Orbit Group Limited (202105165)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105165

Orbit Group Limited

28 February 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 a rat infestation;
2. Complaint handling;
3. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident and his wife are assured shorthold tenants. Their five year fixed term tenancy began in October 2018. They occupy the property with their children. The property is a four bedroom house with a modular bathroom pod. The resident has a number of vulnerabilities relating to his physical health. They include Multiple sclerosis and Arthritis. The resident uses a wheelchair. The information seen indicates some of the children are also vulnerable.
The tenancy agreement shows the landlord is obliged to repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes drains, gutters and external pipes. The resident is responsible for completing minor repairs and decoration. The agreement shows the resident’s weekly rent is £131.85. The landlord’s repairs policy shows it will respond to routine repairs within 28 days. It does not give a timescale for completing major works.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Pests, such as rats, are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS because they can spread infection. Landlords are expected to effect repairs to minimise the ways pests can access a building.
Local authorities have powers to act under HHSRS, but enforcement is seen as a last resort. Typically, landlords and local authorities work together, and a programme of improvement works is usually the starting point. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. Its relevant complaints policy, effective February 2021, shows it aims to acknowledge all complaints within three working days. It aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at both stages.

Summary of events

Around September 2018 the landlord completed void works to the property. Its related internal correspondence described the property as a “specialist void”. This was due to a rat infestation. The landlord’s void paperwork said a pest control specialist should eradicate the rats. The property’s repair history shows a number of repair orders raised at this time referenced “a major” rat infestation. From the landlord’s records, the Ombudsman was unable to establish how the landlord responded to the infestation at this point.
For example, in contrast to later repair records, no information seen to show any of the corresponding repair orders were directed to pest control specialists. Nor was any seen to show what treatment works were undertaken, or that the property had been cleared by a pest control specialist. Nevertheless, the property’s repair, request and task logs show there were no reports of rat activity until the events described below.
The following events occurred between April and May 2019:
1. On 5 April 2019 landlord completed a CCTV drain survey. Its repair records show recommendations arose from this survey. The Ombudsman was unable to confirm the nature of these recommendations. However, the repair records suggest the landlord completed the recommended drainage works.
2. Repair records from 1 May 2019 said the resident and a neighbour were suffering from a rat infestation. The notes said the infestation was linked to recent drain issues. Further, rodents had entered the property through a cupboard in the living room. The notes said remedial works were underway but follow up repairs were needed.
On 5 July 2019 a works order was raised to install a one-way valve to the property’s soil pipe. The notes said the works were urgently needed following a site meeting with Environmental Health (EH). The repair order was never marked complete. A further order was raised on 22 July 2019. It said the resident “seemed to think” rats were entering the property through the soil pipe. The repair order was marked completed within days.
On 19 September 2019 a “major repair” order was raised. It shows the property was still suffering from drainage issues and extensive repairs were needed. It detailed multiple specific repairs including full anti-rodent treatment and “appropriate non-return valves”. The order was marked complete on 25 September 2019. No information was seen to show the resident reported any further rat activity until the following year.
In its subsequent complaint correspondence, the landlord said the resident reported rats had returned on 16 January 2020. This was around 16 weeks after the major repairs were completed. The landlord also said its local manager was tasked to investigate. However, the matter “was not looked into further.” The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the resident’s report. The below events show the landlord did not begin to respond until around 12 months later. No information was seen to show the resident made any additional reports during the interim period.
The next relevant repair order was dated 22 January 2021. It said the resident could hear rats under the bathroom floor. It also said a non-return valve was instructed in 2019, so entry points through the base of the pod should be sealed.
On 3 March 2021 a works order was raised for a pest control contractor. It said the contractor would attend five of the landlord’s local properties over a six-week period. It also said the contractor should establish the rodent entry points. It shows CCTV drainage surveys were authorised.
On 6 April 2021 an order was raised to undertake disinfection works at the property. Two-days later, the landlord acknowledged an email from the resident’s local councillor. It said the resident’s concerns would be passed to the correct department for a response. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the councillor’s email. The information seen suggests the resident and his family were decanted to a hotel the same day.
