Peabody Trust (202127764)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127764

Catalyst Housing Limited

27 April 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

The complaint is about landlord’s handling of:

a. Resident’s report of pests in the property and associated repairs.

b. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy commenced 26 April 2014. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a one-bedroom house.
The resident has mental health vulnerabilities and disabilities which the landlord is aware of.

Scope of investigation

This Service acknowledges that the resident has explained how the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation significantly impacted her mental health, and that due to the infestation, the resident felt suicidal. The resident has told the landlord that she is taking medication for anxiety and sleeping tablets. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Summary of events

The records show that the resident reported issues with pests in the property on 29 November 2021. The landlord inspected the property for pests on 2 December 2021. At this time, the landlord found no evidence of pests in the property.
The landlord recorded that sounds were audible in the walls between the resident’s property and the neighbouring property. Therefore, the landlord noted there was a possibility that rodents could be attempting to access the resident’s property through air vents. The resident initially contacted environmental health who responded on 13 December 2021 to advise her to discuss concerns with her landlord.
The landlord made a further visit to the property on 13 December 2021, and found no evidence of pests in the property and all bait points were checked. The resident reported hearing noises within the cavity wall. The landlord contacted the resident on 11 January 2022, to arrange a further visit once the neighboring properties had completed pest treatment.
Following this, the landlord agreed to inspect and proof the air vents of the property and neighboring properties. The landlord inspected the property on 23 February 2022 and reported no bait had been taken. Additionally, the landlord said it could not see any evidence of live or dead rodents. On the same day the landlord filled five holes in the brickwork to the front of the house to stop any pest issues.
On 18 March 2022, the landlord covered air vents on external side to stop any pest issues and blocked access between the terraced houses. The landlord also proofed the covers with air brick mesh.
The resident contacted environmental health on or around 18 March 2022 to confirm that the landlord had not resolved the pest issue. Environmental health visited the property on 21 March 2022. During the visit, the inspector found evidence of rats. Environmental health issued a section 4 notice under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 upon the landlord. Environmental health ordered the landlord works to be carried out within 21 days. This included:

a. Establish the source of access into the property by rats and mice and carry out necessary proofing work to prevent re-occurrence.

b. Investigation work to also include a drain survey to ensure there were no faults with the drainage system allowing access.

c. To carry out necessary works as identified by the drain survey.

d. Employ a pest control contractor to inspect and advise on external and internal proofing work to eradicate rodent problems, ensuring there are no access points allowing travel between properties.

On 23 March 2022, the resident reported blue bottle flies in the property. The resident said she had sealed up areas in the kitchen with masking tape, which stopped the flies.
The resident initially complained to the landlord on 24 March 2022. The resident complained about:

a. The landlord’s communication and action following the resident’s report of outstanding repairs and pest control issues in the home.

b. The time taken for the landlord to address the issue of pests in the property.

c. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint.

On 4 April 2022, the landlord carried out a CCTV survey of the resident’s drains, but it found no visible issues or entry points for rats. The survey noted that the resident had a high volume of flies outside her kitchen window.
On 7 May 2022, environmental health did a follow up inspection. They confirmed a sewer system survey had taken place by Thames Water, who found droppings in the sewer system. Additionally, it found no cracks in the pipes and identified that the rats were using the cavity to travel between properties.
On 11 May 2022, the landlord instructed environmental health to proceed with pest control. However, environmental health said its quote was for mice treatment, not rats. Therefore, the landlord needed to request a new quote.
On 11 May 2022, the landlord contacted environmental health to inform that proofing works had been completed. Also, to ask environmental health to carry out pest control.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 17 May 2022. In its response the landlord apologised for its lack of consistency on when remedial work would take place. The landlord offered the resident £800 broken down to include £500 for any distress and inconvenience caused, £150 for any missed visits and £50 for right to repair. Additionally, £100 to cover the landlord’s delay to respond.
On 30 May 2022, environmental health confirmed it had spoken to a drain company who suggested the installation of rat drain blockers to prevent rats entering the property.
On 8 June 2022, the resident advised the landlord that she was still hearing rats underneath the kitchen floor, in the walls of the bedroom and landing, under the stairs and in the ceiling of the lounge. The resident said to the landlord that baiting and proofing for rats had still not been completed.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 15 June 2022. In its response the landlord apologised that it failed to act in a timely manner, and it did not coordinate its contractors appropriately to eradicate rats.
The landlord agreed to complete follow up baiting and proofing work. Additionally, further drain work is to take place, as well as repairs to the roof. A further inspection of the kitchen and the landlord agreed for the resident to move another property. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £1897.79. This was broken down as:
1. £797.79 to cover the cost of the resident not being able to use her kitchen.
2. £600 to cover any stress and inconvenience the resident suffered.
3. £250 for the time and trouble the resident incurred chasing updates.
4. £200 for un progressed visits.
5. £50 compensation for right to repair.
As the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses, she brought the complaint to this Service.

