Peabody Trust (202226388)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226388

Peabody Trust

1 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of fleas in the property.
2. Complaints handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 20 January 2014. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 2 bedroom flat and the resident lives there with her family.
The resident first reported fleas in her property and the communal areas to the landlord on 5 May 2022. The following day, she was informed that the landlord’s pest control team would attend.
On 8 June 2022 the resident submitted a formal complaint mainly relating to the presence of fleas in her block which said:
1. She had called the landlord to report the fleas on 5, 6, and 9 May 2022, but had not received an update.
2. She had called on 11 May 2022, to ask why the Neighbourhood Manager had not called her back and was told they were not allowed to contact her until the pest control team had attended.
3. The pest control team attended on 16 May 2022, but were unable to complete the required treatment as the residents in the block had not been pre-warned to either stay indoors or away from their properties for 4-6 hours.
4. She had called the landlord on 17 May 2022, and was informed that the job had been marked as complete.
5. The landlord contacted the resident on 23 May 2022, and advised that if the treatment to be undertaken did not work, it would look at speaking to the neighbour about their pets. This was the believed source of the fleas. During that call, the resident asked for a temporary decant, but the landlord advised as it was not an emergency, it could not facilitate the request.
6. She advised that, together with her partner, they were carrying their children through the communal areas to avoid the fleas and were wearing long white socks to identify any fleas before entering their home.
7. She said that the situation was “unacceptable” and said it had an impact on her mental health. She said she was unhappy with how long the landlord was taking to treat the fleas.
8. She advised they had bought flea treatments and traps which had cost them extra money and electricity.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 July 2022. In the same email, it advised that pest control had attended on 8 June 2022 and had applied an insecticide to kill the infestation and on their second visit, on 23 June 2022, there had been no sign of fleas.
After reporting further fleas, the landlord confirmed to the resident that pest control would attend on 29 July 2022, and complete a follow-up treatment on 4 August 2022. It advised that if the resident wished to be decanted, she would need to raise it as a separate matter with the Neighbourhood Team as the flea infestation was “more of an antisocial behaviour (ASB) matter” due to the neighbour and their lifestyle with “poorly kept cats.”
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 22 July 2022. It defined the complaint as fleas within the resident’s block affecting the enjoyment of her home and the block. It did not uphold the complaint and said:
1. Following a call between the landlord and resident on 13 July 2022 she had informed the landlord the fleas were still present following the initial treatment. The landlord had looked back at the repairs history and noted it raised a request for its pest control team to attend. They had attended on 8 June and 23 June 2022, and applied insecticide in the communal areas.
2. The landlord believed the problem started from a neighbour’s cats. The landlord said it was working with the neighbour as the fleas may have come about due to a lifestyle issue which was not within their control.
3. The landlord understood that the resident wanted temporary accommodation, but it confirmed it did not provide that for a pest control issue.
4. The pest control team was due to attend again on 29 July 2022, and follow up on 4 August 2022.
5. The landlord confirmed its position that the flea infestation was a matter of lifestyle and was being dealt with by their team.
In response to the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident said:
1. She wanted to know why the landlord was closing the complaint and why she had received no compensation as she believed there was a service failure.
2. She had been living with fleas for months. She had called the landlord several times and chased daily but then would not receive a callback.
3. She reiterated that she was carrying her children down the communal stairs and reiterated the impact it had on her mental wellbeing. She said she had not had visitors to her home for 3 months due to the fleas.
4. In ending, she said she was not pleased that the complaint had been closed and hoped that the response would get reviewed and amended.
In responding, the landlord noted that while the outcome of its investigation was not what the resident had expected, the complaint did not relate to repairs as the fleas were attributable to the lifestyle of another resident. It said the resident had misdirected her complaint towards repairs, as it could be termed antisocial behaviour (ASB) which was a neighbourhood issue. The landlord reiterated the points it had made in its stage 1 response and advised the resident that she could escalate to stage 2, but to “bear in mind that…it may be some time” before her complaint would be looked at again due to a backlog. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 29 July 2022.
It is evident that the resident reported her concerns to her local councillor, who subsequently raised a further complaint on her behalf. The landlord provided a new stage 1 response on 2 August 2022, which included the following:
1. The resident first reported fleas on 5 May 2022. The landlord had 60 days to complete repairs. Its pest control team attended on 8 June 2022, treated the block, and placed insect monitors. During a follow-up visit on 23 June 2022, no flea activity was found.