On 6 May 2021 the pest control contractor said a non-return valve should be fitted at the property. This suggests the landlord failed to comply with the 2019 EH recommendations. The inspection report said rodent noise was reported in the property’s bathroom walls and eight bait blocks were fully consumed. It shows some of the landlord’s other homes had incorrectly positioned non-return valves.
An email on 17 May 2021 shows the landlord held an “action plan” meeting with representatives from EH. It suggests the landlord asked the property’s water provider to amend the local drainage system. Further, the resident was advised to dispose of items in the property’s cupboard and provide a list of damaged items for compensation. The email also shows the bathroom pod would be dismantled to establish the entry point. Further, the works were scheduled for 1 June 2021 and the resident’s decant needed extending.
The landlord’s correspondence shows the following events occurred between 2 and 22 June 2021:
1. The landlord told the resident bathroom works were postponed until 17 June 2021 because its contractor was delayed on another job. The resident replied the landlord failed to meet an agreed deadline. He also said the landlord’s comments were misleading because the contractor had already finished its previous job.
2. The contractor was involved in a verbal altercation with the resident. The information seen indicates a disagreement arose because the contractor was left waiting outside the property for a short period. Further, the contractor left the site after the altercation but returned by the following morning. The landlord’s related internal correspondence confirms it delayed issuing an appointment time to the resident and installing a key press. This suggests the landlord was likely responsible for any misunderstanding.
3. EH’s representative expressed frustration with the landlord’s progress. They said the decant had already lasted ten weeks and the resident’s family were upset. Further, the infestation had been ongoing for six months and the landlord was taking up an “inordinate” amount of their working time.
4. The pest control contractor told the landlord it had been unable to access the property several times because the resident failed to attend scheduled appointments.
During a call to the Ombudsman on 25 June 2021, the resident said he was unable to access his belongings in the property. He said the landlord had changed the locks and it felt like he had been evicted. The call notes suggest he had spoken to the police.
On 28 June 2021 the landlord updated EH. It said the bathroom pod had been removed to its steel structure and the entry point was a flexible WC pan connector. However, solid pipework and a non-return valve were now installed. Further, breeze blocks under the pod were repaired and holes around pipework in the pod and in the cupboard were filled. Gnawed wooden flooring was also replaced. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows it approved the repairs two days later. It confirms the approval was based on a video provided by the contractor.
On 2 July 2021 the landlord issued a stage one response. This was around twelve weeks after the resident raised concerns through his councillor. Its wording suggests the landlord clarified the complaint details during a call with the resident earlier that day. The landlord denied the property had an active pest control problem when the family moved in. It said there was no evidence to substantiate the resident’s claim. The main points were:
1. The timeline began with the resident’s report in April 2019. The landlord noted a non-return valve was not installed in 2019. The valve would not have prevented the rats from being present, but it would have stopped them from entering the property through the soil pipe. The landlord’s contractor was unable to explain why the valve was not installed. Other works undertaken to eradicate the rats were completed on 25 September 2019.
2. In January 2020 the resident reported the rats had returned. At this point, the landlord’s local manager apparently failed to investigate further because prevention works were already complete. The landlord was sorry for any confusion. However, it was not the manager’s responsibility to investigate, and a works order should have been raised with the landlord’s contractor.
3. The landlord acknowledged repairs were delayed on 1 June 2021. However, efforts to push its contractor to stick to the agreed schedule were unsuccessful. The landlord would address the matter with the contractor, but it denied misleading the resident. It said the family were decanted for 85 days between 8 April and 2 July 2021. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused by the duration of the decant.
4. Fitting a non-return valve in 2019 would have prevented further infestation and the resulting decant. However, there were significant periods between the resident’s reports. As a result, his related concerns were only partially upheld. The landlord was sorry it failed to notify the resident the locks were changed from 17 June 2021. It did not expect the resident to return to an active site since he left keys with the contractor. The landlord should have communicated the site had been secured to protect the contractor’s tools.
5. The resident was awarded £1213 in compensation comprising: £70 goodwill payment for” delay/quality/admin” error, £400 distress and inconvenience, £100 for communication error relating to lock change and £646 for delayed routine repair between September 2019 and July 2021. (This represents around 19 months in total. There was a £3 error in the landlord’s calculation, which should have amounted to £1,216).
