Places for People Group Limited (202347611)

Background

1. The resident lived in a ground floor flat and reported she suffers from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). She reported pests and mites in her property in December 2023 and moved out in April 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests and mites.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests and mites.
5. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests and mites

6. The landlord did not act on the resident’s first report of pests and mites.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

7. The landlord sent its acknowledgement at both complaint stages, and stage 1 response, outside policy and our Complaint Handling Code timescales.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not investigated

8. We have not considered the actions of the pest control services because the landlord does not carry out this work. We can only investigate complaints about a landlord’s services. We have considered the landlord’s response to the residents reports of pests and mites and if this was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
9. The resident said the situation significantly affected her physical and mental health. While the Ombudsman empathises, it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

10. On 7 December 2023 the resident said she reported mould mites. She has been consistent in expressing this date in communication with the landlord, external agencies and this service. The landlord has provided no evidence of this report, any detail of advice provided or follow-up actions. This is a record-keeping failure and a failure to follow its pest and vermin policy. The Ombudsman recommends that landlords maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
11. The resident says she was told that removing the pests were her responsibility. The landlord’s pest and vermin policy states that residents are responsible for the removal of pests when this is within or around their property. However, any infestation in a communal area or fabric of the building is the landlord’s responsibility. At the point of the resident reporting the mites, the landlord could not be sure the mites would have been her responsibility.
12. On 26 January 2024, the resident requested a call back about property issues affecting her health. She said could not continue to live in the property. Notes recorded she was extremely upset. Although the landlord noted her distress, there is no record of any response. This was poor communication.
13. On 29 January 2024, the resident again contacted the landlord and reported mites and pests in the property. The landlord acted promptly and arranged a home visit the next day.
14. On 30 January 2024, the landlord visited the property and arranged a joint visit with a pest contractor for 7 February 2024. The landlord’s pest policy says it will appoint a qualified agency to provide an assessment and guidance of the work needed. By booking the follow-on appointment, this was in line with its policy.
15. On 7 February 2024, the landlord and pest contractor completed a joint visit. The contractor did not find any insects or pests and placed seven insect traps to monitor activity. The resident showed areas where she believed there was activity, however no pests were found. The contractor used a high-powered magnified lens and shared findings with the resident. Damp plaster was noted under the kitchen sink, which could attract plaster beetles but no evidence of beetles was found.
16. On 13 February 2024, the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection. The moisture levels were found to be appropriate, but some mould stains were found under the kitchen sink. The landlord raised follow-on works to apply mould–treatment washes, which the resident cancelled on 14 March 2024.
17. On 19 February 2024, a second pest contractor inspected the property and found no pests or mites. It advised the resident on gathering samples if she was bitten and arranged to revisit in seven days.
18. On 21 February 2024, the original pest contractor collected the traps provided on 7 February 2024. No pests had been captured. It said it could not carry out chemical treatment without finding what pests were present and could not proceed further. It advised the resident on how to treat the home if needed.
19. On 22 February 2024, the Local Authority pest control team visited the property at the resident’s request. The report said it found no pest activity or contributing factors.
20. On 26 February 2024, the second contractor re-visited the property and again found no evidence of pests.
21. On 19 March 2024, the landlord contacted the second pest control contractor for an update. It informed the landlord it was cancelling the job as the resident had removed their equipment from the property before they were due to visit again.
22. When investigating a complaint, we apply our Dispute Resolution principles. These are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. We must consider whether there was a failing by the landlord and did this lead to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If yes, we will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’. When failings are identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of the case.
23. The resident said the pests caused her considerable distress. She reported she had been bitten and had to visit the doctors. She had to replace a large number of personal items. She was unhappy with the quality and findings of the pest control teams.
24. By instructing two different pest control services to investigate, the landlord showed good practice in trying to address the resident’s concerns with independent contractors. It completed a damp and mould inspection and raised follow-on works to treat any potential causes of attracting pests and mites. This was a suitable and reasonable response.
25. However, there were failings in the case. The landlord did not act quickly when the resident first reported pests and mites. This delay caused uncertainty and distress as the resident did not know if she was responsible for treating the problem.  
26. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of pests and mites.  

27. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how and when landlords should respond to complaints. The relevant Code at the time of the complaint was the April 2022 edition. The Code says landlords should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively from the date of acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaint’s policy followed these timescales. The landlord’s definition of a complaint was also compliant with the Code.
28. The resident made her complaint on 3 February 2024. On 20 March 2024, the resident said she was unhappy with how her complaint had been handled. She said she had not received a response. This was poor communication from the landlord in not keeping the resident updated on her complaint. 
29. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 April 2024, 53 working days later. This was outside the Code and policy timescales.
30. A new version of the Code came into effect on 1 April 2024, however the timescales for acknowledgement and complaint responses stayed the same.
31. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 1 May 2024, 8 working days after the acknowledgement. This was within timescales to respond from date of acknowledgement, but overall the complaint response was significantly delayed.
32. In its stage 1 reply, the landlord did not uphold the complaint. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 the same day which the landlord acknowledged on 17 May 2024. This was 11 working days later and outside the Code and policy timescales.
33. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 May 2024. This was 6 working days after the escalation was acknowledged. This again was within the timescale to respond from the date of acknowledgement, but the acknowledgement was delayed.
34. The landlord missed policy and the Code timescales for acknowledging the complaint at both stages. There was a significant delay in the stage 1 acknowledgement and response. The resident had to chase for an update to her complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge or recognise any complaint handling failures in the case.
35. We have found maladministration in complaint handling.

Learning

36. The landlord showed good practice by arranging prompt inspections once the later report was received. It used two different pest contractors which provided independent views and reassurance for the resident. The landlord also carried out a damp and mould inspection and raised follow-on works to address the possible causes. These actions showed a thorough approach to investigate the resident’s concerns.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. There was no record of the resident’s first report of mites. The resident used the same date of first reporting the issue in several different places.  The landlord should assess itself against our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management to ensure records are accurate.

Communication

38. The resident had to chase for updates on both her complaint and after her initial report of pests and mites. Clear and timely communication helps residents understand how their concerns are being handled and prevents unnecessary delays or uncertainty.