for her damaged carpet. A landlord would not be obligated to consider claims for damages under its complaints process as matters involving liability are best suited for insurers or court. It is noted that the resident has advised that her insurance claim was declined. The Ombudsman is unable to determine if a landlord is liable for damage or loss of possessions such as carpets. This is because liability is determined through insurers or the courts. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurers.
Within its complaint responses, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised that it failed to update the resident in relation to her reports of damp and several inspections. It noted that it did not get back to the resident at all and information was not passed on about the surveys completed, which led to a delay in service. It also advised that it was not able to find any records for inspections for damp or subsidence which meant that further appointments were required and indicated poor record keeping.
As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide information relevant to the resident’s complaint, including contact notes and inspection reports. Only limited information was received which did not include comprehensive repair logs, detailing the outcome of each visit to the property, or communication logs, detailing communication from both parties. In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
Following a request for additional information, the landlord advised on 16 March 2023 that it was unable to retrieve calls that were more than six months old as this is the maximum time period for storage. While it is reasonable that the landlord was unable to provide a call “log”, it is best practice for landlord’s to have processes in place to log communication received from residents both via email and over the phone. This is usually in the form of call notes, which detail when contact was made, what was said by both parties and what the agreed expectations were following the call. Moreover, this information was initially requested in August 2022 and should have been available on first request from this Service. The landlord has not provided comprehensive evidence of the resident’s reports of repair or pest issues. There is no evidence to suggest that it retains these types of records, which indicates that the landlord’s processes concerning record keeping and the provision of repairs are not operating effectively.
In its communication with this Service, the landlord has advised that its responses to the resident’s reports of damp and subsidence were timely. It has advised that no evidence of damp was found, but that the bathroom was subject to condensation as the resident was not using the extractor fan provided due to the impact on her son’s mental health condition. It further added that when a manager called the resident on 4 October 2021 to arrange a visit to discuss and assess any repairs needed, she refused entry and said she did not want any repairs carried out as she wanted to move.
The landlord has not provided the evidence it had relied upon when making these claims. In the absence of such information, the Ombudsman is unable to establish whether the landlord acted within a timely manner in response to the resident’s concerns. Despite this, within its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged significant failings – that its communication with the resident was poor, that it had failed to keep her up to date on a number of occasions and this led to a delay in service. The evidence suggests that the resident spent significant time and trouble pursuing her concerns and the landlord acted appropriately by offering compensation to the resident in view of the impact this may have caused.
The resident advised that she originally made complaints on 16 November and 1 December 2021. The Ombudsman has not seen copies of these complaints, however, it is not disputed by the landlord that complaints were initially made on these dates. The resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing her complaint on 21 January 2022 as she had not had an adequate response. The evidence suggests that the resident had received verbal responses at the time, although no record of the outcome has been provided to this Service for review. This failure led to the landlord issuing a stage one complaint response on 9 February 2022, approximately 58 working days since the complaint was initially raised and outside of its published timescales, which was likely to have caused inconvenience.
The landlord has acted appropriately within its complaint responses by acknowledging its failure to provide a clear response to the resident’s initial complaints and the time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing a resolution. It upheld this aspect of the complaint and offered compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused which was appropriate in the circumstances.
The resident also requested to be compensated for costs associated with moving as she felt she needed to move from the property due to it not being suitable for her. While it is understandable that the resident felt that she needed to move from the property due to the issues she experienced, there is no evidence to suggest that she was required to move or was permanently displaced by the landlord. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to confirm that the resident did not qualify for a home loss payment as this would only apply where a tenant has been required to move by a landlord, and only under certain circumstances.
There were significant failures by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and subsidence, its communication and its record keeping. These failures warranted financial compensation to the resident given the significant impact on her. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord would be obligated to compensate or reimburse the resident for her removal costs or costs associated with connecting her washing machine and cooker in her new property given her decision to relocate and end her tenancy. There is no other evidence in the form of an occupational health report or medical assessment to suggest that the property was otherwise unsuitable for the resident’s needs or that the resident was required to move.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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 was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Overall, the landlord’s offer of £700 compensation is appropriate in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The guidance states that amounts in this range are considered proportionate in instances of maladministration where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. In the circumstances, the landlord’s offer of £700 compensation has reasonably taken into account the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings in this case as detailed above.
However, while the landlord has offered sufficient compensation to put things right for the resident, it has not demonstrated that it had taken sufficient learning from the complaint and any identified failures. The landlord would have been expected to have conducted a thorough review of its handling of the case given the impact on the resident and the potential for its failings to be repeated. The commitments it made within its complaint responses, to improve record keeping and communication, were not sufficient and did not demonstrate that it had understood the severity of its failings or taken specific steps to prevent similar failings in the future. This meant that the landlord did not offer sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.
As such, the landlord is ordered to carry out a management review of the resident’s case in order to identify points of learning and steps it would take to prevent such circumstances reoccurring in the future, specifically in relation to its record keeping and communication.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint about pests, damp, subsidence and noise in her former property.

Reasons

The landlord has offered a proportionate level of compensation to the resident, in recognition of the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of its poor communication and record keeping. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it has taken satisfactory points of learning from the complaint or put adequate measures in place to prevent repeated communication and record keeping failures in the future.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident £700 as previously offered if it has not already done so.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should create an action plan to demonstrate how it will improve its communication and record keeping practices in future and put measures in place to ensure it keeps detailed communication and repair logs. These should show when contact was made, what was said, what the agreed expectations were, the outcome of each repair appointment and an accurate record of inspections.
The landlord should respond to this Service within the timescales set out above to demonstrate compliance with these orders.