Sanctuary Housing Association (202324177)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324177

Sanctuary Housing Association

11 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of a recurring rat infestation.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat, within a block of 7 flats.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 8 August 2023, about an ongoing infestation of rats in the property, first reported to the landlord in October 2021. The resident said the landlord had completed remedial works in November 2022, but this had not resolved the problem. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response on 13 July 2023, to her report that the rats had returned.
The landlord sent a stage 1 acknowledgement, 2 days later. It thanked the resident for informing it “of her concerns about the ongoing pest issues”. It committed to providing the full stage 1 response by 23 August 2023. The landlord emailed the resident again on 22 August 2023, explaining that it needed more time to investigate the complaint. It committed to providing the stage 1 response by 6 September 2023.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 18 October 2023. The landlord set out the action it had taken in response to the resident’s report made in July 2023, about the rat infestation. It concluded there was no service failure because its contractor had attended within expected timescales. However, the landlord partially upheld the complaint, “in view of the multiple call outs, alongside the evidence you have provided”. The landlord offered an apology and a goodwill gesture of £25.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 21 October 2023. The resident stated that the complaint was an “ongoing complaint” about an “ongoing issue” with rats, which she first brought to the landlord’s attention in October 2021. The resident said the complaint was also about the landlord’s failure to remedy the rat infestation by 14 November 2022, as directed by the local authority. The resident clarified that the complaint was not a new complaint or a complaint about whether the landlord had met expected response timescales. She commented that the landlord’s explanation of the action it had taken following her report about rats in July 2023 was incorrect.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 31 October 2023, prior to commencing its stage 2 investigation. The landlord has not provided contemporaneous notes from this conversation. But it did record that the resident was unhappy with the way it had handled the stage 1 complaint, with the landlord’s complaint response, and with the landlord’s proposed resolution. It noted that the resident wanted the landlord to eliminate the rats and pay compensation.
The landlord emailed the resident on the same day, clarifying that it had escalated the “rat issues” to stage 2. The landlord sent a formal stage 2 acknowledgement on 3 November 2023, confirming that it would provide a full response by 29 November 2023. The landlord emailed the resident on 1 December 2023, stating that it needed more time and would issue the stage 2 response by 13 December 2023.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 12 December 2023. The landlord:
1. Apologised for its delay in issuing the stage 2 response.
2. Set out the action it had taken to address the rat infestation from December 2022 onwards.
3. Accepted that the time taken to address the resident’s concerns in relation to communal pest control was longer that it would have expected. It also accepted that there were times when its communication could have been better.
4. Confirmed that it had passed the findings from its complaint investigation onto relevant managers, to help inform service improvement.
5. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, offered an apology for identified failings, and revised its goodwill gesture to £275.
The landlord revisited the stage 2 response on 13 March 2024, after the resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. In summary, the landlord:
1. Said it had been unable to consider events that happened between 2019 and 2022, as the resident had not raised any direct reports about rats within 6-months of the stage 1 complaint being raised. However, it said it had looked at the history of reports made against the whole block, “for reference purposes”.
2. Set out the reports received and action taken by the landlord to resolve rodent infestations since 2019.Said it was satisfied that appropriate steps had been and were being taken, to address the rodent issue within the block. But said it appreciated the length of time these concerns had been ongoing and the difficulties its contractors had had in eradicating the infestation from the block.
3. Accepted that the resident was likely to have lost some enjoyment of the property, due to the noise of rats in the wall cavity, “from the point the complaint was raised”. But found no failure of service because the resident had not raised any direct reports about rats within 6-months of the stage 1 complaint.
4. Accepted nonetheless, that there had been an ongoing rat infestation predating this, for which it apologised. It recognised the constant worry that the resident was likely to have experienced, that the rats could be accessing the property. In view of this, the landlord partially upheld the complaint.
5. Increased its goodwill gesture to £1,075. This was broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for failure in complaint handling at stage 1.
  2. £25 for misspelling the resident’s surname in the interim stage 1 response.
  3. £50 for complaint handling delay at stage 2.
  4. £400 for time and trouble.
  5. £500 for loss of enjoyment of the property from August 2023.
The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation in March 2024. The resident said that the landlord was not doing enough to eradicate the rats, and she could not use her kitchen because the rats were in her walls. The resident said the landlord should deal with the rat infestation and compensate her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, unless there is evidence of complaint handling failure. At the time of the complaint, the Scheme stated this was normally within 6 months of the matter arising.
When the resident escalated her complaint with the Ombudsman, she said there had been a recurring issue with rats in the building since 2006. During the complaint process, the resident referred to an enforcement notice issued to the local authority on 10 October 2022. This notice required the landlord “to take steps to destroy rats or mice or to keep land free from rats and mice” by 14 November 2022.
When the landlord provided the final complaint response, it said that it was unable to consider events that happened between 2019 and 2022, in accordance with its complaint policy. This was because the resident had not raised any direct reports about rats within 6-months of the stage 1 complaint being raised. However, this was in conflict with the period of the investigation considered by the landlord at stage 2, which dated back to December 2022.
The Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord looked wider than the complaint itself by reflecting on reports received about rats in relation to the whole block. However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s final response referenced historical events dating back to 2019, which was beyond the scope of its investigation.
The Ombudsman considers that it is appropriate to extend the scope of this investigation, given the lack of clarity concerning the scope of the landlord’s own complaint investigation, because the landlord was aware of the infestation, and was tasked with resolving it.
Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 14 November 2022 and 13 March 2024. This being the expiry date specified on the local authority notice, through to when the landlord issued the final complaint response. For clarity, any events referenced in this report that predate this, will be referenced as background to the complaint and will not be assessed. The report may also reference events beyond this timeframe, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint.
The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of the rat infestation impacted her health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, this investigation may consider the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
The landlord’s repairs policy stated that it would complete emergency repairs within 24 hours (to make safe) and appointed repairs within 28 calendar days.
The landlord also had an obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the property free of hazards, which were so serious that the dwelling would not be suitable for occupation in that condition. The landlord would be expected to take preventative measures to mitigate the likelihood or risk from infection from pests, such as rats. For example, the landlord might identify and seal up possible access points to the building where rats might enter.
According to the landlord’s guidance on pests, the landlord will deal with pest infestations in communal areas. Residents are responsible for dealing with pests within the property. However, if the resident disputes this, it may arrange for a surveyor to assess who is responsible.

