Orbit Housing Association Limited (202216378)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216378

Orbit Housing Association Limited

16 June 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

  1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of pests in the loft space of the property.
    2. The associated formal complaint into this matter.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
  2. The resident has experienced ongoing issues with pests gaining access to the loft space in the property. The landlord’s records state it was informed by the resident in 2015 about birds in the loft and the landlord sealed the access point. The records then state that the resident informed the landlord of further pest activity in May 2020. An inspection of the roof was arranged, work to seal entry points was undertaken in June 2022 and a pest control contractor undertook pest eradication treatments between July and August 2020. After receiving confirmation that there was no further evidence of pest activity, the landlord arranged for the area to be disinfected on 28 August 2020.
  3. On 9 November 2021, the resident called the landlord to raise a formal complaint as pests had returned to the loft space. The landlord’s notes of the call described the elements of the resident’s complaint as:
    1. Due to the level of noise from the loft, the resident believed that the pests may be rats.
    2. When she last experienced issues of pests, the landlord had informed her that any further issues would be her responsibility to resolve. However, she had received legal advice that this was not the case.
    3. The resident was concerned that the pests would spread to neighbouring properties and become a health and safety issue.
    4. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord remove the pests, seal up any entry points and for the landlord to review its policies and procedures on pest control.
  4. After further correspondence, the resident informed the landlord that the noise from the pests suggested that they had moved into the wall cavities, requested that she be temporarily rehoused (decanted) until the pests had been removed, and to be compensated for the costs incurred for arranging her own pest control contractor, and for the damage caused to her personal items stored in the loft. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
    1. Noted that in its first response to the complaint sent on 29 November 2021, it had informed the resident that it was her responsibility to deal with the pests.
    2. Accepted that this position was incorrect. It explained that as the pests were also present in the loft spaces of the neighbouring properties, it was its responsibility to resolve. It also informed the resident it had found no evidence that the pests had migrated from the loft into other areas of the property.
    3. Apologised for the incorrect information given in its first response and confirmed that it would arrange for pest-proofing work to be undertaken to the resident’s and the neighbouring properties. It also confirmed that it had put a pest eradication programme in place and would clean the loft once this had been concluded.
    4. Offered the resident £550 compensation, which it broke down as £100 for failing to follow its complaints policy at stage one, £150 for the incorrect information given in its first complaint response, £200 for the distress and inconvenience the matter had caused and £100 to cover her pest control costs to date (reduced to £66 should she be able to get a refund for works not yet completed). The landlord also agreed to cover the costs of damage to the resident’s personal items stored in the loft once they had been assessed.
    5. Informed the resident that it was undertaking a review of its current pest control policies to ensure responsibilities are made clear and its call centre is better equipped to handle enquires from residents about pests.
  5. In referring the cases to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the landlord had not recognised the effect on her health the issue had caused, that its current policies were not fit for purpose, and she did not believe that the landlord undertook the proper follow-on work in the neighbouring properties to prevent further pest infestations of the loft space. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord improves its policies relating to pest control and repairs, and that vulnerable tenants are prioritised.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s pest and vermin control procedure in operation during the time period of the complaint states that the landlord “will accept liability to investigate and take appropriate action to deal with pests in any open spaces, common and communal areas (e.g. shared hallways and gardens) owned or managed by [the landlord]. The liability may include delivering ongoing treatments and, if there are any defects to the property allowing pests to enter, carrying out proofing works to prevent access and will instruct works within two working days of being notified. If it is obvious that the infestation within a dwelling has been caused by [the landlord’s] neglect or disrepair (e.g. mice entering through a hole in the wall) [the landlord] will accept liability for the infestation and repair and will instruct works within two working days (four hours, if the work is an emergency) of being notified”.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (respond in four or 24 hours) and “Routine” (arrange an appointment within 28 calendar days). The policy also states that “we provide a high priority response to customers that have been identified as having acute physical or mental health vulnerabilities (as defined in [the landlord’s] Safeguarding Policy). This may include treating what is generally categorised as a routine repair as an emergency where the circumstances constitute a risk to the health or safety of that customer due to the nature of their vulnerability”.
  3. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it “may award compensation if the standard of service we provide is considerably below the standard customers could reasonably expect”. The policy does not provide any payment guidance but does state that it follows the guidance given by this Service.