2. The landlord said it spoke to the resident on 13 July 2022, when she advised that fleas were present in her flat. On 15 July 2022, the landlord ordered a follow-up repair order for pest control to spray the flats.
3. The resident had said that the stage 1 flea treatment had not been completed as other flats did not let the pest control team in. In response, the landlord said it would not keep complaints open where repairs were due in other resident’s homes.
4. The landlord was satisfied that repairs were raised in appropriate timescales and communal repairs were carried out within 60 days and in line with its repairs policy.
5. The landlord understood the resident had been frustrated by the situation but that it was being dealt with. It advised any issues about ASB should be directed to the Neighbourhood Manager.
6. It found no service failure but awarded £25 for the time and effort taken in raising the issue. It advised that as the resident was in arrears, the compensation would be credited to her account.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the original complaint on 16 September 2022, which said:
1. The resident had told the landlord that the flea infestation had not been resolved and that her family had been inconvenienced while the landlord sought to resolve the issue.
2. The landlord reiterated its position with regards to a housing transfer and said it was sorry that the resident had incurred costs from purchasing flea treatments.
3. The landlord had spoken to the neighbour to ensure the flea issue could be resolved. Further visits were made by pest control on 19 July 2022 and 2 August 2022, and they applied treatment but reported no flea activity. They did not gain access to the neighbour’s flat, but a letter had since been sent to them.
4. A treatment was applied to the neighbour’s flat on 12 August 2022. The pest control team also visited the resident and other flats on that same date and confirmed that no flea activity was present but left insect monitors in place.
5. The landlord noted that a further job had since been raised for pest control to attend as there was still reportedly an infestation.
6. The landlord said that in the stage 1 response, it stated that there were no service failures and it had undertaken its responsibility within the guided timelines. In reviewing the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a lack of communication and it apologised. However, works were raised and attended to after 2 August 2022; Therefore, the landlord found no service failure had occurred.
7. In respect of the personal possessions that the resident said she had lost, the landlord advised the resident to contact her own contents insurance provider or consider making a third-party liability claim via the landlord’s insurance team.
8. It advised it would not look at health concerns raised through the complaints process and that personal injury and well-being issues should be directed to the insurance team.
9. The landlord acknowledged that the process had been protracted and it had been inconvenient for the resident, but it said it could not be held responsible for the actions of a resident where they cannot control their lifestyle. It said that it was satisfied with the action it had taken in attempting to resolve the issue.
10. The landlord accepted that the resident was not always contacted in a timely manner and had recommended learning to its staff about communication. It also acknowledged a delay in its complaint response.
11. It offered £525 compensation, made up of the following:
  1. £75 for the delayed response at stage 2.
  2. £50 for the lack of communication when contacting the landlord.
  3. £300 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience in pursuing the complaint.
  4. £100 goodwill contribution towards items purchased to manage the infestation.
On 7 December 2022, following a request from the resident for the compensation offered to be reassessed, the landlord provided a further stage 2 response that looked specifically at the compensation. It said:
1. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint on 22 July 2022. A local councillor then raised another complaint. The landlord, in response, clarified the repairs history and confirmed a complaint would not remain open based on works in another resident’s home.
2. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, where the landlord offered £525 compensation.
3. The landlord had reconsidered the compensation offered as follows:
  1. £400 for time, trouble, and inconvenience in pursuing the complaint.
  2. £100 goodwill contribution towards items purchased.
  3. £75 for the lack of communication experienced at stage 2.
  4. £75 for the delayed response.
4. It further confirmed that the complaints process would not be able to influence the resident’s position in respect of moving to an alternative property.
In referring to this Service, the resident advised the neighbour had 4 cats and the fleas were still present in the block. She said she did not care about the compensation but wanted the flea issue to be resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns over the effect of the flea infestation on her physical and mental health, wellbeing, and lost earnings. The Ombudsman does not dispute her comments regarding her health and earnings; however, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health, wellbeing, and earnings and or to award damages for these. This is because the Ombudsman does not have the authority to do so in the way that a court, tribunal, or insurer might. However, the Ombudsman has considered the general distress and inconvenience that the situation has caused, as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s pest control policy states it will take a risk based approach to the treatment of pests within communal areas and assess the severity and impact on residents to ensure the correct mitigation is taken. It states it will take reasonably prompt action to manage pest infestations for which it is responsible.
The landlord’s repair responsibilities procedure highlights that it will treat pest infestations within a resident’s home, in communal areas, and where the issue is in multiple homes.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will acknowledge this within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days. At both stages, the response may be delayed by 10 working days but that would be communicated and agreed with the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy noted it may award compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience. It may offer the following:
1. £1-£200 for anything minor.