The landlord’s above correspondence suggests the family returned to the property on 2 July 2021. However, around October 2021, the landlord later told the Ombudsman the decant lasted until 7 July 2021.
On 8 July 2021 the resident asked the landlord escalate his complaint. His email contained around 26 complaint points. The following is a summary of his key points:
1. The landlord discriminated against the resident and his family from the beginning of the tenancy. It ignored his reports and complaints about rats, it was slow to respond, and it failed to comply with EH. Only the councillor’s intervention prompted it to act. By failing to inspect potential health hazards, the landlord breached its legal obligations. The family should have been decanted much earlier given conditions in the property.
2. The smell from the rats was so strong that the resident took eye drops for over 18 months. The smell still lingered at the property and the situation was unfair to his children. The landlord’s complaint response overlooked the resident’s vulnerabilities and the family’s damaged items. The resident waited all day for the landlord’s contractor on 1 June 2021. Later, the family were unable to access their clothes following the lock change.
3. The landlord failed to explain the process for claiming expenses during the decant. The resident was therefore unable to claim for over £700 in diesel expenses. Further, he was not told about the full range of available allowances. The resident incurred bank charges because the landlord was slow to pay. The landlord also gave misleading information about the repairs. For example, contrary to its response letter, the resident could show the pod’s walls were not removed.
On 15 July 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
Between 17 and 20 July 2021 the parties exchanged emails about the resident’s fuel and laundry expenses. The landlord said the resident’s fuel claim equated to around 50 miles of travel per day. It asked the resident to confirm the relevant destination postcodes. The resident said he was stuck in traffic for considerable periods, and he had provided most of the receipts. Further, he was fed-up with the landlord’s negative approach. The landlord’s subsequent internal correspondence said it was unable to reimburse the resident without justification.
On 4 August 2021 the resident submitted video evidence to dispute the scope of the landlord’s repair works.
On 27 August 2021 the landlord told the resident its stage two response would be delayed. It said it was reluctant to provide an outcome before works were complete. This was around 36 working days after the resident’s escalation request.
On 2 September 2021 the landlord’s senior manager inspected the property. They detailed their findings in an email to a colleague the same day. They said, though the property was in poor condition, the quality of workmanship in the bathroom was “not brilliant”. This was on the basis: plaster and decorating works looked rushed, previous paint layers were visible, there was “considerable” movement in the flooring and plasterwork was cracked. Overall, they said, the works were not completed to an acceptable standard.
On 16 September 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response. This was around ten weeks after the resident’s escalation request. It addressed the following complaint points: the landlord’s failure to respond to reports of rats or inspect the property, the quality of repairs completed during the decant, the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the impact to the resident and his family. The resident’s complaint was partially upheld based on the quality of the repairs. The main points were:
1. In relation to its handling of the infestation, the landlord agreed with its stage one response. Its local managers focussed on communal areas rather than individual properties. Residents were expected to report repairs to the landlord’s customer service team. The landlord would only visit a property when it was unable to identify a reported issue from a resident’s call. The landlord was sorry if this process was not made clear.
2. The resident’s transparency concerns about the repairs were noted. A site meeting on the resident’s return to the property would have been beneficial. This would have allowed the landlord to explain any remaining works, in addition to highlighting any snagging issues. Recently identified defects would be addressed to ensure the repairs were completed to an acceptable standard. The landlord would provide the resident a copy of the repair specification. The identified failures would also be raised with the head of the landlord’s repairs team.
3. The landlord’s stage one response acknowledged that delays and the duration of the decant impacted the family. Its previous compensation award reflected the resident’s circumstances. However, an additional £400 in compensation was awarded comprising: £200 for the late complaint response, £100 for the poor quality of redecoration and £100 for the lack of information concerning the repairs.
On 17 September 2021 EH raised several quality concerns about the landlord’s repair works. The email shows EH attended the property the previous day at the resident’s request. It included images of the property and technical drawings. The main points were:
1. A soil pipe vent was placed under an opening window contrary to building regulations. Further, its height was a concern because it was also located near the back door. The vent was made of plastic but the regulations recommended a metal construction.
2. Defective guttering works were likely to cause damp. This was a concern under the Environmental Protection Act (1990).
