Plus Dane Housing Limited (202126563)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126563

Plus Dane Housing Limited

23 September 2022


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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. A pest infestation in her property.
    2. Boiler repairs.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of boiler repairs.
  3. The Ombudsman cannot consider this issue as part of the current complaint investigation. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s [landlord’s] complaints procedure unless if there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not acted within a reasonable timescale.
  4. As this is a separate issue to the formal complaint raised with the landlord through its complaints process, this is not something on which this Service can adjudicate at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect of the complaint before the Ombudsman can consider it. The resident can contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get these matters resolved. If the resident remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her complaint, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman for investigation as a separate complaint at that stage.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident reported on 13 occasions between 2018 and 2021, a pest infestation of mice and rats in her property. The landlord attended the property on 13 scheduled occasions between 2018 and 2021, with numerous follow-up appointments also attended, with treatments including filling in holes in the resident’s property where it was suspected the rodents were entering from, setting bait and traps, reminding other residents in the area to dispose of household waste appropriately, and hiring specialist pest control contractors. The most recent infestation treatment occurred in 2022 where it was identified that the infestation had been eradicated due to there being no signs of further rodent activity.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the pest infestation, stating that pests continued to be in the property despite the landlord’s treatment. The resident stated that she felt she could no longer live in the property due to it being in ‘disrepair’ and felt as though she was homeless. Furthermore, the resident was unhappy that she was told that the infestation was ‘all in her head’. The resident additionally raised concerns about ‘gaps and missing information’ in the landlord’s records about the pest infestation. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident requested for the infestation to be resolved, compensation for items disposed of as a result of the infestation, and to be relocated to a new property.
  4. The landlord stated that it had attended the property on every occasion where pests were reported and completed appropriate repairs and infestation treatment. It stated that its recent infestation report showed that pests had not been present in the property for around four to five weeks; therefore, the property was deemed to be infestation free. The landlord also apologised to the resident for any comment made about the infestation being in the resident’s ‘head’ and that this was not the opinion of the landlord’s organisation in general. In regard to compensation, it stated that it had not been informed previously about the property being uninhabitable, and had been provided no evidence of damage to any belongings in the property previously and, therefore, compensation would not be awarded for this.
  5. The resident referred this matter to this Service as she remains unhappy that the landlord had not accepted responsibility for the pest infestation. The resident also raised concerns about the lack of records the landlord has in relation to the pest infestation. The resident feels that the overall handling of the case has been poor, which has subsequently left the property in a state of disrepair. As a resolution to her complaint the resident would like compensation for the distress caused, for items damaged by the infestation, and for having to leave the property. The resident would also like to be transferred to a new property.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 28 working days.

Scope of investigation.

  1. It is noted that the resident has stated that the pest infestation has affected her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore we cannot confirm the effect of the landlord’s actions or inaction on the resident’s health. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation involving her property caused the resident.
  2. In the resident’s correspondence, she has referred to historical issues of pest infestations dating back to 2018. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  3. This is line with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide context to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from  2020 October onwards, which is six months before the resident first made a formal complaint to the landlord.

 

 