Landlord’s obligations

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord’s repair responsibilities document identifies two categories of repair:
1. Any emergency repairs will be made safe within 24 hours.
2. any routine repairs will take place within ten working days.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards. The HHSRS says that poor design/layout/construction of a dwelling means that it is difficult to be kept clean and hygienic and can allow access for pests including rats. This can result in, among other things, gastro-intestinal disease (from spread of infection), stress (because of difficulties in keeping the home clean), infections (spread by insects, rats, and mice) and nuisance. Preventative measures include blocking holes through the roof, eaves, and verges to deny ingress to rats/mice/squirrels/birds; any necessary holes to be covered by grilles.
The landlord’s pest control policy states it may carry out pest control work in the following circumstances:
1. In a home in a block of flats where we think that the problem will spread within the block if we do not carry out pest control
2. Where the infestation is clearly caused by poor design or a failure to do repairs that are our responsibility
3. Where damage is being caused to the building and the resident is failing to address the pest infestation
4. For particularly vulnerable tenants or leaseholders.
The landlord states it is responsible for:
1. Procuring specialist contractors or directly carrying out pest control activities.
2. Commissioning reports on pest infestations.
3. Inspecting pest infestations.
4. Approving and inspecting works to control pest infestations.
5. Providing advice to colleagues, tenants, and leaseholders if appropriate, including liaising with colleagues in Property Services to ensure pests are designed out of properties and maintenance works take account of pests.
6. Directing tenants and leaseholders towards useful sources of information on pest control and prevention either directly or through communications or digital media.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure which states:
1. At stage one the landlord has ten working days to investigate and respond to the customer directly from the date the complaint was logged.
2. At stage two the landlord states it will inform the resident of its decision within ten working days.
Landlord’s compensation policy states if a customer experiences service failure as a result of our action or inaction we will put the matter right and apologise as quickly as possible. We may also offer compensation where we have made a prior commitment or consider it is reasonable to do so in the circumstance.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right, and.
3. Learn from outcomes.

The resident’s report of pests in the property and associated repairs.