3. The landlord’s contractor failed to fill a large hole located behind a new radiator. The hole was apparently created when the radiator was fitted. The landlord told EH that fixing the hole would involve draining the heating system to remove the radiator. This was incorrect because the radiator could be isolated using its valves. The resident should not be left with the hole.
The resident emailed the Ombudsman the same day. He said he gave the landlord bank statements to demonstrate the family’s decant expenses. However, it subsequently asked for his mileage and he could not remember the details. The resident also said he had asked to move to alternative accommodation. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the resident’s request.
On 21 September 2021 the landlord raised a repair order to address the decoration issues and EH concerns. During internal correspondence on 29 September 2021, the landlord said the resident was delaying the remaining works and a joint visit to the property was needed. Repair records show the repair order was marked complete on 8 October 2021. The events below suggest this date was incorrect.
The following events occurred between 8 and 28 October 2021:
1. The resident told the Ombudsman the infestation was ongoing despite the landlord’s repairs. He said neither the EH defects or the landlord’s snagging repairs were complete. Further, the landlord’s compensation was inadequate and it failed to reimburse his damaged items.
2. The landlord’s internal correspondence said the resident had been “obstructive and offensive to staff and contractors”. Further, the landlord should consider legal action to enforce its access rights. This was on the basis it could not allow the repairs to remain incomplete. The email said the works related to a “severe” infestation.
3. Additional internal correspondence said the resident refused works and his behaviour had been “challenging”. However, the landlord ‘s major works and tenancy teams were working to get the repairs completed.
On 15 November 2021 the resident updated the Ombudsman. He said the bathroom radiator was removed around six weeks ago, but the landlord had not reinstalled it. Our call notes show the resident did not raise ongoing infestation at this time.
The landlord’s repair history and contact records show there were no further reports of rats until October 2022. This was around eleven months after the resident’s update to the Ombudsman. In mid-November 2022 the resident told the Ombudsman the rats had returned.
The landlord’s pest control contractor surveyed the property on 28 November 2022. The survey report identified evidence of “heavy” rat activity including: damage, droppings, holes burrows, runs, smears and smell. It said rats had burrowed under the property’s bathroom pod. Further, all holes and gaps between the property and the pod extension should be sealed by a builder. It recommended a rapid treatment programme. The report included images of droppings inside the property.
During an email in January 2023, EH told the landlord there was “obvious” rat activity at the property, which included missing bait, droppings and a strong smell. It asked the landlord if it planned to replace the bathroom pod with a brick extension.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 30 January 2023. He said rats returned to the property around October 2022 and the infestation was ongoing. Further, they were again entering the property through the bathroom pod and cupboard. Despite recent EH involvement, the resident said he was experiencing similar problems with the landlord’s communication and response times. It was understood the family were due to be decanted again imminently. The resident’s main points were:
1. Snagging works from September 2021 were complete, but there were quality issues with the repairs. For example, the soil pipe vent was now located near a kitchen window. It also took around eight months to refit the bathroom radiator. Further, bathroom flooring was “giving way” and the radiator was not rehung for around seven months. The resident denied ever refusing access for repairs.
2. The family suffered bouts of sickness, diarrhoea and nosebleeds. The children had taken significant time off school due to illness. The resident attributed these illnesses to the infestation. For example, he felt nosebleeds related to fumes from dead rats. One of the children was self-harming and the family’s situation may account for some of the bullying.
3. The landlord failed to refund travel and laundry expenses the resident incurred during the decant. It also failed to compensate him for items damaged by the rats. For example, the resident’s sentimental collection of match-day programmes had been destroyed.
4. The landlord was failing in its duty to the resident. For example, it knew the resident needed access to his medication. However, it proceeded to change the property’s locks during the decant. Luckily, the resident was able to source medication from elsewhere.
During internal correspondence on 31 January 2023, the landlord said it planned to replace the bathroom pod with a brick extension during a 2023-24 major works programme. However, no specific commencement date had been scheduled.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident and his family. Further, that infestation is unpleasant with potential health implications. The timeline shows infestation has impacted the property over a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court we cannot calculate or award damages.
The resident has said the landlord discriminated against his family. It is acknowledged this is a serious allegation. The Ombudsman therefore considered the evidence carefully with the allegation in mind. It was noted the tone of the landlord’s 22 July 2019 repair order was arguably dismissive. However, no other evidence was seen to indicate the landlord treated the resident, or his family, differently to other tenants.

