Notting Hill Genesis (202113538)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113538

Notting Hill Genesis

9 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s:
  1. request for alternative accommodation;
  2. reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB);
  3. reports of cockroaches;
  4. concerns about balcony issues and parking;
  5. reports of various repair and maintenance issues;
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy began on 12 June 2019. The property is a two-bedroom flat on the third floor of a block (the block). The resident occupies the property with two other family members. She takes daily medication for Hyperthyroidism, which can affect her energy levels. She has depression, anxiety and difficulty sleeping.
The tenancy agreement contains a description of the property. The description says the property is located on the fourth floor. The landlord has acknowledged a record keeping error in relation to the property’s location. The description does not reference a balcony. The agreement confirms the property has no allocated parking area. It shows the rent is £125.09 a week.
The landlord’s transfers procedure confirms management transfers will be considered in “exceptional cases” where the safety and wellbeing of a resident is at risk. Where a transfer is not approved, the landlord should signpost the resident to alternative options. The landlord’s decant policy, effective August 2021, shows emergency decants are necessary when an event makes a property uninhabitable. This includes events such as major structural issues. The Ombudsman was unable to find a more relevant document online.
The landlord’s ASB procedure shows it should contact the reporting resident within one working day of receiving an ASB report. This is to establish key facts including what happened and the level of risk involved. In serious cases, residents will be strongly encouraged to contact the police. Where no serious risk is identified, the resident should be interviewed within five working days. All case actions and outcomes should be recorded on the landlord’s systems.
The landlord’s pest control procedure shows it is responsible for handling pest control issues involving cockroaches, pharaoh ants and rats. This applies to individual flats and communal areas. The procedure acknowledges these pests spread rapidly and carry potential health risks. When reported, the landlord will arrange an inspection followed by specialist pest control works. The landlord can issue warning letters, and ultimately take legal action where no access is provided for treatment works.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 working days. Reports of incidents including ASB and neighbour disputes will not be dealt with through the complaints process, unless the complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of a case.

Summary of events

The Ombudsman has seen an undated letter to the block’s resident’s about parking. It said parking was only permitted in allocated bays. Further, any residents without a bay should make their own arrangements. The letter contained the landlord’s previous logo. This indicates it may date from around 2018. The Ombudsman has also seen an undated parking plan. It shows the property has no allocated parking.
On 8 March 2021 the resident completed the landlord’s medical self-assessment form. The form shows the information provided would be used to support her transfer application. The resident said her thyroid condition caused multiple issues including: severe tiredness, depression, mood-swings and muscle aches/pains. She said the property was in constant disrepair and moving would benefit her health and wellbeing. Her main points were:
1. The block’s lift frequently broke down and it was difficult to use the stairs given the resident’s medical condition.
2. The resident was having difficulty sleeping due to “heightened emotions” and noise from other residents.
On 17 March 2021 the resident completed the landlord’s transfer application form. She said her current living conditions were affecting her depression. Further, an attached document would explain her rationale. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this document.
During internal correspondence on 12 April 2021 the landlord said the block’s lift “seemed to be breaking down every week”. It said it quotes should be obtained to modernise the lift. Further correspondence from 30 April 2021 shows the landlord was in the process of obtaining a lift survey.
On 21 April 2021 a specialist medical firm advised the landlord in connection with the resident’s transfer request. It said it noted the resident’s depression did not appear severe and she was not taking related medication. Further, the resident’s desire to move closer to her extended family was not a medical necessity. In addition, no information was noted in the resident’s medical history to prevent her from using the block’s stairs. It noted disrepair and maintenance issues were not primarily medical matters. Overall, the doctor said the property appeared suitable and no medical priority applied.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 May 2021. The subject heading was “Complaint anti-social behaviour” and a video was attached. The resident said she was concerned for her family’s safety based on another resident’s behaviour. Further, her video confirmed this individual was racially abusive. She also said someone was persistently ringing the property’s entry system, and an incident the day before occurred at 6am.
The Ombudsman has seen the attached footage. It appears to have been recorded from inside the property next to a window. It captured intimidating shouting and language apparently coming from the street below. The perpetrator was not seen in the footage and their comments were not fully audible. From the information seen, it was unclear that the footage could be used to evidence an ASB case without additional information. However, despite two separate information requests from the Ombudsman, the landlord was unable to provide relevant ASB case records relating to the resident’s report.