The landlord’s pest control policy states the landlord is responsible for inspecting for pests in the property. Additionally, to approve and inspect works to control pest infestations.
The parties of this complaint, have both reported that the issue of pests is still ongoing at the time the complaint was brought to this Service. The records show that the resident first reported a pest issue in November 2021.
It is understandable this remains a concern to the resident particularly, as this has greatly impacted on the resident’s home life. The resident has said due to pests in the property she spent a period of time staying at a local hotel as a temporary decant. This Service recognises the distress caused to the resident by the issue.
It is this Service’s view that the landlord’s initial response to the pest issue was appropriate. This Service can see that following the resident’s report of pests the landlord carried out an inspection on 2 December 2021. At this time, the landlord did not find any evidence of pests. In precaution the landlord laid bait and returned on the 13 December 2021 for a further inspection. The landlord’s inspection did not identify any evidence of rodent activity with the bait not being touched. With this in mind, the landlord’s initial response was appropriate.
However, the resident reiterated during each inspection that she was hearing noises within the cavity walls. Also, the resident made various calls to the landlord to identify the pests as it was an ongoing concern to the resident.
Due to the landlord’s lack of response to the resident’s concerns, the resident contacted environmental health services. As such, environmental health attended the resident’s home and found evidence of rats. Therefore, they issued a section 4 notice to the landlord on 21 March 2022. Additionally, for the landlord to seek specialist advice on pest control proofing by 12 April 2022.
In this Service’s view, upon being informed of the presence of rats in the resident’s property the landlord failed to be proactive in its approach. As such, given the landlord was aware of neighbouring properties having issues with pests it suggests there may have been an issue with the property that could allow rodent entry. With this in mind, the landlord had repair obligations as set out under section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to repair holes in walls or floorboards etc. to stop pests entering the property. The landlord’s own repair policy states routine repairs will take place within ten working days.
In this case, the landlord response was unreasonable and too slow as the landlord failed to comply with the environmental health order within the set 21-day period. Additionally, the landlord’s actions were outside its own repair policy to do routine repairs within ten working days. The records show that on 25 March 2022, the landlord contacted environmental health to request for a quote for mice treatment. Environmental health responded on 28 March 2022 to provide a quote but confirmed it could not carry out proofing work, The records go onto say that the landlord did not seek specialist advice until 11 May 2022. This is just under one month after environmental health’s deadline set to comply with the order by 12 April 2022.
In addition, the landlord’s actions were not in line with its own pest policy to approve any inspecting works to control pest infestations. As per the landlord’s pest policy, the landlord has a responsibility to consider if proofing works are required to prevent pest infestations. This Service would expect it to make reasonable enquiries with its pest contractor, or otherwise satisfy itself as to whether the works were necessary within ten working days as per the landlord’s own repair policy.
The records show the landlord did carry out a number of works to the property outside of the timescale set by the environmental health order. This included in May 2022, the landlord carried out rodent proofing in the attic. A further visit in June 2022 the landlord replaced roof tiles. In doing so, the landlord identified a burrow where rats could be above the bedroom window and wall.
The resident has reported that as of December 2022, that there was still a presence of rats in the property. Therefore, the pest issue remained unresolved.
In this case, the landlord has acknowledged that it did not listen to the resident’s concerns regarding pests in the property. Further, the landlord acknowledged that it took too long to address the issue of pests in the property. The landlord went on to say that it should have acted faster and on the advice on environmental health services to carry out any necessary baiting and proofing required. Therefore, the landlord has took steps to learn from its failings and put things right.
The landlord has attempted to put things right by way of an apology, improvements to the way it handles pests and compensation. In terms of compensation, the landlord offered the resident £1897.79 in financial redress.
It is the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord’s response and redress offered is proportionate.
In consideration, this Service has found the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s concerns was appropriate as the landlord inspected the resident’s property three days after the resident reported pests. The landlord carried out a further inspection of the bait left and of the property 10 days later on 13 December 2021. Therefore, the landlord undertook works it felt appropriate.
However, following from its initial response, information considered by this Service shows that the landlord did not actively listen to the resident’s ongoing concerns and failed to adhere to its own policy. The landlord failed to act accordingly in response to environmental health’s order. As such, this led to further distress and inconvenience for to the resident.
It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for this delay, and that it had considered this delay in its offer of compensation which also included the poor communication while it liaised with its pest contractor, as discussed above. The landlord’s offer of £800 in its stage one response and £1897.79 in its stage two response was reasonable in the circumstances. This is due to the fact that the landlord had recognised the affect it had on the resident and her home life. Further, this service has found 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.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process, and its complaint policy states the landlord will provide a stage one response within ten working days and a stage two final response within 10 working days.
In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, it is recommended that a landlord’s provide its stage one response within ten working days from receipt of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy states if a customer experiences service failure as a result of its action or inaction, it will put the matter right and apologise as quickly as possible. The landlord may also offer compensation where it has made a prior commitment or consider it is reasonable to do so in the circumstance.
The resident initially raised a complaint with the landlord on 21 March 2022. Following contact from the Ombudsman on 11 May 2022, the landlord provided its stage one response just under two months after the resident initially complained on 17 May 2022. This is not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy to provide a response within ten working days.
Following the landlord issuing its stage one response the resident contacted the landlord on 8 June 2022, to say she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. The landlord considered the resident’s outstanding concerns and issued its stage two response on 15 June 2022. This was in accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy.
It is understandable the delay in receiving a stage one complaint response caused the resident frustration. The records show the resident contacted the landlord regular updates since 30 March 2022 until 15 May 2022.
The landlord failed to comply by its obligations set out in its complaints policy prior to issuing its stage one response, this does constitute maladministration. The undue delay led to the resident being further inconvenienced and meant the resident having to chase the landlord for a response. Overall, this led to a lost opportunity for the resident obtaining an earlier resolution and answers to her concerns.
With this in mind, this Service has considered whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right. In this case, the landlord has apologised and agreed to improve the way it communicates with residents. Additionally, the landlord has offered financial compensation of £250. This is in line with Service guidelines regarding failures in complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its handling of resident’s report of pests in the property and associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s concerns regarding pests was appropriate. However, the landlord’s response to the environmental health order was not reasonable as the landlord did not resolve the issue of pests in the property within the set 21-day time limit provided. Further, the resident reported that up until the landlord issued its stage two complaint response the pest issue in part remained unresolved.
The landlord has appropriately offered £1897.79 in compensation and in this Service’s opinion, the total compensation offered amounted to reasonable redress. This Service has found the compensation has put things right as it took into account the delays in pest treatment leading to the resident being unable to use her kitchen, for any stress and inconvenience caused, poor communication causing the resident to contact for updates and for lack of visits. Additionally, the landlord has put things right by offering the resident the opportunity to move to another property.
There was a significant delay in the landlord issuing its stage one complaint response. This was not reasonable and not in line with what this Service would expect. Further it is not in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy. The landlord has appropriately apologised for the delay and offered a total of £250 in compensation which is reasonable redress for this part of the complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provides the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation totaling £1897.79, should it not have already done so.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss any outstanding pest issues she may have and if necessary, agree an action plan with the resident for any further work identified.
The landlord should share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its officers who respond to complaints to ensure that complaints are responded to in accordance with best practice.