Peabody Trust (202309310)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202309310
Peabody Trust
4 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of bedbugs.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background and summary of events
Background
- The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat within a block containing 29 flats. The landlord is a housing association. The resident had children and was pregnant during the time of the complaint.
- Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as the installations for the supply of water, electricity, gas, heating and sanitation. The tenancy agreement is silent on the issue of pest control.
- The landlord’s pest control policy says it will respond to pest infestations which it is responsible for and assess the risk within 7 working days. It includes a list of pests for which it will be responsible for. However, it says it is not responsible for “infestations of bedbugs that have originated and are contained within individual properties.” Non-supported housing residents are responsible for pest control within their properties under the policy.
- The landlord defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) under its complaints policy. It operates a 2-stage process. At stage 1 the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days or will agree an extension with the resident if it needs more time. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 3 working days and respond within 20 working days unless it needs to agree an extension with the resident if it needs more time.
- The Code in use at the time sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.9) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).
- Under the landlord’s compensation policy, it can offer compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience, or poor complaint handling, where there has been service failure. The policy contains suggested amount bandings based on the level of impact on the resident. The policy also sets out its approach to insurance claims. It says it should investigate where there is an allegation that it has caused damage to possessions before referring to its insurers.
Scope of investigation
- The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering its decisions. However, some matters fall outside of what the Ombudsman can make a determination on.
- The resident told the landlord within her emails and her complaint that bedbugs had affected her children’s health. She said they had been bitten and had had reactions to this. This would be classed as personal injury and is not a matter this Service can make a determination on. This is because under Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint.
Summary of events
- On 24 January 2023 the resident called the landlord to report bedbugs in the property. Its notes state that it did not know if it could raise pest control as she was not a supported resident and said this would be up to the neighbourhood manager. She completed its online complaints form on 26 January 2023 and said she had told it about the bedbug issue, and it had not helped her. She said she had thrown away furniture and put in new flooring, and so she thought it was a block issue. She was pregnant and her children were covered in bites, so she had decided to stay away from the property.
- In an internal email and call between 30 January 2023 and 3 February 2023 the landlord sought approval for pest control treatment, received this, and raised a job to its pest control contractor. It then emailed the resident and said it had spoken to her about her service recovery case, noted she had told it she had had bedbugs since November 2022, and had raised a job for pest control. It gave her a named contact and said if she was dissatisfied at any point, she could ask it to raise a complaint.
- On 8 February 2023 the landlord called the resident, and she told it she had not been contacted about an appointment. It emailed the contractor, called it 2 days later and then called the resident to update her. The contractor attended on 17 February 2023 and carried out a treatment to the property.
- In internal emails between 15 and 21 February 2023 the landlord discussed pest control. It said it needed to get a quote and authorisation. However, it already had raised a job and attended the first appointment, with a follow-on needed. It said it was not aware of a block issue but if there was it would need to book inspections with all flats in the block. On 21 February 2023 it called the resident to check on the works and said it would chase the contractor for the follow-on appointment. Following the call it emailed the contractor. On the same day another resident of the block reported bedbugs to the landlord.
- On 24 February 2023 the landlord emailed the contractor again and it replied on 28 February 2023 and said it had booked an appointment for 3 March 2023. It then called the resident to confirm. It emailed the contractor on 6 March 2023 for an outcome, and they replied that they had completed the treatments. It called the resident to confirm but had to leave a voicemail. It called again on 8 March 2023 and its notes says the resident confirmed the treatment had been done.
- The landlord called the resident on 15 March 2023, and she said she still had bedbugs. It said it would look into raising further treatments. The landlord asked internally for approval for further treatment and received this. It called the resident on 22 March 2023 and left a voicemail to confirm it had raised the job. The contractor carried out treatment on 30 March 2023. The following day the landlord called the resident and confirmed the contractor had attended, and there was a follow-on appointment on 13 April 2023.
- On 13 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and asked for a callback. It called her on 20 April 2023 and its note says she told it she still had bedbugs. She said they seemed to be coming from vents in the children’s bedroom and it said it would need to carry out a block treatment. It emailed the contractor to raise a block treatment the same day. In internal emails on 24 April 2023, it said it would need to obtain a quote, but there may be a delay with its preferred contractor due to an issue on their end.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 27 April 2023 and asked for an update. She said she still had bedbugs, and her children were scared to sleep in their room, had suffered further bites and a reaction. She was having to wash clothes constantly which was difficult as she was 7 months pregnant. She said she had spent £3,000 trying to resolve the issue and in replacing furniture and flooring. She was fed up and wanted something done immediately. The following day the landlord emailed the contractor to ask for an update. It called the resident and said it was waiting for a quote, and that it would be a big job to treat the block.
- On 2 May 2023 the landlord emailed the contractor with details about the block and asked them to prioritise the property. It emailed the resident on 5 May 2023 to update her and called her on 15 May 2023. She told it she had yet to be contacted for an appointment. It emailed the contractor and sent an internal email to ask for an update. The contractor replied and said it had left voicemails for the resident.