The landlord’s response to a rat infestation

The timeline points to the following infestation periods: April-September 2019, January 2020-November 2021 and Oct 2022-present. Unlike the first two infestations, no information was seen to show the recent rat activity was linked to previous failures on the landlord’s part. For example, no evidence was seen to indicate the landlord failed to comply with further EH recommendations, or that the infestation arose from defective or inadequate repairs. In other words, the presence of rats is not evidence of failure in itself.
Given the above, the landlord’s handling of the current infestation is beyond the scope of this assessment. This is because the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint. Any concerns related to the landlord’s recent handling should be raised with the landlord in the first instance. The Ombudsman can consider them once they have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.
The Ombudsman has not seen the resident’s infestation report from 16 January 2020. However, if the matter was beyond their remit, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s local manager should have signposted the resident to its correct reporting process. Further, this course of action was preferable to failing to follow up a potential health hazard. Given the above, the landlord’s failure to either investigate or refer the resident was inappropriate. While this failure likely contributed to the overall duration of the delay, the landlord included the relevant delay period in its redress calculation.
The landlord accepted responsibility for around 19 months of infestation related delays between September 2019 and April 2021. It also acknowledged key issues the resident experienced were likely preventable. For example, it said its failure to install a non-return valve in 2019 contributed to the infestation reoccurring in January 2020. Further, that a site meeting with the resident in 2021 would have increased transparency and highlighted any quality issues. The landlord’s complaint responses suggest £1046 of its total compensation related directly to the infestation.
This figure was based on the £646 and £400 awards at stage one, which related to a delayed routine repair, and distress and inconvenience. The responses show the landlord awarded a further £370, in total, for secondary impacts related to the infestation. These comprised: £70 goodwill gesture for delayed start date, £100 for any distress and inconvenience prompted by the lock change, £100 for a poor quality redecorations and £100 for a lack of information about the works. The landlord’s overall infestation compensation amounted to £1,416 in total.
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 tenancy agreement suggests the resident’s monthly rent was around £527. The landlord’s monthly compensation rate, calculated by dividing £1046 by 19, was £55.05, which amounted to around 10.5% of the resident’s monthly rent. The timeline shows rats (linked to nearby drains/sewers) accessed the property’s living room and could be heard under the pod floor. It points to damage including holes and gnawed flooring. The above suggests the landlord’s core compensation award was based on 5% rent reduction for both rooms over the identified delay period.
The timeline suggests living with a long-term infestation caused the resident and his family considerable distress; particularly given the family’s vulnerabilities. The resident said the family experienced bouts of sickness and the smell was so strong that he needed eye drops over a prolonged period. It is reasonable to conclude the resident’s enjoyment of the affected rooms was significantly reduced. Further, since one of their main shared rooms was affected, the family had limited respite from the infestation. It is also reasonable to conclude facilitating multiple inspections, treatment works and repair attempts was inconvenient.
Little third party information was seen to indicate the severity of the initial infestations. For example, the Ombudsman was unable to refer to information from pest control contractors or EH. Regardless, the landlord’s internal correspondence from October 2021 acknowledged a “severe” infestation. In itself, EH’s involvement supports this description. It was noted there was third party evidence, from November 2022 and January 2023, relating to the recent infestation. It is reasonable to conclude this information indicates the previous impact to the resident.
The information above suggests the landlord’s calculation approach was reasonable. However, the evidence suggests its monthly compensation rate was based on a disproportionate percentage given the circumstances. The Ombudsman will therefore order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. The Ombudsman’s calculation will be based on a 10% rent refund for each affected room over a period determined below.
The evidence also suggests the landlord’s core calculation failed to reflect the full delay timeline. For example, the timeline shows infestation related repairs were underway on 1 May 2019. Since the landlord’s repair policy shows it will respond to routine repairs within 28 days, any repairs ongoing after June 2019 can be considered delayed. This approach reflects the impact of intrusive repairs to the resident. Similarly, the timeline shows the resident last reported ongoing infestation, to the Ombudsman, around 8 October 2021.
This suggests the correct compensation period was around 28 months based on the period between 1 June 2019 and 8 October 2021. It is accepted the resident was decanted for around three months during this period. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to include the decant involved distress, inconvenience and upheaval for the family. As a result, the decant period cannot be fairly deducted from the calculation. The landlord should therefore refund the resident 20% of his total rent over 28 months. It can deduct any compensation it previously paid, including for secondary impacts, from this calculation.
The landlord provided incomplete repair records from October 2021 onwards. The Ombudsman was therefore unable to confirm the exact completion dates for the snagging works identified during the landlord’s inspection on 2 September 2021. In his February 2023 update to the Ombudsman, the resident said it took around eight months for the landlord to complete these works. He also said there were still some quality issues. These comments indicate the repairs were completed around June 2022.
Whilst the above timescale appears inappropriate, the landlord’s internal correspondence, from October 2021, suggests it was considering legal action to enforce its access rights. In contrast, the resident strongly denied preventing access for repairs. The Ombudsman has not seen any information to confirm or refute either of these positions. As a result, the Ombudsman was unable to resolve this aspect of the dispute given the information available. We were therefore unable to fairly say the landlord was responsible for an unreasonable eight month delay.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the rat infestation. The evidence suggests, in January 2020, the landlord failed to either investigate a reported potential health hazard, or signpost the resident to its correct reporting process. This was inappropriate and likely contributed to the overall delay timeline. The landlord’s infestation redress calculation was disproportionate, given the impact to the resident, and it failed to reflect the full delay timeline of around 28 months.