2. £201-£400 for anything moderate.
3. £401-£600 for anything severe.
For poor complaints handling, it states it may offer the following:
1. £1-£50 for anything minor.
2. £51-150 for anything moderate.
3. £151-£250 for anything severe.

Report of fleas

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will make sure that the buildings and the environment in which the resident lives are well maintained and kept clean and tidy. It states it would take appropriate action against any resident who was causing a nuisance or not meeting their responsibilities as outlined in their tenancy or neighbourhood agreement.
The resident first reported fleas in the communal areas and her flat on 5 May 2022. The landlord responded and, in line with its pest control policy, advised that its pest control team would attend the block and treat the infestation in the communal areas. The landlord responded to the resident’s initial concerns promptly.
The pest control team attended on 16 May 2022. However, the residents in the building had not been informed to either stay inside or away from their property while the flea treatment was undertaken. Therefore, the treatment was unable to go ahead. The landlord should have informed the residents in the block that the treatment required would mean they would need to stay indoors or leave for the duration. Failing to do so, caused an unnecessary delay in resolving the issue and would have frustrated the resident.
That frustration was added to when the resident called the landlord the following day and was informed the job had been incorrectly marked as complete. Landlords should ensure that the systems they have in place accurately record the outcomes of any jobs and that contractor’s notes are properly read. In this instance, the Ombudsman has not been provided with the evidence to show what the contractor recorded following its visit. However, it is not disputed that the job was marked as complete, and this caused the resident to expend time and trouble in pursuing the issue again.
By 8 June 2022, the resident had not received any further updates from the landlord about the pest control team attending which led to her raising a complaint. The resident had informed the landlord when she spoke to it on 17 and 23 May 2022, that the treatment had not been completed and the job had been incorrectly closed. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not follow up with its pest control team and reopen the job for them to attend. This inaction would have caused further frustration to the resident who was already distressed at the situation.
The pest control team attended on 8 June 2022, and undertook treatment. A follow-up appointment took place on 23 June 2022. Following this, the resident’s complaint was closed. The evidence from the contractor shows that no flea activity was found on the second visit. The landlord has relied on the findings of its trained pest control operative, who found no evidence of fleas in the communal areas following the treatment they undertook. A landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified contractors and staff and accordingly, the decision to close the complaint due to the absence of evidence to support a flea infestation was reasonable in the circumstances.
However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated that decision to the resident until she called them on the 27 June 2022. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to communicate its decision to close her complaint and the reasoning behind that in a timely manner. Doing so would have enabled the landlord and resident to have a discussion about next steps should the infestation reoccur and for the landlord to reassure the resident that its pest control treatment had been successful. Not doing so would have added to the frustrations of the resident and impacted on the landlord and resident relationship.
Following contact from the resident on 6 July 2022, in which she advised that the fleas were still present, the landlord responded on 11 July 2022 and advised its pest control team had informed them there had been no sign of fleas during their last visit on 23 June 2022. Its response suggested that the landlord was not willing to take further action as it believed the flea issue to have been resolved. Again, it had only informed the resident of its decision not to undertake further treatment once she had chased them for an update. The landlords lack of communication was unreasonable and showed a lack of empathy for the resident’s concerns. The resident was distressed that fleas were present in her home and the landlord did little to reassure her that it had resolved the issue or provide further advice should any fleas have remained.
Following further reports of fleas by the resident, the landlord requested its pest control team attend on 19 July 2022 to undertake further treatment, with follow-up treatment on 2 August 2022. This was a reasonable response and in line with the landlord’s policy to take prompt action following the report of fleas.
The pest control team attended on 19 July 2022, 29 July 2022, and 2 August 2022, and completed treatments. The evidence suggests that by the visit on 2 August 2022, there was no indication of fleas in the block and the traps placed in the hallways also showed the same. The resident reported further fleas on 4 August 2022, and a contractor attended again on 12 August 2022 to complete further treatment. They visited the neighbouring flats and found no evidence of fleas. Following further reports of fleas, pest control attended again on an unknown date in September 2022 and on 12 and 26 October 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its qualified contractors that no fleas were present. The landlord consistently responded within its policy times to the reported fleas.
However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated with the resident following contractor visits to confirm that treatment had been undertaken and that its contractors were reporting that there was no evidence of fleas. To help alleviate the resident’s concerns and to manage her expectations, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have communicated with the resident after the flea treatments to confirm that pest control had found no evidence of fleas and to discuss the resident’s concerns with her. Doing so would have helped maintain the landlord and resident relationship and would have reassured the resident that the treatment undertaken had been successful and that the landlord had acted on her concerns.