Scope of investigation

  1. In her correspondence with this Service and the landlord, the resident has described the effect on her existing health condition the pests in the property had caused. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

How the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of pests in the loft space of the property

  1. When it was informed by the resident of the presence of pests in the loft space of the property, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. It is not in dispute that the landlord did not respond to the issue appropriately. It has accepted that as the loft spaces of the neighbouring properties are connected to the resident’s property, that they all showed evidence of pests, that it was therefore its responsibility to resolve, and it had given incorrect information to the resident when she contacted it on 9 November 2021 and in its first response to the complaint.
  2. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by arranging a pest contractor to undertake eradication treatments, awarding £450 compensation (excluding the £100 compensation it offered for complaint handling which is discussed in more detail below), and covering the costs of any damage to personal items stored in the loft. It looked to learn from its mistakes by reviewing its pest control policy and how its call centre staff responds when reports of pests are made by its residents.
  4. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests a payment of £100 to £600 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration by a landlord. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, a payment of £450 that recognised the incorrect information provided by the landlord when the resident first informed it of the pest infestation, the delay this caused in the landlord arranging work to remove the pests, and the inconvenience this caused to the resident is appropriate in the circumstances.
  5. The resident has stated that she did not believe that the landlord properly undertook repairs to the communal roof and loft space following the end of the pest control treatment. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s arranged for a pest contractor to undertake regular treatments inspections. These started in April 2022 and concluded in October 2023. The inspection reports and the landlord’s communal repair logs state that:
    1. A work order was raised on 2 March 2022 to pest-proof the roof void of the affected properties once the pest eradication treatment had concluded.
    2. On 11 April 2022, the resident’s property showed light signs of pest activity and bait was laid.
    3. An inspection on 19 April 2022 found no further pest activity in the resident’s property.
    4. Follow-up work was undertaken on 9 May 2022 to two of the neighbouring properties.
    5. The loft space was cleaned on 23 May 2022.
    6. The work to pest-proof the roof void was marked as completed on 1 June 2022.
    7. An inspection undertaken on 24 June 2022 found no evidence of pest activity.
  6. While the landlord has acknowledged service failure in how it first responded to the issue, there is no evidence of service failure in how it handled the work once it took on responsibility for the pests. The evidence shows that its pest control contractor attended the affected properties regularly until the issue was resolved, and work to pest-proof the roof went ahead once the contractor had informed the landlord it was satisfied there was no longer any evidence of pest activity. Moreover, the landlord has stated that following an inspection undertaken by the pest contractor of the resident’s property on 19 January 2023 relating to a post-work inspection of major repairs which were not part of this complaint, the pest contractor found no evidence of pest activity or any remaining access points.
  7. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this element of the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
  8. The resident further stated that she does not believe the policies the landlord had in place at the time of the complaint for pest control were adequate. This was accepted by the landlord in its complaint responses, who informed the resident that it was undertaking a review of its policy. It is not clear from the evidence provided whether that review has now concluded. It is therefore recommended that, if the review has concluded and if it has not done so already, the landlord write to the resident to inform her of the findings of the review and what changes it has made to its policies and procedures relating to pest control.
  9. The resident has also stated that she does not believe the landlord is prioritising repairs for its vulnerable tenants. In line with its repairs policy detailed above, the landlord would be expected to prioritise repairs for a tenant it considered vulnerable in line with the definitions given in its safeguarding policy. It is not clear that the landlord, at the time of the complaint, considered the resident to be a vulnerable tenant. The landlord’s call logs do have internal notes describing the resident’s existing health condition. However, there is no evidence that any of the repairs raised relating to the pest infestation were prioritised. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord, if had not already done so, contract the resident and ensure that any vulnerabilities for the resident are correctly recorded on its system in line with its safeguarding policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy at stage one of its complaints process. The resident raised a complaint on 9 November 2021. However, the landlord did not provide a response within ten working days and the response it did provide was an informal complaint response rather than a formal stage one complaint response.
  2. The landlord recognised this failing in its stage two complaint response. It apologised to the resident and offered £100 compensation. While the informal response did address the elements of the resident’s complaint, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation for not properly following its own complaints process and providing the response 15 working days outside its published target of ten working days.
  3. The landlord’s compensation offer is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which recommends a payment of £50 to £100 in cases of service failure of a short duration that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. Therefore, a payment of £100 for not providing a formal response at stage one, the delay in providing the informal response and the inconvenience this caused to the resident represents reasonable redress for this element of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint in respect of:
    1. How it responded to the resident’s reports of pests in the loft space of the property.
    2. It’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. As the findings of reasonable redress were made based on the landlord’s offer of £450 compensation for its service failures in how it responded to the resident’s reports of pests and £100 for service failures in its complaint handling, it is recommended that this is now paid to the resident if the landlord has yet to do so.
  2. It is further recommended that, if it has not already done so, the landlord contact the resident and:
    1. Inform her of the findings of its review into its pest control policies and procedures once it has concluded.
    2. Ensure that any vulnerabilities for the resident are correctly recorded on its system in line with its safeguarding policy.