The landlord’s complaint handling

In its stage two response, the landlord awarded the resident £200 compensation in respect of complaint handling delays. The timeline points to combined delays of around 18 weeks (approximately four months) in total. This is because the landlord’s relevant complaints policy confirms it should respond to complaints within ten working days at both stages. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord considered its own complaint handling and awarded the resident compensation for any distress and inconvenience the delays caused.
The timeline suggests the above delays had a limited impact on the resident. For example, the family were promptly decanted following the councillor’s April 2021 correspondence. Further, though the landlord’s holding response on 27 August 2021 should have been issued within ten working days of the resident’s escalation request, no information was seen to show the resident chased the landlord for its response. Given the above the Ombudsman was unable to fairly say the landlord’s award was disproportionate given the length of the delays.
However, the timeline points to other issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, in his escalation request, the resident raised concerns about discrimination and the landlord’s approach towards compensation for his damaged items. Neither of these issues were addressed by the landlord’s stage two response. This was contrary to section 3.14 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, as published in July 2020, which said “Landlord’s shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”.
The above issues were matters of considerable importance to the resident. If the landlord objected to them being raised during stage two, it could have opened a new complaint to address them. This would have ensured the landlord could subject them to both stages of its complaints process. It was not appropriate for the landlord to leave these issues unaddressed. From the information seen, the landlord’s final position on both matters remained unclear, around 19 months later, at the point of this assessment. This situation was unfair to the resident.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to investigate any allegations of discrimination through their formal complaints process. As a result, the landlord should raise a new formal complaint to investigate the resident’s equality concerns. The Ombudsman has seen little information concerning the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damage claim. Typically, claims relating to a landlord’s handling or reported negligence should be referred to the landlord’s insurer. The landlord should investigate whether its correct process was followed.
The timeline points to further issues around learning from outcomes. For example, the wording of its stage one response confirms the landlord was aware it took 19 months to install the recommended non-return valve. However, the response did not acknowledge the landlord failed to comply with an EH recommendation within an appropriate timescale. This information was reasonably apparent to the landlord’s complaint handler. Given the situation’s implications, the response should have reasonably reflected this information.
Further, there is no indication the landlord completed any learning or improvement actions in relation to this key issue. This was contrary to section 6.3 of the applicable Code, which said “Landlords should look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether anything needs to be ‘put right’ in terms of processes or systems…”. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have at least alerted its leadership to the compliance failure, which appears partially related to the actions of its contractor.
Similarly, the response apologised for a potentially confusing situation concerning the landlord’s local manager. The timeline suggests the incident, referenced in the previous section, was a source of considerable frustration for the resident. However, despite appearing to recognise how confusion could have reasonably arisen on the resident’s part, the response did not attempt to learn from the highlighted issue.
The above suggests the landlord missed opportunities to improve its services, which could have benefitted other residents. Given the serious impact of the infestation on the resident and his family, the landlord’s failure to learn from their experience was inappropriate. In contrast, the landlord’s stage two response said the identified quality and communication issues had been reported to the landlord’s senior repairs leader. This was a reasonable approach given the circumstances.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord failed to address complaint issues of key importance to the resident. Further, despite compensating the resident for poor service and significant delays, the landlord did not attempt to learn from the resident’s deeply negative experience. This was inappropriate given the circumstances.