On 27 May 2021 a specialist contractor completed a lift survey. The survey report said the lift was in fair condition given it was around 14 years old. However, it was subject to some misuse and was expected to remain “troublesome” without significant investment. Nevertheless, the contractor had no significant concerns about the safety of the lift. The survey recommended replacing key components or a full replacement. The relevant costs were estimated at £72K and £105K respectively.
An accompanying callout history showed the contractor attended the lift 23 times between April and December 2020. Further, there were three callouts between January and April 2021. The contractor’s history said, on arrival, the lift was found to be working during two of the 2021 visits.
On 24 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. The subject heading was “Harassment/complaint”. She said there had been “non-stop” issues since the tenancy began. Her email was prompted by an altercation related to an ongoing parking dispute with another resident. She reported feeling harassed and suggested the neighbour was responsible for previous damage to her vehicle. She also said she thought a number of the block’s residents were racist. Her main points were:
1. The neighbour asked the resident to move her car several times. They subsequently followed the resident and accused her partner of damaging their vehicle. The resident’s car was previously “vandalised” on two occasions.
2. The landlord had failed to handle the resident’s ASB and harassment complaints correctly. Its previous letters to the block’s residents were inadequate. Living in the block was overwhelming and stressful.
On 30 June 2021 the landlord responded to a local councillor making enquires on the resident’s behalf. The Ombudsman has not seen the councillor’s correspondence. The landlord said it was aware the resident was “very unhappy” in the block. However, the resident had been advised she was adequately housed. The landlord said the parties had discussed mutual exchange as an alternative method of moving. The correspondence also addressed: cockroaches, the resident’s vehicle, ASB and disrepair. The key points were:
1. The landlord had treated individual properties for cockroaches. Its pest control contractor was scheduled to complete further works on 2 July 2021. The landlord was working to resolve matters swiftly.
2. There were no additional parking spaces within the block for residents of rented properties. Parking was available in nearby streets and the landlord was unable to offer any further assistance.
3. The landlord discussed the alleged ASB “at length” with the resident. The incidents reported were criminal matters, the resident was advised to contact the police. The resident was “very reluctant” to do this. The landlord did not dispute her account but it was unable to act on “hearsay” evidence. The resident was advised the landlord could investigate further if the incidents were reported or if there was some supporting evidence. The landlord had received no recent reports of noise nuisance.
4. The landlord was unsure what the resident meant by “disrepair”. The block was fairly new and, “despite its problems” was in fairly good condition. The fire alarm system, subject to regular maintenance, was working well. False alarm incidents were resolved by the onsite Fire Warden. The landlord was unaware of any issues with the third floor balcony but it would complete an inspection and raise and necessary repairs.
During internal correspondence the same day, the landlord said water from one of the block’s flats was leaking into a commercial unit. Repair history records suggest the property was unaffected by this leak.
The resident’s medical centre wrote to the landlord on 9 July 2021. It said the resident’s accommodation made her feel anxious and she was having difficulty sleeping. Further, the resident reported ASB problems along with mice and cockroaches. Whilst pest control were visiting frequently, the problem could not be resolved because the whole building needed treating. The letter was written to support the resident’s housing application.
The landlord contacted the block’s residents around 21 July 2021. Its correspondence said it had completed a course of treatment to eradicate cockroaches. However, if any residents were still seeing live cockroaches they should contact the landlord on a number provided. The landlord said it needed to target and treat any affected flats as soon as possible to prevent the problem from spreading.
On 27 July 2021 the landlord issued a stage one response. This was around 23 working days after the resident’s “Harassment/complaint” email. The landlord said it logged the resident’s complaint on 21 July 2021. The response addressed around eight separate complaint issues. The wording suggests the landlord enclosed copies of the tenancy agreement, the resident’s medical assessment and an ASB diary/incident sheet. The resident was offered a £100 goodwill gesture in relation to concerns around cockroaches. The main points were:
1. The landlord accepted the property had ongoing cockroach issues. Its pest control contractor had attended on multiple occasions. The resident had a direct number for the contractor as she could call as often as required. The contractor was due to attend the property again on 28 July 2021.
