Orbit Group Limited (202347277)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347277

Orbit Group Limited

25 October 2024

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of squirrels and mice in her property.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The resident has 2 young children.
  2. On 1 March 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there were squirrels in the loft of her property. The same day she reported a draft coming from her kitchen cupboards. The landlord inspected the loft on 6 March 2023 and patched up a hole in the roof soffit. It attended the resident’s property again on 16 March 2023; to inspect the draft from the kitchen cupboards but said it was not able to gain access. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she did allow access on this date and that the landlord’s operative told her that no repairs were necessary.
  3. The resident reported that there were squirrels in the loft again on 21 June 2023. In January 2024, she reported the issue a further 5 times.
  4. On 1 February 2024, the landlord’s pest control contractor visited the resident’s property. It said that squirrels were getting into the loft via gaps in the roof and were causing significant damage in the roof space. It proofed the area using wire mesh and set traps. However, it recommended that the landlord urgently undertake works to seal the gaps in the roof as until this was done it would be difficult to pest proof the area.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 5 February 2024. She said squirrels were damaging her belongings in the loft and she had reported this issue to the landlord multiple times. She said that the landlord’s pest control contractor was taking too long to resolve the issue. She also had mice in her kitchen which were eating her food and leaving droppings. The issue had caused her anxiety and depression. She said the landlord had not attended an appointment to repair her front door security light. It had rearranged the appointment for 5 February 2024, without letting her know that it had cancelled the previous appointment. She had asked for a call back from the landlord and it had not called her.
  6. On 12 February 2024, the resident again reported that there were mice in her kitchen.
  7. On 15 February 2024, the landlord’s pest control contractor visited the resident’s property again. It found evidence of squirrels in the loft and a live mouse in the kitchen. It laid bait and set traps. On 21 February 2024, the pest control contractor completed a further visit. It recommended that the resident clear bags from the loft to avoid squirrels making nests amongst them. It reset the mouse traps and laid out more bait in the kitchen and in the loft.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 26 February 2024. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It said the mice in the kitchen was a new issue. Its pest control contractors had carried out 3 visits to the property thus far. It upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded her £150 compensation broken down as follows: £70 for its service failures, £70 for upset and inconvenience, and £10 for missing an appointment to repair the broken security light.
  9. On 28 February 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. She said the compensation it had offered her was too low.
  10. The landlord called the resident on 29 February 2024 to discuss her stage 2 complaint. The resident said she had reported pests in her property and drafts coming from her kitchen cupboards over a year ago. The pest control contractors had identified that this was how mice were getting into her kitchen. She said that had the landlord acted when she had first reported the issue, it could have prevented the problem much sooner.
  11. On 29 February 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised to the resident. It said:
    1. It should have rearranged the appointment it had made the previous year to inspect her kitchen cupboards after it was unable to gain access.
    2. Its pest control contractor had recommended that it locate and seal any gaps in the roof space. It planned to carry out this work on 15 March 2024.
    3. It offered the resident an additional £470 compensation, broken down as follows: £100 for its poor complaint handling at stage 1, £50 for upset and inconvenience and £320 for its delays in resolving the drafts in her kitchen cupboards.
  12. The pest control contractor completed further visits to the property on 29 February 2024, 12 March 2024, and 13 March 2024. On 9 April 2024, it identified gaps behind the kitchen cupboards and advised that the landlord complete proofing works to these areas. The pest control contractor’s report of 9 May 2024 confirmed that the landlord had completed proofing to the wall fascia. The report stated that the proofing works to the kitchen had not been completed.
  13. On 9 August 2024, the resident raised a further complaint with the landlord. She said she could not use the loft due to the poison put down by the pest control contractors. Mice had chewed through a pram which cost over £600. She had struggled to clean the property and there were still mouse droppings in the kitchen cupboards and on the washing machine. She said she had developed a skin condition and was suffering from stress due to the issues. She was worried about her baby, who had started to crawl.
  14. The pest control contractor confirmed to the landlord on 20 August 2024 that it had carried out all its visits to the resident’s property in relation to treating both the squirrel and the mice infestations.
  15. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman on 10 October 2024 that she had made no further reports of squirrels or mice in her property since 20 August 2024. She said that the landlord put scaffolding up during the summer to carry out works to the roof but there were still visible holes in the loft.
  16. On 10 October 2024, the Service asked the landlord to confirm what dates its contractors completed the following: works to locate and seal gaps in the roof, work to the loft hatch, the filling of holes in the external kitchen wall and proofing the kitchen cupboards. The landlord responded on 17 October 2024, with undated photos showing scaffolding and of the interior and exterior of the roof but has not provided dates that any work was done. It said that it is unable to obtain the information requested as it does not have access to its contractors’ systems.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns that there are still holes in the loft, not being able to use the loft, the damage to a pram, and the difficulty in cleaning the property are outside of the scope of this assessment. Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that: The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. As noted above, the resident has submitted a separate complaint about these issues to the landlord. The resident may be able to refer the separate complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to these issues.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord that there was damage to her belongings caused by the squirrel and mice infestation. She also told the landlord that the infestations were affecting her health. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident she could submit an insurance claim for damage to her belongings and her health to its liability insurer. The landlord should provide the resident with details of its liability insurer now, so the resident can make a claim in relation to the damage to her belongings and her health, should she wish to do so. However, it is outside of the Ombudsman’s role to investigate liability insurance claims because insurers are separate organisations from the landlord and the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of insurers, only at the actions of the landlord. Therefore, we will not comment on this aspect of the complaint further.