The landlord said that the source of the flea infestation was thought to be from the neighbour’s cats. The landlord confirmed in its complaint response on 22 July 2022, that it was working with the neighbour to resolve the issue. This was a reasonable response and would have reassured the resident that it was taking the believed source of the issue seriously. As the flea issue was a reoccurring concern that was not being allayed by the pest control visits it may have been beneficial for the landlord to conduct a home visit. This would have allowed the resident to share her concerns directly and shown the landlord’s willingness to really understand the resident’s ongoing concerns. It could have also reassured the resident about the action it had taken so far. Doing so would have helped support a positive landlord and resident relationship and may have alleviated the concerns of the resident.
In an email to the resident on 21 July 2022, the landlord advised the resident that the flea infestation was “more of an ASB matter” due to the “lifestyle” of the neighbour and their “poorly kept cats”. It reiterated this point to the resident following its stage 1 response and advised the resident that her complaint had been misdirected towards repairs. However, in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response to the councillor it referred to it completing the flea treatment within the repairs policy timescales. While it might be the case that the fleas were due to the neighbour’s lifestyle issue, this should not have been conflated with dealing with the resident’s infestation concerns. To pass the resident around between its ASB team and neighbourhood team was not an appropriate response and would not have reassured the resident her concerns were being taken seriously. The evidence suggests the landlord was unsure under which policy it was considering the matters, and it gave conflicting suggestions to the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to take ownership of the issue rather than passing the resident between teams. This would have enabled the resident to have been confident that the landlord was committed to a resolution and would have been in line with dispute resolution principles.
Throughout the complaint, the resident consistently asked to be decanted or permanently moved due to the impact the fleas were having on her. The landlord was clear with the resident that it would not consider a move due to the fleas and correctly directed her to the housing team to discuss her housing options. It was clear in all its responses that an outcome of the complaint process would not be a move, nor would it influence her position in the bidding process as part of its remedy in the complaint process. It was appropriate of the landlord to be clear with the resident from the outset regarding a move and that its position would not change, and it managed the resident’s expectations clearly in that regard.
The resident first raised that she and her partner were carrying their children down the stairs to avoid them getting fleas in her initial complaint on 8 June 2022. She raised this again on 22 July 2022 and 22 August 2022. She further raised that they had not had visitors to the property throughout the complaint, due to the fleas. At no point did the landlord acknowledge these concerns. The resident believed fleas were present at various times throughout the complaint procedure and that had an impact on the resident and her family. The landlord failed to address all the issues raised in its complaint responses and showed little empathy for the position the resident was in. Regardless of the outcome of the flea treatment, the landlord should have addressed all the concerns raised by the resident in her complaint. Acknowledging all her concerns, some of which were raised and overlooked repeatedly, would have helped to maintain the landlord and resident relationship and have been in line with dispute resolution principles and the Code.
However, in its stage 2 response the landlord appropriately acknowledged the impact the number of visits by its pest control team had on the resident. It acknowledged that the process of resolving the issue had been protracted. Acknowledging this would have reassured the resident that the landlord was aware the issue had been going on for some time and the impact that it had on her.
On 22 August 2022 the resident said that she wanted compensation for the following:
1. Items they had thrown away due to the fleas.
2. Purchases they had made to help treat the fleas.
3. Breakfast club fees they had incurred from taking the children out of the house early.
4. The stress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord responded at stage 2 and advised the resident that its compensation policy did not reimburse for personal possessions, nor would it consider any well-being issue. It appropriately directed the resident towards its insurance team and advised the resident she could claim against the landlord for her losses. This was a satisfactory response and in line with the landlord’s policy.
It further offered the resident compensation for £400 at stage 2, made up of the following:
1. £300 for time, trouble, and inconvenience in pursuing the complaint.
2. £100 goodwill contribution towards items purchased to manage the infestation.
The landlord subsequently, at the request of the resident, reviewed the compensation and offered £400 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience when pursuing the complaint. Making the total £500 compensation for this element of the complaint.
Overall, the landlord treated the fleas each time they were reported in line with its policy by raising requests for pest control to attend and provide treatment. The evidence suggests that pest control treatment was successful. However, the Ombudsman acknowledges that infestations can reoccur and therefore repeated treatments may have been required. In this case, the resident kept reporting the issue and the landlord responded appropriately to each reported infestation by raising further requests for pest control to attend. This highlighted a commitment by the landlord to resolve the issue, where there may have been multiple infestations. However, it is important to acknowledge that the landlord missed opportunities to show empathy to the resident and acknowledge the distress the situation was causing her.