2. A nearby balcony was intended for communal use. The tenancy agreement did not reference a sole use balcony. Further, where applicable, such balconies were typically accessed directly from inside a property. Following a conversation with the resident, the landlord inspected the balcony with a surveyor. Remedial works were identified and the landlord notified the block’s residents. It also changed the locks to prevent access (until works were complete). This should prevent noisy gatherings on the balcony.
3. The landlord could confirm its records incorrectly listed the property as being located on the fourth floor. It was likely the resident was previously given incorrect information based on these records. The landlord was sorry for any inconvenience caused by its “clerical error”.
4. The landlord had discussed ASB issues with the resident several times. It previously explained it was unable to act without evidence of incidents. Videos the resident had provided were “alarming”, but a perpetrator could not be clearly identified. The resident should record any further incidents using the diary provided. Physical or verbal threats should be reported using 999.
5. Parking arrangements were also discussed previously. On the last occasion, the landlord made “extensive” enquiries. It confirmed none of its properties within the building were allocated a parking space. The tenancy agreement clearly stated there was no parking allocation. Though it would write to the block’s residents, the landlord was unable to enter further communication about the issue. The resident should not park in the block’s internal carpark.
6. The block’s lift was due to be upgraded and a consultation process was ongoing. The landlord was sorry for any inconvenience caused while it was inoperable. The landlord’s maintenance contractor attended repairs as quickly as possible. The landlord requested a medical opinion in respect of the resident’s rehousing request and a doctor advised she was suitably housed. The landlord was therefore unable to consider moving her to a lower floor. Any changes in the resident’s medical circumstances would prompt the landlord to reconsider.
7. The landlord was unaware of any flooding incidents involving the property. It needed more information from the resident before it could investigate fully. It was happy to arrange any necessary repairs. It was unable to trace the resident’s report relating to foul smelling air vents and it would raise a repair order accordingly. The resident could raise her own repairs using the landlord’s app.
8. The block was “clean and tidy” during most of the landlord’s visits. It was unaware of a urine smell in the corridors and a deep clean was recently conducted. Issues in the bin room were acknowledged and the area had been cleaned several times. Residents must take responsibility for communal areas and the landlord would raise the matter in an upcoming letter. The landlord regularly inspected the building. It was happy for the resident to attend an inspection.
9. The landlord was unable to recommend the resident for a management transfer. These transfers were only used in the most serious cases. For example, where there was a risk of harm or where a property was uninhabitable. Since the resident was “adequately housed” the landlord would not consider a decant.
On 12 August 2021 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said £100 did not cover the stress, inconvenience, damaged items or health issues related to the cockroaches. She also said the landlord should arrange to decant her family to a suitable property pending a management transfer to alternative accommodation. She also said the landlord should pay adequate compensation for all the issues she experienced. Her main points were:
1. The landlord’s pest control contractor attended the property 30 times already. It was unfair to expect the resident to keep calling the contractor on a weekly basis. The property was still “riddled with pests”. There was gel on the walls, the floor had been sprayed with chemicals and there were traps in several locations. These conditions were unsuitable for the resident’s family.
2. The resident could show a previous housing officer advised her the balcony was for sole use. Though they later denied this, the resident signed the tenancy agreement based on their information. Properties on the block’s fourth floor had sole use balconies. The resident should either be compensated for the misinformation or transferred to a property with a sole use balcony. The communal balcony was also unusable because the landlord’s recent repair failed. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s follow up reports.
3. Similarly, she was also told the property had free parking on a first-come first-served basis. The resident subsequently applied for a parking permit. However, permits cost £100 and she was unable to afford a second permit for her partner.
4. The landlord failed to take the resident’s ASB concerns seriously. She also felt it previously used a perpetrator’s mental health as an excuse not to act. The resident did not want to “live in fear” and her neighbour had also reported issues. The landlord should investigate her neighbour’s reports.
5. Despite her supporting medical information, the landlord failed to offer the resident compensation in respect of the lift failures. Other communal facilities were also in poor condition, so the landlord’s monitoring arrangements were inadequate. For example, the resident’s recent images of the bin room showed there were items everywhere and a light hanging down. The block’s condition was a health and safety issue.