Policies and procedures

  1. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the roof and the external and internal walls of the property in good repair.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of squirrels and mice in her property

  1. The Ombudsman understands that the ongoing squirrel and mice infestation will have been a very difficult and distressing experience for the resident. However, our assessment is limited to the landlord’s obligations and whether it followed these. It should be noted that it can take multiple attempts to resolve pest infestations and treatment may take time to be effective. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord.
  2. The landlord acted appropriately in carrying out works to patch up a hole in the soffit of the roof after the resident reported an issue with squirrels in the loft on 1 March 2023. However, the landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported that there were squirrels in her loft again on 21 June 2023 and it has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence to show that it took any action in response to this report. The delay of over 6 months in the landlord taking further steps to tackle this issue will have caused the resident considerable time, trouble and inconvenience, and may have made her feel the landlord was not taking her reports seriously.
  3. The landlord acted reasonably in arranging to inspect the resident’s kitchen cupboards on 16 March 2023. As noted above the resident has disputed the landlord’s account that its operative was not able to gain access on this date. Where there is a disputed version of events without evidence to support either account, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine what did or did not happen. However, it is appropriate that the landlord offered the resident compensation of £320 for this aspect of her complaint in recognition that this was a missed opportunity to investigate and remedy this issue.
  4. The landlord acted appropriately in arranging for its pest control contractor to inspect and start treatment of the mice infestation within 28 calendar days of receiving the resident’s report of 5 February 2024 that there were mice in her kitchen. This was reasonable, as although the mice in her property will have been distressing for the resident, it is appropriate for landlords to respond to reports of mice as a routine repair. It would only be considered an emergency if there was a significant and immediate risk to safety or severe damage to the property.
  5. The landlord’s pest control contractor carried out 10 pest control visits to the resident’s property between February 2024 and August 2024 to treat the squirrel and mice infestations. This was appropriate as the pests had occurred due to repairs the landlord was responsible for, in this case, the holes in the roof and in the kitchen walls.
  6. It is a concern that the landlord has been unable to provide the Ombudsman with the dates when work to proof holes in the roof and in the kitchen was carried out. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its repairs policy. It is recommended that the landlord review its record-keeping systems so that it can satisfy itself that it has fulfilled its repair responsibilities, and it can provide dates and evidence relating to any works its contractors carry out, when required to do so by the Ombudsman.
  7. There were clear failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of squirrels and mice in her property. However, the total compensation of £610 offered by the landlord (+ £10 for the missed appointment in relation to the repair of the security light) was reasonable, and proportionately recognises the delays, time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard. Its offer is in line with what the Ombudsman would have awarded had the landlord not already made an offer and it is appropriate redress for the landlord’s errors in this case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of squirrels and mice in her property, satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Provides the resident with details of how to contact its liability insurer so she can make a claim for damage to her belongings and her health if she wishes to do so.
    2. Review its record-keeping systems so that it can provide dates when work was carried out when required.