Newham Council (201908648)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201908648

Newham Council

11 January 2021


Our Approach

  1. 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.
  2. 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:
    1. response to the resident’s reports about a rodent infestation in the loft above her property;
    2. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The landlord has advised this service it is unable to retrieve a copy of the lease and so it is not evident when the lease term began.
  2. The property is a two-bedroom flat. It is not disputed that the loft space above the flat is part of the structure of the building owned by the landlord.
  3. The landlord has a separate maintenance team which deal with maintenance issues at the estate. The landlord also employs a pest control subcontractor to deal with pest control issues at the estate. Residents can contact the pest control subcontractor directly to arrange for it to inspect their property and carry out any treatments.
  4. For leasehold properties, the pest control subcontractor provides its attendance reports directly to residents and does not forward them to the landlord or its maintenance team.
  5. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes the landlord will respond to complaints within 20 working days.
  6. The landlord has advised this service it does not publish a compensation policy, repair policy, or pests policy.

Summary of events

  1. On or before 3 May 2019, the resident contacted the pest control subcontractor who attended on the same date. The pest control subcontractor’s report advised it had discovered evidence of rodents in the loft space above the resident’s property, with holes in the loft walls allowing the rodents to access other parts of the building. It also advised that “the whole of the insulation materials in the loft is infested with rat activities like tunnelling, nesting and huge amount of rat droppings.” It further advised that it was “recommending the whole of the insulation materials in the loft be replaced after blocking the holes and gap.” It also recommended this issue be escalated to the landlord’s maintenance team.
  2. Between 3 May 2019 and 12 December 2019, the pest control subcontractor attended the property to reassess the issue and reset traps on 12 occasions. Following each visit, the pest control subcontractor produced a report. On 10 May 2019, it advised “the whole block needs baiting for rats, as rats from neighbours goes through all the loft spaces in the block.” It also reiterated the need to remove the loft insulation, which it did again in its reports of 20 May 2019, 20 July 2019, 3 October 2019, 17 November 2019, 21 November 2019, and 5 December 2019. On 5 December 2019, it also advised that “it is imperative that a drainage survey is completed to ascertain any points if entry.” On 20 July 2019, it noted that “this client has been reporting rats for the past 2 years, and I have visited this property on many occasions, making proofing recommendations that have not been followed up.”
  3. The resident has advised this service she reported her concerns to her local MP and has provided this service with copies of correspondence from their office. On 21 June 2019, the MP advised the resident they had contacted the Chief Executive of the landlord on the resident’s behalf to inform it of her complaint regarding the rodent infestation. The MP contacted the resident again on 30 August 2019 noting it was their understanding that the pest control subcontractor had requested that the maintenance team arrange for the removal of the loft insulation. Following the resident’s advice that her property remained infested, the MP advised the resident on 11 September 2019 that they had made a further request to the landlord to address the situation.
  4. On or around 3 October 2019, the resident contacted this service regarding her complaint about the landlord’s response to her reports regarding the rodent infestation. This service subsequently contacted the landlord on 13 December 2019 to request it provide a formal response under its complaints policy.
  5. The landlord provided its stage one response on 24 December 2019. The landlord advised it had “checked our complaints records and can find no evidence of any recent complaint activity.” It also advised it had liaised with the pest control subcontractor and its maintenance team, who had advised it that “a full drainage survey needs to be undertaken by our [maintenance team]. “Also, the loft insulation needs to be removed and the area checked for ingress points. “This has been with [the maintenance team] for a number of months, and although a general inspection has been done, this action still needs to be concluded.” The landlord further advised that it had “checked the repairs history in relation to the infestation problem and can confirm that an appointment was raised back in August 2019 … to remove sections of loft insulation and fill holes going in to [the resident’s property]. However, records are showing that no one was in on the day in question. Therefore, a further job was raised in December 2019 … for the same repairs but indications are that no appointment date was scheduled at the time the repairs was raised and this remains outstanding.” The landlord further advised that an appointment would be made early in the new year and it apologised for its poor repairs handling.
  6. The landlord noted its ‘Housing Liaison Officer’ had met with the resident on 11 October 2019 and agreed to resolve various maintenance issues around the estate grounds to mitigate the cause of the infestation, i.e. clean the bin are. It also advised it had sent letters to all residents reminding them not to fly tip or use bird feeders.
  7. The landlord contacted the resident on 2 January 2020 and noted that it had in fact received correspondence from the resident’s local MP regarding her complaint, but that these had been logged under the resident’s previous name. It also advised that it had arranged for its maintenance team to inspect the loft area on 21 January 2020.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 January 2020 and advised that the infestation was still ongoing. She further provided the landlord with copies of the pest control subcontractor’s reports. The report of the same date noted that the resident had advised it that “repairs came down and blocked a hole. “The insulating materials should have to be removed to be able to see if more holes and gaps exist. The insulating materials is completely infested with rat urine and droppings. Repair work noted: To remove the insulating materials for inspection and proofing.”
  9. The landlord replied on the same date and advised that its maintenance team “have refused to do this and I am currently going back to [the pest control subcontractor] to see if they will undertake this work and possibly refer the costs back to the [landlord].” It also confirmed it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two.
  10. The landlord provided its stage two response on 14 April 2020. It advised that its maintenance team had completed a walkabout of the estate and identified areas to be cleaned which had now been completed. It also provided the resident with photographic evidence of the areas now cleared (the landlord has also provided this service with internal emails with its maintenance team documenting its works). The landlord also advised that it had “again approached our [maintenance team] about the issues relating to the loft insulation and unfortunately, the reply remains the same … that it’s not their responsibility to remove and change over the insulation. Likewise, I received the same reply from the [pest control subcontractor].” It further advised that its repair team was unable to carry out any further repair works due to the COVID-19 restrictions and that “if you still feel that any repairs are still outstanding, then these will have to be considered once the restrictions have been lifted.” It concluded that the resident’s complaint was therefore “partially upheld.”
  11. The resident replied on 15 April 2020 and expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. She also enquired who would be attending to the loft insulation works if the landlord’s maintenance team were unwilling to. It is not evident she has received a reply to this enquiry.
  12. In its response to this service on 30 July 2020, the landlord advised that it considered £50 compensation for its delayed response to the resident’s initial complaint to be appropriate. It is not evident that it has made this offer to the resident. Regarding the loft insulation removal works, the landlord advised that “this is currently being requested with our ‘Technical Services’ to see if this can be arranged.”