6. The resident sent several emails about the air vents. Nevertheless, the smells were ongoing and no action had been taken. The landlord’s lack of records was concerning. The resident was incurring costs for air freshening products and the matter needed investigating.
On 9 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord video footage of the bin store. She said it was a “major” health and safety problem and a “massive fire hazard”. The footage appeared to show a hanging strip light and multiple overflowing items.
The parties exchanged emails between 15 and 20 August 2021. The exchange began when the resident submitted video footage showing banging occurring above the property. She said the banging was happening every night and its intensity was shaking the property’s glass light shades. The landlord asked which flat the noise was coming from, and whether the resident recorded the incidents in her diary sheet. The resident replied she was unsure but she had recorded the incident.
During internal correspondence on 23 August 2021, the landlord said its pest control contractor had visited the property 20 times. Further, the last visit was on 11 August 2021. A Word document was attached to the email. It indicates the first visit occurred on 24 December 2019.
The resident updated the landlord on 26 August 2021. Her email included a video of a cockroach moving through a cutlery drawer. The resident said she threw away her kettle because it was covered in cockroaches. She said she called pest control again that day and was emotional on the phone. Further, she had been prescribed sleeping medication because she was worried about the insects during the night. The Ombudsman has also seen undated images of dead cockroaches in the property’s kitchen. The images showed the kitchen cupboards and worktops.
The landlord updated the resident on 3 September 2021. This was around 16 working days after the resident’s escalation request. It said it hoped to respond to her complaint by 10 September 2021. The information seen suggests the parties were in contact during the interim period. The landlord: thanked the resident for bringing additional bin store issues to its attention, confirmed a bulk-clearance would be completed as soon as possible, acknowledged the resident’s recent pest reports and said she should notify its contractor.
On 12 September 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response. The response addressed the same complaint points raised at stage one. The landlord acknowledged the duration of the pest control issues. It also accepted the resident had experienced distress and inconvenience. It confirmed pest control works would continue until all pests were eradicated. The landlord increased its compensation award to £200 based on distress and inconvenience. The main points were:
1. The pest control issues were unpleasant. Treatment to the block was ongoing, but a small number of residents refused to provide access for works. This reluctance may be based on the requirement to leave a property for several hours after treatment. After several attempts to arrange the works, the outstanding properties received an initial treatment on 10 September 2021. A follow up visit was scheduled for 20 September 2021.
2. The response quoted wording which the landlord said was taken from a previous email to the resident. The Ombudsman has not seen the original email. The wording indicates the property was originally listed with a sole use balcony. It also indicates the landlord clarified the balcony was for communal use following an enquiry from the resident. The response said the difference of opinion was unfortunate but the balcony would remain communal.
3. The landlord was aware “there were some instances of ASB”. However, “one of the main culprits” had moved out of the block. The landlord was unaware of any recent incidents and its new local representative had not received any noise complaints since taking their post in February 2021. The resident should record any incidents and call the police if she felt threatened.
4. The landlord previously told the resident she had access to the underground carpark so she could park there. However, it also said she should leave a phone number so people could contact her if she parked in their space. The tenancy agreement confirmed the property did not have allocated parking. Since all parking spaces were pre-allocated, the resident was likely to cause upset if she parked in someone else’s space.
5. The landlord restated its stage one comments in relation to the lift. However, it was working with residents to address issues affecting other communal areas. If the resident was aware of any residents contributing to the condition of the communal areas she should bring this to the landlord’s attention.
6. The resident said the property was affected by a leak which the landlord failed to investigate. This was incorrect and the landlord was fully aware of the source of the leak. Having reviewed the property’s records, the landlord could confirm the resident first reported foul smelling air vents in 2019. However, the source of the smell had not been established.
7. The landlord understood the situation was difficult for the resident and her family. However, it was unable to meet her request for a decant followed by a management transfer. The pest control issues were affecting all the block’s residents and the landlord was working to resolve the matter.
On 16 December 2021 the pest control contractor updated the landlord. It said it would only treat the property every two weeks because the number of visits were excessive. It also said, “(the resident) has a spotless flat… she has called us out if she sees one cockroach or if she thinks she hasn’t had a visit for a long time”. The contractor also said an infestation was identified in another flat. It said it took time to access the flat, which had now received two treatments.