The landlord’s record keeping

The evidence points to failures in relation to the landlord’s record keeping. For example, from its repair records, the Ombudsman was unable to establish how the landlord responded to the infestation while the property was void around September 2018. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s records should capture both the specific treatment works undertaken and their final outcome. The landlord’s failure to record this key information in its primary repair record was therefore inappropriate.
The timeline points to more recent issues with the repair records. For example, it shows a works order to repair a hole behind the bathroom radiator was completed on 6 October 2021 by a heating contractor. This information was contrary to the resident’s comments, that the radiator was not rehung for a significant period, from November 2021 and January 2023. It was also contrary to the landlord’s internal correspondence, in October 2021, which said the repairs remained incomplete. Overall, the evidence suggests the landlord’s repair order reflects the incorrect completion date.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents. Given the above the landlord’s complaint record keeping was inappropriate.
Given the above there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping. This is because the landlord failed to capture key information about void treatment works in its primary repair record. The evidence suggests it later marked snagging repairs complete incorrectly.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. response to a rat infestation
2. complaint handling
3. record keeping

Reasons

The evidence suggests, in January 2020, the landlord failed to either investigate a reported potential health hazard or signpost the resident to its correct reporting process. This was inappropriate and likely contributed to the overall delay timeline. The evidence suggests the landlord’s redress calculation was disproportionate, given the impact to the resident, and failed to reflect the full delay timeline of around 28 months.
The landlord failed to address complaint issues of key importance to the resident. Despite compensating him for poor service and significant delays, the landlord did not attempt to learn from the resident’s deeply negative experience. This was inappropriate given the circumstances.
The landlord failed to capture key information about void treatment works in its primary repair record. The evidence suggests it later marked snagging repairs complete incorrectly.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £3,293.44 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £2,943.44 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the rat infestation. Any amount the landlord has already paid the resident, as part of the £1,416 it awarded over stages one and two, can be deducted from this total.
2. £350 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. Again, if the landlord has already paid its previous £200 award it can be deducted from this total.
The landlord’s senior leadership to review the issues highlighted in this report. Within four weeks the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising identified improvements, which should also be cascaded to its relevant staff. Topics for inclusion include the landlord’s: processes for complying with EH recommendations, contractor and repair standards monitoring procedures, processes for handling allegations of discrimination and processes for learning from outcomes.
The landlord to respond accordingly to the resident’s discrimination and damaged item concerns. Both issues should be handled through the landlord’s formal complaints process. The landlord should evidence its progress to the Ombudsman within four weeks.
The landlord to write to the resident and of its nearby tenants experiencing related infestation issues. The letter should include the landlord’s expected timescale for replacing the modular bathroom pods. The landlord should share a copy of its letter with the Ombudsman. The letter should signpost its readers to the landlord’s formal complaints process.

Recommendations

The landlord to ensure it notifies residents of any complaint handling days within its relevant response timescales.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendation within four weeks.