Assessment and findings

Rodent infestation

  1. The pest control subcontractor does not pass its reports directly to the landlord where the property is a leasehold property, and so it is not evident that landlord was made aware of the issue following the pest control contractor’s first visit on 3 May 2019. It is, however, evident that the landlord was made aware of the issue following the correspondence from the resident’s local MP in June 2019. While the landlord does not operate a repairs policy with published timeframes to complete repairs, the Ombudsman would expect reports of required repair works to be addressed within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord has provided this service with its repair logs, which note that a repair to “remove sections of loft insulation and fill holes going in to [the resident’s property]” was initially recorded on 23 August 2019. Given that this was 9 weeks following the date at which it was reasonably made aware of the reports, the Ombudsman considers this to be an unreasonable delay.
  2. It is important that a landlord has robust policies in place to record and arrange required repair and maintenance works. As noted by the landlord in its stage one response, it initially arranged for the works to be completed in August 2019, and following a failed visit, they were subsequently due to be rearranged for December 2019, but no booking had been made. It is not evident that either the initial booking, or the timeframe for rebooking was articulated to the resident at any point. This demonstrates a failure in the landlord’s repairs procedures which have caused an unreasonable delay to the resolution of the resident’s complaint.
  3. The Ombudsman would also expect that on receiving reports of required repair works, the landlord would carry out appropriate investigations to satisfy itself what work was required. It was appropriate that the landlord arranged for the resident to attend an estate walkabout to help identify any causes of the rodent infestation and for it to subsequently arrange for the identified cleaning works to be undertaken. It was also appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with photographic evidence that this had been completed, and that the landlord arranged for its maintenance team to cover some of the possible entry holes.
  4. It is evident, however, that following the landlord’s investigation as part of its stage one response, it had received advice from the pest control subcontractor that the loft insulation was required to be removed in order to fully assess what works were required to prevent the entry of rodents. It is further evident that, following the works carried out by its maintenance team in January 2020, the landlord was provided with a further report from the pest control subcontractor by the resident in her communication on 24 January 2020, which continued to recommend that the loft insulation be removed. While the landlord subsequently made enquiries with its maintenance team and the pest control subcontractor was to whether they could complete the works, the works remained uncomplete and without any arrangements by the time of its stage two response in April 2020.
  5. While it was reasonable for the landlord to advise its maintenance team would be unable to complete further repairs during COVID-19 restrictions, given that the maintenance team had already advised it could not complete the works, the landlord failed to advise what further steps it would take to investigate the issue and also failed to provide a time frame within which any further steps would be completed. While the landlord has advised this service that further investigations could be completed by its ‘Technical Services’ team, it is not evident that it has articulated this course of action to the resident. The landlord has also advised this service that it would need to investigate further as to whether it was responsible for the removal of the loft insulation and it is also not evident that it has articulated this to the resident.
  6. Given the above failures to investigate the resident’s reports within a reasonable timeframe, rebook the proposed works, or make satisfactory arrangements for further investigations, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was service failure by the landlord and an amount of compensation is appropriate. Given that the landlord does not operate a compensation policy, the Ombudsman considers an amount of £150 to be appropriate.