The landlord submitted its case evidence to the Ombudsman around December 2021. It included a summary of the landlord’s position on the complaint. The key points were:
1. The resident was previously parking on a first-come first-severed basis. She was eventually advised parking was for leaseholders only. She was given a site parking plan confirming this information.
2. The resident reported rowdy behaviour but she was unable to identify the perpetrators. The landlord had checked its CCTV and was unable to provide any supporting evidence. She also reported a fake parking notice on her car. She felt it related to another resident but she was reluctant to identify them.
3. Pest treatment within the block appeared to be working because the related volume of resident complaints was reducing.
4. The landlord had long term plans to replace the lift. However, cladding concerns at the block were the landlord’s priority until they were resolved. Recently, the number of reported breakdowns was “significantly reduced”.
5. The resident reported a leak on 29 July 2021. The landlord was unaware of any further leaks before or after this date.
6. The resident had reported cannabis smells from the property’s air vents. The smell was not apparent when the landlord’s representatives attended on 23 November 2021. The resident signposted them to the alleged source of the smell. However, there was no evidence of smoking in the area.
The resident updated the landlord by email on 4 May 2022. She enquired about the cause of a recent fire on the third floor. She said the situation was concerning given the block’s cladding. Further, she previously reported cannabis smells to the landlord. The resident said she was frightened to stay in the building. She also said the cockroach problem was ongoing.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 8 February 2023. She said the cockroach issue was ongoing and there were also problems with mice. Further, ASB was ongoing but the situation was “not too bad”. The resident said she still wanted to move and she was now on a waiting list. She attributed some problems with the landlord to its staff turnover rate, which she said made issues more difficult to resolve. She subsequently confirmed, though she was completing them around August 2021, she hadn’t sent the landlord her completed ASB diary sheets.
The Ombudsman asked the landlord for additional information two days later. We said it should provide its ASB records between January 2020 and June 2022. We explained we needed to establish whether it responded to the resident’s ASB reports in line with its relevant procedure. The landlord replied around two weeks later. It provided some brief guidance notes that broadly referred to its previous complaint correspondence.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident and her family. The timeline confirms her complaint involves issues that have been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Further, she has multiple concerns about the property and the landlord’s actions. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
This assessment is focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint. Though the resident’s references to mice were noted, no information was seen to show she raised this issue as part of her complaint. Similarly, issues that occurred after the landlord’s final response, such as the fire in April 2022, are beyond the scope of the assessment. The Ombudsman can consider these issues once they have exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints procedure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for alternative accommodation

Rehousing requests on health and welfare grounds are typically outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction based on Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) is usually better placed to consider complaints that fall within Part 6. However, management transfers are within the Ombudsman’s remit because they fall outside of these rules. The Ombudsman can also consider complaints concerning temporary decants. The above complaint is therefore within our remit.
The resident has said she still wants to move. It may help to explain that the Ombudsman cannot compel the landlord to move the resident. We can consider whether the landlord followed its relevant policies, and acted reasonably given the circumstances. The timeline shows the resident sought a management transfer in March 2021. It suggests she wanted the transfer for several reasons including disrepair, health and welfare issues. The landlord’s relevant policy shows management transfers can be considered in exceptional cases involving a risk to safety/welfare.
The timeline confirms the landlord ultimately referred the resident’s request to a specialist medical firm. This was a reasonable step given the circumstances. It also shows the landlord received a reply from a doctor, who advised the resident was suitably housed. When making its decision, the landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of a relevant qualified specialist. No information was seen to suggest any flaws in the landlord’s decision-making. Given the above, the Ombudsman cannot fairly say the landlord’s approach was inappropriate.
It was noted the landlord’s correspondence to the councillor, on 30 June 2021, indicates it subsequently signposted the resident to its mutual exchange process. This action was in line with the landlord’s policy. Mutual exchanges are typically considered a quicker method of sourcing alternative accommodation.
In relation to the resident’s subsequent request for an emergency decant, no information was seen to show the property was declared uninhabitable by a relevant qualified specialist. Nor was any information seen to suggest the required pest control works could not be safely completed while it was occupied. As a result, the information seen suggests the landlord’s decant policy did not apply in this case. In other words, there was no information to show the landlord should have reasonably decanted the resident.
