Reading Borough Council (202009966)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009966

Reading Borough Council

17 January 2025

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:
   1. handling of reports of a rat infestation and associated repairs.
   2. complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident was a tenant of the landlord at the time of the complaint. She moved out of the property through a mutual exchange on 12 March 2022.
3. On 3 May 2021 following contact from the resident this Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns about a rat infestation in her home. On 4 January 2022 following further contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord again, asking it to respond to her concerns within 10 working days.
4. On 4 February 2022 the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said:
   1. The resident first reported a rat problem on 12 September 2019 and it advised her to contact pest control.
   2. She reported this issue again in 2021 and a drain survey was carried out.
   3. It attended to carry out brickwork repairs on 27 July and 27 August 2021 but could not gain access.
   4. This brickwork as well as other internal works were completed between 22 November 2021 and 24 January 2022.
   5. On 28 January 2022 pest control advised the landlord that there were no further signs of rodent activity in the property.
   6. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused.
5. Following further contact from this Service the landlord wrote to the resident on 11 July 2022. It acknowledged that the rat infestation took several visits to resolve and offered £250 compensation for the time, trouble and distress caused during this time. On 7 March 2023 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to formally respond to the resident’s concerns at stage 2 of its complaints process.
6. On 29 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It repeated parts of its stage 1 response and in addition, it said:
   1. It acknowledged that when it repaired entry points, the rats used other access points to enter the property.
   2. Repairs were delayed due to access and work not being agreed on-site.
   3. It apologised for the poor service and offered £750 compensation for the distress and disturbance.
7. The resident asked this Service to investigate the complaint on 26 July 2023. She felt the landlord had handled the pest control issues, repairs and complaints poorly. She said she had reported these issues when she first moved to the property in 2018 but nothing was done. She added that the situation had affected her well-being.
8. Subsequently, the landlord paid the resident compensation of £3,300. The resident informed this Service that she is unclear why it increased the amount of compensation as it did not provide a breakdown or an accompanying apology letter. As an outcome, she wanted more compensation and a written apology.

Assessment and findings

Handling of reports of a rat infestation and associated repairs

9. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, the Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
10. However, in this case, the Ombudsman is unable to assess whether the compensation paid to the resident was reasonable and satisfactory in putting things right. This is because the landlord has not provided any relevant evidence to this Service. Indeed, the only evidence this Service has been provided with is the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses to the complaint. While these summarise the actions the landlord said it took in response to the resident reports, the landlord has provided no evidence to support these assertions, despite several evidence requests from this Service.
11. Due to the landlord’s lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in accordance with its obligations. This has also prevented the Ombudsman from determining the full extent of the detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in this case.
12. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord, as it did not provide the relevant information when asked. This included this Service issuing the landlord with a complaint handling failure order for its inability to provide the requested evidence for this case.
13. The resident informed this Service that the situation was ‘dreadful’ and had caused her a great deal of stress. Although the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, it can consider the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident. In light of these comments and with no evidence to the contrary it is reasonable to conclude that the detriment caused to the resident was likely significant.
14. It appears the landlord paid compensation of £3,300 after its stage 2 final response for its handling of this matter. However, this Service expects the landlord to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2. Additionally, when compensation offers come after the landlord’s complaint process is exhausted it is harder for the landlord to demonstrate it will act fairly and consistently in all cases. This amounts to maladministration.
15. Further, it is unclear what the landlord paid £3,300 compensation for or in recognition of. Additionally, it is not entirely clear if the compensation offered throughout the landlord’s complaint process was paid to the resident. In recognition of this and the likely significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of this matter, the Ombudsman has awarded further compensation to put things right. As such, orders have been made below for remedy.

Complaint handling

16. At the time of the complaint The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) stated that landlords must respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It adds that where this is not possible, it must provide an explanation and a date when a formal response should be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
17. This Service first asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns as set out in the timescales of the Code on 21 May 2021. However, it failed to do so. This caused time and trouble for the resident who had to approach this Service again for assistance.
18. We subsequently wrote to the landlord on 4 January 2022 asking it to formally respond to the resident’s concerns within 10 working days. However, it did not issue its stage 1 response until 4 February 2022, a month later. This was contrary to the Code timescales and there was no evidence that it explained the delay or provided a date by which it would respond. In summary, it took the landlord around 9 months to formally respond to the complaint at stage 1. This was a considerable delay that caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who likely felt the landlord was ignoring her concerns.
19. Following further contact from the resident the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 5 July 2022 asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint. In response, it acted promptly by writing to the resident the same day. It also offered her £250 compensation for its handling of the rat infestation. However, this was not a formal response, and, in any case, it is unclear why the landlord did not offer this compensation at stage 1. Further, it missed an opportunity to clarify with the resident whether she wished to escalate the complaint to stage 2. This was a further failing on the landlord’s part that likely caused confusion to the resident and delayed getting matters resolved.
20. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor. The delays at stage 1 were unreasonable and it did not acknowledge or apologise for its errors. This demonstrated a lack of learning on the landlord’s part. Moreover, there is no evidence that any compensation offered or paid to the resident was in recognition of its complaint handling. In view of this, an order of compensation is made below in line with this Services remedies guidance which suggests awards from £100 should be considered where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and did not attempt to put things right.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of a rat infestation and associated repairs.
22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

23. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a rat infestation. This should include details of why the landlord paid £3,300 compensation to the resident and what this was in recognition of.
    2. Pay the resident further compensation of £350 comprised of:
       1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation and associated repairs.
       2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. The landlord should review the complaint handling failings identified in this report to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord should confirm to the Ombudsman the outcome of this review.
    4. Review its record keeping processes to ensure appropriate recording of handling of and responses to complaints and delivery of operational service and consider, if has not done so already, implementing a Knowledge and Information Management Strategy. This is discussed in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge Management and Information (KIM) management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). This should also include an assessment of how it provides evidence to this Service in an appropriate format.
24. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.