Complaints handling

  1. As with above, it is important that a landlord has robust policies in place to record complaints in order to provide an efficient service. The landlord noted in its stage one response that it did not have a record of any previous complaints from the resident, however, it later conceded that these had been logged under a previous name of the resident. Given that the reports sent via the resident’s local MP and the landlord’s repair logs note the address of the resident in addition to the name, this demonstrates a failure in the landlord’s procedures to correctly identify complaints and reports.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will respond to a complaint within 20 working days. Given that the landlord received the initial correspondence from the MP regarding the complaint in June 2019, but did not provide a formal response until December 2019, this represents a significant departure from its policy and has unreasonably delayed the investigation and resolution of the resident’s complaint. The landlord has advised this service that it acknowledges there was a delay and that it considers compensation of £50 to be appropriate, however, it is not evident whether it has made any offer of compensation to the resident. Having accepted its service failure regarding the delayed response, it would have been appropriate to have addressed the issue of compensation in its stage two response, which it did not do.
  3. Additionally, despite initially advising in its stage one response dated December 2019 that it had no records of previous complaints, the landlord noted that it had completed a walk around with the resident in October 2019 to address any issues that may be causing the rodent infestation, identifying various areas to be cleaned. It is not evident, therefore, why it did not have a record of any complaint given that it had already taken action to address it, further demonstrating a failure in the landlord’s complaints procedures.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy also notes that where a complaint is partially upheld, it will explain in its response what will be done to put it right. It was appropriate therefore that in its stage one response, the landlord advised it had arranged for an inspection by its maintenance team. However, in its stage two response, having advised the maintenance team and the pest control subcontractor were unable to remove the loft insulation, the landlord failed to advise what further steps it would take to investigate the issue, resulting in the resident being confused by the response and distressed that the issue would be left unresolved.
  5. Additionally, while it was appropriate that the landlord offered an apology in its stage one response, it did not make any apology in its stage two response, nor did it set out what steps it would take to prevent issues like this occurring again, as required by its complaints policy.
  6. Given that the landlord unreasonably delayed in giving its initial response, failed to correctly document the resident’s complaint, failed to address what further action it would take, and failed to offer a further apology, the Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its overall handling of this complaint and further considers an amount of compensation to be appropriate. As noted above, the landlord does not operate a compensation policy, and so the Ombudsman considers an amount of £100 is appropriate.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s reports about a rodent infestation in the loft above her property;
    2. complaints handling.

Reasons

Rodent infestation

  1. The landlord failed to investigate the resident’s reports within a reasonable timeframe, rebook the proposed works, or make satisfactory arrangements for further investigations, causing an unreasonable delay to the investigation and resolution of the issue, resulting in significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.

 

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord unreasonably delayed in giving its initial response, failed to correctly document the resident’s complaint, failed to address what further action it would take, failed to advise what preventative steps it would put in place, and failed to offer a further apology, causing significant distress, uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250, comprising:
    1. £150 for any distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of its failures in responding to the resident’s reports about a rodent infestation in the loft above her property;
    2. £100 for any distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of its failures in complaints handling.
  2. This replaces any previous offer made by the landlord.
  3. The landlord to write to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to set out its position on whether it is responsible for the removal of the loft insulation and to advise a timetable for any proposed works including any proposed inspections by a surveyor.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to take steps to ensure its complaints handling and repair booking procedures are effective.
  2. The landlord to take steps to ensure that its complaints handling staff are aware of the details of its complaints policy. This should also include consideration of this service’s guidance on remedies at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/aboutus/corporateinformation/policies/disputeresolution/guidance-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/ if this has not been done recently.