Given the above, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. The landlord sought specialist advice in respect of the resident’s management transfer request. It was entitled to rely on the doctor’s opinion when making its decision. No information was seen to show the landlord should have reasonably decanted the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

The timeline shows the resident felt the landlord failed to:
1. handle her ASB concerns correctly
2. take them seriously
To comply with its ASB procedure, the landlord should have contacted the resident to complete an initial risk assessment by 13 May 2021. This was one working day after the resident reported concerns over her family’s safety. The procedure suggests the landlord should have subsequently signposted her to the police, and then recorded these actions on it ASB systems. Though the landlord later said it discussed the resident’s reports in detail, and on a number of occasions, it was unable to evidence any of these actions.
The above supports the resident’s assertion that the landlord failed to handle her ASB concerns correctly. It is reasonable to conclude that acting promptly, investigating within relevant timescales and making appropriate records, may have reassured the resident. In other words, the landlord should adhere to its ASB procedure if it wants to avoid similar complaints about its handling.
Given the above, the landlord’s informal ASB handling was both inappropriate and contrary to its procedure. Since the resident’s video footage was “alarming”, the landlord should be able to demonstrate that it promptly signposted the resident to the police. In general, it is reasonable to conclude any significant signposting delays may reduce the likelihood of successful police action. However, in this case, no evidence was seen to show a delay of this type occurred. Further, the information seen indicates there was insufficient evidence to allow the landlord to take any firm action against alleged perpetrator.
Nevertheless, the landlord should have recorded the reported incidents appropriately. This is because gathering evidence over time can lead to successful action at a later stage. In other words, the landlord should be capable of referring to accurate records of previous incidents in ongoing ASB cases.
Overall, the evidence suggests the landlord adopted an informal approach to the resident’s ASB reports. This was both contrary to its ASB procedure and inappropriate. The landlord was unable to demonstrate it complied with its relevant timescales, signposting, investigation or record keeping requirements. The resident subsequently said it failed to take her concerns seriously. It is reasonable to conclude this was distressing. Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cockroaches

It is accepted that cockroaches are unpleasant with potential health risks. The resident’s frustration is therefore understandable. The landlord’s pest control procedure shows it is responsible for handling cockroach infestations due to the associated risks. It also confirms the landlord can enforce its access rights in the event one of its residents fails to facilitate treatment works. In December 2021, the pest control contractor told the landlord the resident’s flat was “spotless”. This suggests the cockroaches were wholly unrelated to the resident’s actions.
The landlord has said the resident first reported cockroaches around December 2019. During her recent conversation with the Ombudsman, the resident said the problem was ongoing. It was noted she also reported cockroaches in May 2022. This points to an overall cockroach timeline of around 38 months at the time of this assessment. Little evidence was seen in relation to the beginning of this timeline. Nevertheless, given the landlord’s responsibilities, it represents an inappropriate timescale overall. Its duration suggests the landlord was not sufficiently resolution focussed.
The above timeline provides an insight into the landlord’s more recent approach to the cockroaches. It suggests block residents were given direct access to the landlord’s pest control contractor from around July 2021. This was a reasonable approach given the circumstances. From around September 2021, both the landlord and its contractor began to reference access issues as a barrier to resolving the cockroach problem. From the information seen, it was unclear whether the landlord used its available measures to promptly enforce its right of access.
The landlord ultimately accepted the situation was unfair to the resident. It awarded her a total of £200 in related compensation to recognise what went wrong. The evidence suggests the landlord was right to award the resident compensation given what happened. However, it also suggests based on the timing of this assessment, that the issue remains unresolved around 17 months later.
In relation to the failures identified 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The resident’s video footage and images suggest the cockroaches largely affected the property’s kitchen. Nevertheless, the information seen suggests hygiene was particularly important to the resident given her young family. This is evidenced by the number of callouts the contractor made to the property. It is reasonable to conclude arranging pest control visits was inconvenient for the resident. Further, that such a high number of visits should not have been required.