- In an internal email on 17 May 2023 the landlord said it had received a quote for the block treatment. The contractor emailed it on 24 May 2023 and said it had not heard back from the resident, or the landlord after they had sent the quote. It sent an internal email on 2 June 2023 to chase for an update and called the resident. She told it she had not received any voicemails from the contractor, and she was concerned as she was due to give birth soon. It said it was chasing for an update.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 12 June 2023 and asked to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
- The previous spray treatments not having resolved the bedbug issue and that it must be a block issue.
- She could not wait any longer for the block treatment as she would be giving birth soon and could not bring a newborn baby home with bedbugs in the property.
- Her children were still being bitten and having reactions.
- The landlord had not dealt with the issue efficiently.
- On 14 June 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge her complaint. It also said it had escalated the issue to a director to try to get it resolved. It emailed her again on 22 June 2023 and said it had tried to call to discuss her complaint.
- In an internal email on 26 June 2023 the landlord said the contractor had carried out the block treatment to all but 3 flats which included the property and asked if it could reattend. The landlord has not supplied any records or information on when and how the block treatment was completed to this Service.
- On 27 June 2023 the landlord provided it stage 1 response in which it:
- Defined the complaint, desired outcome and set out a timeline of events.
- Said it had raised a second pest control job due to the delays with the first one.
- Accepted it had breached its repairs policy timeframe of 60 working days for specialist repairs and apologised for this. It also apologised for the inconvenience caused.
- Said it would monitor progress of the pest control job and could calculate a compensation offer once the issue had been resolved.
- Explained how the resident could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
- The contractor emailed the landlord on 1 August 2023 and said the resident had not allowed access for it to carry out a heat treatment. The same day it emailed her and said it would rearrange the treatment. It offered compensation of £350 for the distress and inconvenience, delays, and towards her costs for living away from the property and said that concluded its stage 1 response. On 3 August 2023 it raised a job for a further treatment.
- On 14 August 2023 the resident completed the landlord’s compensation acceptance form. She said she did not accept its offer and set out her reasons why, which included that she had spent £3,000 on private treatments, new furniture and flooring, and had had to redecorate. She also had to pay more in travel while she stayed away from the property. Her children had been affected and she still had an infestation. She emailed it the following day and asked for her complaint to remain open as she still had bedbugs.
- The resident and the landlord exchanged emails on 12 September 2023 about bedbugs and the complaint. The landlord asked how long it had been since the treatment and her seeing them again, and she said they never went away. The resident provided a number of photographs of bedbugs with date and time stamps. The landlord recommended she agree to the heat treatment and explained that she was highly unlikely to be successful in trying to move away from the property. On 13 September 2023 it emailed her and asked if she would like to escalate her complaint to stage 2 and whether she would agree to the heat treatment.
- On 14 September 2023 the resident confirmed that she wanted to escalate her complaint. She also said she did not want the treatment because the property would need to be mostly empty to avoid damage to her possessions. The landlord emailed her on 20 September 2023 to acknowledge her stage 2 complaint. It provided its stage 2 response on 16 October 2023 in which it:
- Said her reasons to escalate were that the bedbug treatments had failed, the compensation offered did not cover her losses and she wanted to move.
- Explained that bedbugs were the resident’s responsibility under its pest control policy, but it had used its discretion to raise a job for her. It had completed 2 treatments in February 2023, and she had not reported the issue again until April 2023.
- Accepted there had been a delay in arranging the block treatment which it said was due to having to obtain quotes, and due to no accesses including her refusing 2 treatments.
- Said it could not assist her with re-housing but said how she could register to move or consider a mutual exchange.
- Determined, regarding her disposing of furniture, that it could not compensate her because the bedbugs were not caused by it or its failure to repair. It said she could make a claim to its insurers and how to do this.
- Explained it had reviewed its previous compensation offer and that it was fair. It however did offer £50 additional compensation as its stage 2 response had been delayed.
- Said how she could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
- The resident has told the Ombudsman that the bedbug issue has been resolved, however, the compensation the landlord offered was not satisfactory.
Assessment and findings
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of bedbugs
- When the resident called the landlord to report bedbugs it initially did not know if it could assist, as under its policy it was not responsible for the issue. However, following her second contact via its online form the landlord positively agreed to raise pest control. It also gave the resident a named member of staff who would monitor the situation for her, which again was positive. That member of staff effectively communicated with the contractor and the resident to ensure appointments were made, checked on the outcomes and ensured the resident was kept updated.
- The landlord appropriately kept in contact with the resident and, when she told it she still had bedbugs in March 2023, it sought approval for and agreed to further treatments. When the resident said she still had bedbugs and suspected they were coming from the vents in April 2023, the landlord correctly said it needed to consider treatment for the whole block and raised this the same day, which was solution focused. Although it is not clearly stated within its pest control policy, the landlord at this point seemed to accept that it was responsible for resolving the issue, rather than acting under discretion, which was positive. It said it needed to get a quote which was reasonable and required considering the possible costs involved.
