Red Kite Community Housing Limited (202302754)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302754

Red Kite Community Housing Limited

2 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the loft of the property.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy started in April 1991 with a local authority. The resident became a tenant of her current landlord in 2011, following a stock transfer.
The resident informed the landlord that she has asthma and mobility issues.
In January 2023, a British Industry Steel Frame (“BISF”) project started on the resident’s property. Works included but were not limited to a roof renewal, loft insulation, external wall insulation, and cladding.
The resident told the landlord she could hear suspected rats in the loft space on 23 March 2023. Pest control attended and provided a report to the landlord on 31 March 2023. They identified rat droppings in the resident’s loft and the loft of the neighbouring property.
In her complaint on 6 April 2023, the resident stated that she had reported noises in the loft to the landlord several times during the previous years, but it failed to arrange an inspection. She also said the landlord told her that she needed to dispose of her personal belongings in the loft due to contamination by rats. She wanted to know why it could not decontaminate her belongings. It had arranged a storage container, and she requested help moving her items.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 April 2023, stating it had found no records of prior reports by the resident of noises/pests in the loft. It added that the loft space had to be cleared of personal belongings, and it was her responsibility to do this. She could request the pest controller’s help to dispose of any items. It would not clean her personal items and was not liable for any damage.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 June 2023, stating that the tenancy agreement does not include the loft space. It added that it was the resident’s responsibility to arrange for removal of rats inside the home that are not the result of building flaws. It would arrange for its contractors to move her personal items from the loft to a storage container, as a goodwill gesture.
The resident referred the matter to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord’s final response put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord acted in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation

The resident said she suffered increased respiratory problems. She believed this was due to the rats in the loft. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on the health of a resident. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. This matter is better suited for consideration by a court or a personal injury claim.
Within the resident’s complaint, she said she had been reporting noises in the loft during the previous years and the landlord did not take any action. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about this, completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, or referred the matter to this Service for support in engaging with the landlord.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happen. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be conducted, and for informed decisions to be made.
Paragraph 42.c of the Scheme (that was applicable at the time of this complaint) states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising.
Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment focuses on the period from 6 October 2022 onward. This is 6 months before the resident complained to the landlord on 6 April 2023. This investigation considers matters up to the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 1 June 2023. Reference to historical and more recent events is to provide context only.
In February 2024, the resident told this Service she was dissatisfied with delays completing the outstanding BISF project works, and she was waiting for potholes in her driveway to be permanently repaired. In addition, she was concerned rats may have returned to the loft.
The issues outlined above did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord in April 2023. Therefore, these are not matters we can investigate at this stage. The landlord needs to have an opportunity to investigate and respond under its internal complaint procedure, as per paragraph 42.a of the Scheme. It is open for the resident to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the loft of the property

At stage 1, the landlord said:
1. It invited the resident to provide information about the dates and times of calls she said she made to it, so it could investigate this further.
2. The loft space needed to be cleared of personal belongings and insulation. It offered the resident a storage container to support the removal of her items.
3. It provided the resident with the following documents:
  1. A copy of the pest control report.
  2. Health and Safety Executive Weil’s disease information.
  3. Pest Control information on Weil’s disease.
4. It had not asked the resident to dispose of her belongings, however, the pest controller could dispose of items if the resident formally requested this.
5. It would not be cleaning any of the resident’s belongings. It was her responsibility to remove them from the loft. It provided the details of a trusted contractor the resident may want to engage to remove the items, at a cost to her.
6. It did not recommend that residents use their lofts to store personal items. It accepted no liability for damage to items stored in this area.
The landlord’s pest policy asks residents to contact it as soon as possible if they notice rats in their property. It sets out that if rats are there due to a problem with the building, the landlord is responsible for the treatment. If the problem is not due to a building flaw, the resident is responsible for the treatment. It explains the local authority offers free pest control for rats and provided the relevant contact information.
The landlord acted reasonably by attending the resident’s property the day after she reported suspected rats in the loft. Records show pest control attended a shortly after and outlined the next steps to the landlord and resident. Photos from pest control show there were many personal belongings stored in the loft. There was also reference to potential food sources.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s pest controller took the correct action by sharing a copy of its findings with the resident and providing information about Weil’s disease. On balance, this would enable the resident to make an informed decision about what to do with her possessions.
At stage 2, the landlord outlined its pest policy and said:
1. It reviewed its records again and was unable to locate any notes, correspondence, or calls relating to animal activity in her loft space.
2. As part of the resident’s tenancy agreement, loft spaces are not included as part of her home. Residents are not entitled to use loft spaces for storage and to do so, is the resident’s responsibility and risk.
3. It had learnt from this complaint and going forward, any roof renewals would have a loft inspection prior to works starting, to prevent any issues arising.
On 15 August 2023, the landlord removed many of the resident’s belongings from the loft. The landlord asked the resident to sort through the items to make space for her remaining belongings to be moved. Contractors also attended in September 2023 to clear the loft of insulation and boarding, and to treat the area with biocide.
In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a storage container for the resident’s belongings to enable it to remove the contaminated loft insulation, to treat the area with biocide, and progress the roof renewal.
The Ombudsman recognises that within its final complaint response, the landlord agreed to move the resident’s belongings from the loft to the storage container as a gesture of goodwill. Considering the resident’s vulnerabilities and the extent of the items that required moving, the Ombudsman finds the landlord acted fairly by going over and above its obligations here.
While it is a fundamental part of the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether a landlord has acted appropriately in response to a formal complaint or a request for works, this will often necessitate consideration of how the resident’s actions may have contributed to the situation. Rather than demonstrating bias in favour of the landlord, this is an example of the Ombudsman’s independent and impartial role in practice, as this Service considers the conduct of both parties and the impact on the substantive issue.
In April 2023, the landlord’s records indicate the resident informed several members of staff that she was seeking advice and taking legal action. The landlord consequently advised its contractors of this. The Ombudsman does not expect the threat of legal action to pause or delay necessary works from taking place. In this case, it is clear the landlord continued to consult with the resident and discuss the matter internally to progress matters and focus on finding a solution.
The Ombudsman is not questioning the reasons why the resident delayed engaging with the landlord in terms of progressing the removal of her belongings from the loft. However, the landlord would not typically be responsible for the delays caused in this instance.
The landlord’s policy on loft access and storage sets out that it does not recommend that residents use the loft space as it is not covered within their tenancy agreement. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s previous landlord drew up her tenancy agreement. We have examined the information provided and there is no reference as to whether the resident can or cannot use the loft space. As such, the Ombudsman appreciates why the resident questioned this with her current landlord. She was evidently distressed to hear the landlord did not consider the loft space as part of her home.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord provided incorrect information relating to a loft clause in her tenancy agreement within its final complaint response. This was a failing in service; however, it does not impact the overall outcome of this case. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation regarding this.
Overall, the landlord acted reasonably by setting out its position regarding loft use and signposting the resident to its policy. It took the resident’s report of rats in the loft seriously, responded within an appropriate timeframe, offered storage for her belongings, and facilitated their removal from the loft. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman also understands why the landlord encouraged the resident not to store items in the loft in the future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the loft of the property.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reviews the wording of the signed tenancy agreement when responding to future complaints from residents who were part of a stock transfer.