In August 2021 the resident told the landlord she became emotional during a phone call with the pest control contractor. The resident was also visibly upset during her video of the cutlery drawer. Around the same time, she told the landlord she was taking medication to help her sleep. This was on the basis worrying about the cockroaches was keeping her awake. The above suggests the landlord’s compensation was disproportionate given the duration of the problem and level of distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
Given the above, the Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. The Ombudsman’s calculation was based on the premise that one month is a reasonable timescale to resolve routine repairs. The identified delay period is therefore around 37 months. The Ombudsman calculated one percent of the resident’s total rent for this period. This figure was then multiplied four because the problem is currently in its fourth year. We then deducted the £200 the landlord previously awarded.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cockroaches. The landlord’s pest control procedure confirms it is responsible for handling cockroach infestations. The evidence suggests the problem has been ongoing for around 38 months in total. This suggests landlord’s approach was not sufficiently resolution focused. Its compensation award was disproportionate given the duration of the problem, and the level of distress and inconvenience the resident was caused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about balcony issues and parking

It is understood the resident feels the landlord gave her misleading information during the tenancy signup process. The landlord accepted she was likely given incorrect information due to a clerical error. This conclusion is supported by the property’s description in the tenancy agreement. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience the situation caused. It later said it promptly clarified that the balcony was for communal use. The resident has said it should either compensate her for the misinformation, or transfer the family to a property with a sole use balcony.
From the information seen, the landlord’s apology was sufficient to address the clerical error. For example, it is reasonable to conclude the resident likely noted the property’s correct location during her viewing. Similarly, it was likely apparent the nearby balcony could not be accessed directly from the property. At this stage, the resident could have rejected the property, or raised a formal complaint. The tenancy agreement details the facilities the landlord is obliged to provide. Ultimately, the resident agreed to the tenancy as set out in the tenancy agreement.
The tenancy agreement does not reference a balcony, so the landlord is not obliged to provide one. The agreement confirms the property has no allocated parking. Given the circumstances, the landlord’s apology was sufficient to put things right.

The landlord’s response to various repairs and maintenance issues

The landlord’s internal correspondence from April 2021 points to a significant number of lift breakdowns. In contrast, the contractor’s call out history suggests the frequency of call outs was decreasing in comparison to 2020. Regardless, by obtaining a survey of the lift, the landlord demonstrated an appropriate level of engagement given the overall number of breakdowns. The survey confirms the lift contractor recommended either refurbishing of replacing the lift. It shows both options would likely involve significant expenditure.
The survey’s wording shows the contractor had no significant safety concerns about the lift. Similarly, the contractor did not say the recommended works should be considered a priority. In its December 2021 update, the landlord told the Ombudsman it had long-term plans to replace the lift. However, it priority was resolving the block’s cladding issues. Ultimately, the landlord was entitled to make this decision and the evidence suggests the landlord’s decision making was based on a reasonable level of information.
It is accepted that frequent lift breakdowns are inconvenient. The resident has said she should be compensated for the lift failures. However, no information was seen to show the lift was left inoperable for any unreasonable periods. From the information seen, there was no evidence of a lift-related failure on the landlord’s part.
The Ombudsman has not seen a first-hand explanation of the resident’s leak concerns. As a result, our investigation was largely based on the information contained in the landlord’s complaint correspondence, and its subsequent explanation to the Ombudsman. Some of this information was contradictory. For example, the stage one response appeared to reference the incident on 30 June 2021. In contrast, the stage two response referenced a leak affecting the property. The landlord later told the Ombudsman the resident reported a leak on 29 July 2021.
In contrast, the property’s repair history does not support a leak on this date. It does show repair orders were raised to address water leaking through a light-fitting on 29 July 2020. This was around 11 months before the resident’s “Harassment/complaint” email. From the information seen, there was insufficient evidence to point to a failure in respect of either the July 2020 or the June 2021 leaks.
The landlord’s stage one response, dated 27 July 2021, acknowledged issues relating to the block’s bin store. It said the area had been cleaned several times. It also invited the resident to attend a block inspection. This suggests the landlord was appropriately engaged with the resident’s concerns. However, within weeks, the resident provided video footage suggesting the bin store issues were ongoing. No information was seen to show how the landlord subsequently responded. It was noted the resident did not raise the issue during her February 2023 update to the Ombudsman.