- Despite the efforts of the initial member of its staff in chasing the contractor, and internally, delays started to occur. While the landlord tried to keep the resident updated, there was little it could say to reassure her that it was going to resolve the bedbugs promptly. Despite it having received the quote on 16 or 17 May 2023, it delayed in taking any action which was a failing. It could have either accepted the quote, or promptly obtained an alternative at that time.
- Following the stage 1 complaint, and internal escalation to a director, the landlord said on 26 June 2023 its contractor had completed treatment of all but 3 flats including the property. The landlord has failed to provide any evidence of what treatment was completed or when. If completed on that date, it was 44 working days after it raised the block treatment job, which was within its 60 working day timeframe for specialist repairs under its repairs policy. However, it had more than exceeded this timeframe from when the resident first reported the issue, which it accepted within its stage 1 response. It later offered £350 compensation which showed it wanted to put things right. This comes within its ‘moderate disruption’ banding under its compensation policy.
- There was a no access for a heat treatment, and the reasons the resident gave were reasonable. The landlord correctly offered to rearrange the treatment however the resident refused. It tried to explain why it was necessary to resolve the situation. The resident’s reason for refusing further treatment was that she would need to remove possessions from the property. While this would have been impractical, and unsettling, it was not a reasonable reason to refuse treatment which could have resolved the issue sooner.
- Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly said it had acted initially out of discretion, and then it had delayed in completing the block treatment. Its position that the bedbug issue had been resolved and then had reappeared was incorrect and the evidence established that the issue remained constant.
- However, its refusal to offer compensation for furniture and flooring the resident had disposed of and replaced was reasonable. Under its compensation policy it must consider if it was the cause of the loss, and it did this. The resident appears to have disposed of the items she wanted to claim for before the landlord started to treat for bedbugs and so it would be difficult to establish that the landlord was responsible for these losses. It did appropriately suggest that she make a claim to its insurers which was appropriate.
- 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
- The Ombudsman understands that this was a difficult situation for the resident. However, at all times the landlord kept in contact with her. It exercised discretion initially to complete treatments and for a second time. By the time it raised the block treatment it had only received reports of bedbugs from one or 2 other properties, and so it was reasonable that it had waited to take this action. It could and should have acted quicker once it received the quote but did carry out the treatment. It accepted that it had delayed and breached its policy timeframe. It offered appropriate compensation and there was reasonable redress.
The landlord’s complaint handling
- The resident used the landlord’s online complaints form on 26 January 2023 to report her pest control issue and ask for the landlord’s help. The landlord has not provided any evidence, other than a record of her call 2 days before, of the resident bringing the matter to its attention. It was therefore reasonable for it to treat this as a service recovery or service request rather than as a complaint. Positively it did say that it would raise a complaint at any point if she asked it to do so.
- On 27 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to express her dissatisfaction about its handling of the bedbug issue. She clearly explained why she was dissatisfied. Under its complaints policy definition of a complaint, which mirrors paragraph 1.2 of the Code, it should have treated this email as a complaint, but it failed to do so.
- When she asked to make a complaint, the landlord acknowledged this within its 5 working day timeframe. Its internal emails show there was some confusion about which member of its staff needed to investigate which caused a delay in it starting to do this. It provided its response on 27 June 2023, which was after 11 working days and a minor failing against its policy timeframe. However, it did not make its compensation offer within its response, but delayed this, which was unconventional and caused delays in the complaints process.
- On 14 and 15 August 2023 the resident explained that she remained dissatisfied with the stage 1 response and compensation offered, but the landlord failed to escalate the complaint. Following further emails, it agreed to do this. It provided its stage 2 response after 23 working days, in breach of its policy and the Code. Within its stage 2 response it accepted it had been late in responding and offered £50 compensation for this.
- In relation to the failures identified there was service failure. While the landlord’s offer of redress for its delay in its stage 2 response was reasonable, it should have raised a complaint earlier. There was a clear expression of dissatisfaction on 27 April 2023, and it should not have waited until the resident used the word complaint to have raised one. To reflect the additional time and trouble caused to the resident, an order has been made that the landlord pay £125 compensation, which is inclusive of its £50 offer.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
- In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of bedbugs.
Reasons
- There was service failure as the landlord did not raise a complaint following the resident’s first expression of dissatisfaction but waited for her to use the word complaint.
- There was reasonable redress as the landlord accepted its failing in delaying the pest control treatment and offered reasonable compensation for this.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
- Provide a written apology for the service failure detailed in this report.
- Pay directly to the resident compensation of £125 (inclusive of its £50 offer) for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
Recommendations
- It is recommended that the landlord:
- Pay the £350 it offered as part of its stage 1 response to the resident.
- Consider amending its pest control policy to state clearly that it is responsible for resolving all block pest control issues regardless of the type of pest.