The failings identified in this report would be sufficient for the Ombudsman to make a finding of service failure. However, in its stage 2 response and subsequent review, the landlord acknowledged the process had been protracted and accepted the inconvenience and impact this had on the resident and her family. Further, it made a reasonable effort to offer redress with its £500 compensation award.
As such, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s identified failings and offer of redress in its handling of the resident’s reports of fleas in her property amounts to a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaints handling

The resident made her complaint on 8 June 2022. However, the evidence provided shows that the landlord did not formally acknowledge this until 11 July 2022. This was 23 working days later. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. Therefore, its response was not in line with its policy and this delay would have added to the resident’s frustrations.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 22 July 2022. This was 32 working days after the resident first made her complaint. This is not in line with its policy which states it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 days. Further, the policy states that if it could not meet this, the delay would be communicated to the resident and would not exceed a further 10 working days. The landlord’s failure to respond in time or communicate the delay showed a disregard for the complaint’s policy commitments. Further to this, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) highlights that residents should be at the heart of complaint’s handling. Its delay in providing a response and lack of communication with regards to the delay was not in line with the Code of dispute resolution principles and was unreasonable.
On 22 July 2022, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. The landlord appropriately informed the resident that she had the option of escalating her complaint to stage 2. However, in its email, it said, “bear in mind, [the complaints team] currently have a large caseload, and it may take some time before your complaint is looked at again.” This point was further reiterated on 3 August 2022, when the landlord confirmed escalation to stage 2. In its response, it said, “there is a backlog, so there may be a delay in responding.” While the Ombudsman understands that the landlord may have had a backlog in its complaint handling, its policy clearly states that a response at stage 2 would be provided within 20 working days and in some circumstances a further 10 working days may be required which would be communicated to the resident. The initial reply from the landlord suggested the escalated response would be outside the timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy and not in line with the principles set out in the Code before the matter had even been considered at stage 2. It showed little regard for the concerns of the resident, it lacked empathy, and was discouraging in tone.
The resident responded to the landlord several times explaining that she was dissatisfied with the response, yet it did not escalate to stage 2 until the resident specifically asked it to be. The Code sets out that a complaint can be an expression of dissatisfaction. It was clear from the resident’s responses that she was dissatisfied with the response from the landlord, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm escalation to stage 2 after the resident had made the first expression of dissatisfaction to the stage 1 response. Not doing so added to the resident’s frustrations and led to her expending additional time and effort in confirming her wish to escalate her complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 15 August 2022, meaning a response in line with their policy and the Code was required by 12 September 2022. The resident chased a response on 13 September 2022, and the landlord replied on the same date. It advised it would respond by 16 September 2022, which it did. While the delay in providing its stage 2 response was only minor, it would have been reasonable and in line with its policy for the landlord to communicate the delay before the 20 working days expired. While the landlord gave generic information about a backlog when the resident requested escalation to stage 2, it would have been reasonable and in line with the Code to provide the resident with a date for the resident to expect her stage 2 response. Not providing that information to the resident meant she spent unnecessary time chasing a response at stage 2.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged its failure in communication and the delayed stage 2 response and offered compensation totalling £125. It apologised to the resident and advised it had fed back to the teams the required learning from its failures. Following a request from the resident to review the compensation, the landlord offered £150 compensation, made up of the following:
1. £75 for the lack of communication.
2. £75 for the delays experienced at stage 2.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and recognise that learning was required from the failings identified. Its commitment to learn from the issues is evidenced in its stage 2 response, when it advised it would recommend its staff to be reminded of the importance of communication when managing the expectations of residents.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not in line with the Code or its policy. The landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint and subsequently respond at stage 1. Its communication around the resident’s escalation request was not timely and its lack of communication in the delay at stage 2 was unreasonable, this led to the resident having to spend time chasing a response and delayed her getting a resolution to her complaints. Had the landlord not made the compensation offer of £150 following its review of its response in this case, an adverse finding would have been made.
As such, considering all the circumstances in the case and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, it is the view of the Ombudsman, that the landlord’s offer of £150 compensation amounted to reasonable redress for this element of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of fleas.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the compensation offered in its stage 2 review of £650 to the resident if it has not already paid this.
The landlord should ensure the commitment, made in its stage 2 response, to learn from issues it had identified and highlighted at paragraph 51 of this report is met with the required training.