Nevertheless, she did say pest issues were ongoing at the block. It is reasonable to conclude there may be a correlation between the condition of the bin store and the presence of pests. Given the above, the landlord should take steps to ensure the block’s bin stores are kept clean and tidy. If the bin store cleanliness issues are ongoing, it may need to consider changing its current approach. For example, it could adopt more frequent inspections and refuse collections.
That said, from the information seen, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any evidence of failure on the landlord’s part. For example, no information was seen to show it failed to repair the strip light within a reasonable period. Nor was any seen show it allowed the bin store’s condition to deteriorate further following the resident’s August 2021 email.
In summary, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any failures in respect of the landlord’s response to various repair and maintenance issues. The information seen suggests the landlord engaged appropriately with the resident’s reports. For example, it arranged a lift survey and invited the resident to attend a block inspection. Similarly, the landlord acknowledged an issue with the bin store and said it completed additional cleaning in response. Given the above, there was no maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to failures in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, the resident’s 24 June 2021 email said the landlord failed to handle her ASB concerns correctly. It should have therefore been treated as a formal complaint in line with the landlord’s complaints process. Nevertheless, no information was seen to show a complaint was raised accordingly. In contrast, the landlord’s stage one response, dated 27 July 2021, said the landlord received the resident’s complaint on 21 July 2021.
This information supports the conclusion that the landlord unfairly overlooked the resident’s initial complaint. The timeline points to a resulting delay of around 13 working days. Following her email, a councillor intervened on the resident’s behalf. Approaching a councillor should not have been necessary to progress the resident’s concerns. It is reasonable to conclude involving a third party at this stage caused the resident unwarranted inconvenience.
The landlord’s complaint correspondence confirms it failed to identify, and therefore redress, the issues highlighted above. Landlords should routinely consider their own complaint handling to ensure any failures that occur during the complaint journey are addressed accordingly. It was also noted the landlord’s complaint correspondence could have signposted the resident to alternative methods of moving home.
Given the impact to the resident, the above identified delays and failures represent service failure on the landlord’s part. The Ombudsman will award proportionate compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cockroaches.
3. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for alternative accommodation.
5. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repair and maintenance issues.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress in response to the resident’s concerns about balcony issues and parking.

Reasons

The landlord sought specialist advice in respect of the resident’s management transfer request. It was entitled to rely on the doctor’s opinion when making its decision. No information was seen to show the landlord should have reasonably decanted the resident.
The landlord’s pest control procedure confirms it is responsible for handling cockroach infestations. The evidence suggests the problem has been ongoing for around 38 months in total. This suggests landlord’s approach was not sufficiently resolution focused. Its compensation award was disproportionate given the duration of the problem, and the level of distress and inconvenience the resident was caused.
The evidence suggests the landlord’s apology was sufficient to redress its clerical error. The tenancy agreement details the facilities the landlord is obliged to provide. It does not reference a balcony and it confirms the property has no allocated parking. Ultimately, the resident agreed to the tenancy as set out in the tenancy agreement.
The Ombudsman was unable to point to any failures in respect of the landlord’s response to various repair and maintenance issues. The information seen suggests the landlord engaged appropriately with the resident’s reports. For example, it arranged a lift survey and invited the resident to attend a block inspection.
The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s initial complaint. The timeline points to a resulting delay of around 13 working days. It also suggests the resident was prompted to contact a local councillor. This was unnecessary and caused additional inconvenience. The landlord did not identify, or redress, these delays and failures because it failed to consider its own complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1040.53 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £200 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s informal response to her ASB reports.
2. £540.53 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cockroaches.
3. £200 which the landlord awarded in its stage two response dated 12 September 2021. If it has already paid the resident, the landlord should deduct this figure from the Ombudsman’s total compensation award.
4. £100 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord to share the report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It should provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman within four weeks.
The landlord to write to the block’s residents with an update on the cockroach situation within four weeks. The letter should include: any current steps the landlord is taking to resolve the issue, an expected resolution timescale and an apology. The letter should signpost its readers to the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord should share a copy of its letter with the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The landlord to review the block’s bin-store inspection and refuse collection procedures. This is with a view to ensuring both inspections and collections are frequent enough to avoid cleanliness concerns. It is reasonable to conclude the condition of the bin-store may relate to the block’s pest issues.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions regarding the recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.