Assessment

  1. The resident raised concerns that the landlord did not have records relating to the previous pest infestation treatment dating back to 2018. As stated above, whilst this Service appreciates the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s record keeping, landlords are not expected to keep detailed records of repair appointments for extended periods of time and this was explained to the resident in the landlord’s complaint response. The landlord no longer has detailed access to the previous infestation reports and repairs and, therefore, cannot accurately comment on its previous actions. This would not be regarded as a failure by the landlord.
  2. This Service was not been provided with a copy of any of the landlord’s policies which states who is responsible for pest infestations inside the property, in instances where repairs are not required. However, landlord took ownership of the pest infestation and, therefore, was required to begin repairs within 28 working days, in line with its repairs policy. In some cases pest infestations may take multiple repair attempts in order to eradicate the infestation, due to the nature of the repairs namely, establishing entry points and the source of the infestation and monitoring to ensure that all entry points have been effectively blocked. In the evidence provided to this Service the resident reported the infestation on three occasions in 2021 and once in 2022, namely on 2 March 2021, 12 October 2021 and 3 January 2022. In response to the reports the landlord attended the property within 28 working days on every occasion that the resident reported the infestation, namely on 26 March 2021, 19 October 2021 and 13 January 2022. Therefore, the landlord acted in-line with its repair obligations.
  3. The landlord also arranged for specialist pest control operatives to attend the property and complete work such as, removal of insulation, identifying any access points, and laying bait to see if any pests were present. The landlord also received a report from the specialist contractor that, as of 7 February 2022, they deemed the infestation to have been eradicated due to a lack of evidence that traps had been disturbed. Therefore, the landlord has been assured by its specialist contractor that the infestation has been eradicated, and it is entitled to rely upon the advice of its pest control operatives, as they are experts in the area being investigated; and unless evidence is provided which is contrary to the contractors’ report, the landlord would have no reason to dispute their advice.
  4. It is recognised that the resident appeared to have been liaising with the local authority regarding the pest infestation between 2018 and 2021. The landlord would not be responsible for any period of time where it was unaware of any repair obligation as it is the resident’s responsibility to report any repair issues directly to the landlord.
  5. It is acknowledged that the resident has requested compensation for goods disposed of due to the infestation and the costs of not being able to live in the property.
  6. This Service understands that the pest infestation would have been very distressing for the resident and we are not questioning her decision to dispose of items which had been affected by the pests. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was responsible for causing the pest infestation and the available evidence suggests that the landlord took reasonable action to resolve the issue once it became aware of it, by offering to carry out pest control treatment and completing repairs to areas where the pests were believed to be entering from. The landlord has no obligation to pay for any items that were disposed of before it could assess the property damage; this is because the landlord did not have the opportunity to consider other options, such as looking at whether some items could be cleaned rather than being thrown away.
  7. A property would not automatically be considered to be uninhabitable because of a pest infestation. For the property to be considered to be uninhabitable, there would need to be evidence to confirm it was not safe to live in due to the infestation. The resident has said she had to leave the property due to the pest infestation and classified herself as ‘homeless’ due to the infestation. However, it is not clear from the evidence provided that the resident made the landlord aware of this at the time, although she later mentioned it in her complaint. Before agreeing a temporary move for pest infestations, the landlord would be entitled to assess the property and be assured that the property is uninhabitable as a result of the pests. The landlord was not afforded the opportunity to complete an inspection of the property to assess if it was habitable, as it was unaware that the resident was not living at the property. In the absence of such evidence, the landlord was not obliged to offer to temporarily move the resident until the pests were eradicated. Therefore, the landlord’s refusal to offer the resident a rent refund, or offer compensation for the expenses incurred as a result of staying out of the property was reasonable.
  8. As part of her complaint, the resident has provided photographs which appear to show evidence of pests in the property. It is not disputed that there were pests in her property but, as above, this would not in itself mean that the property was uninhabitable. It is not possible to tell from the photographs whether the infestation posed an immediate and significant risk to health and safety which meant that the resident had to leave the property.
  9. The resident has also requested that the landlord apologise for comments made about the pest infestation, namely that the pest infestation was ‘all in her head’. In the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord apologised for this comment in its stage two complaint response in which it stated that it was ‘deeply sorry if this is what had been said, please accept apologies for this, this is not the opinion in general.’ Therefore, the landlord has apologised for this comment, and an apology is reasonable to satisfactorily resolve this aspect of the complaint.
  10. It is noted that the resident requested to be moved into a different property as she no longer feels comfortable in the property in view of what has happened. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective  tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing. In general, the highest priority is given to those facing homelessness or fleeing domestic violence. It is recommended that the landlord should continue to support the resident with her request to transfer from her current property and discuss her options for moving with her, if it has not done so already.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.