The landlord’s handling of a recurring rat infestation

The landlord’s internal communications suggest that “major works” were carried out to deal with the rat issue, after receiving the local authority notice. This included remedial works within the property, which were completed by early December 2022. The landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with any reports or works orders showing the extent of the landlord’s investigations, or the works that it had carried out. This has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to assess whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable, proportionate, and in line with the local authority notice. It is evident that the landlord’s efforts were made harder because of difficulties gaining access to other properties in the block.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 December 2022, because she could still hear rats. She expressed concern that following its interventions, there was still a hole around the pipework in the hallway. The landlord’s trades supervisor endeavoured to phone the resident back the same day, which shows that the landlord was treating the resident’s concerns with the attention deserved. The parties later agreed a date for the landlord to return and carry out remedial work. This was completed on 23 December 2022.
It is reasonable to assume that there was a period of 6 or 7 months, when the resident was not directly affected by rats. This is because there were no new reports received from the resident about rats until 13 July 2023, when she reported the rats had found their way back into the walls. The Ombudsman also noted that the resident had written to the landlord on 1 July 2023, asking for a rent reduction to cover the period when rats were in the property, and she could not use the kitchen. The period requested was October 2021 to November 2022.
While the resident may not have been directly affected by rats between mid-December 2022 and mid-July 2023, the landlord continued to respond to reports from other residents in the block about rats. The evidence shows that the landlord was endeavouring to find a remedy. While not an exhaustive list, the landlord identified the need to carry out a drainage survey on 27 December 2022, which was completed in April 2023.
Although there was a significant delay completing the drain survey, no defects were identified. It checked some drain covers in May 2023, but again no defects were found.
The landlord raised various works orders for rat baiting, including a course of baiting of the communal areas throughout June 2023. It instructed another drain survey on 31 July 2023. It instructed various communal repairs in August 2023. This included filling holes in the wall of the electrical intake cupboard and checking a hole near a drain. The hole in the wall was filled a month later. Itis unclear if the landlord checked the hole near the drain from the available evidence, which is a concern. Either there was an issue with the landlord’s record keeping, or the hole was not checked.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s frustration on 8 August 2023, that the landlord had not offered to raise an inspection, when she reported the rats had found their way back into the cavity walls on 13 July 2023. This would have been in line with the landlord’s guidance on pests. During the complaint process, the landlord accepted that it ought to have raised an inspection. The landlord acted fairly, by apologising and instructing its repairs team to raise a works order. However, the works order was not raised until 22 August 2023. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord ought to have raised this inspection in a timelier manner, given its previous inaction, and since the resident said she could smell dead rats through the wall.
The landlord’s pest control contractor attended promptly on 23 August 2023, which was positive. It told the landlord on 30 August 2023, that it could do no more to assist the landlord with the rat issue, as the rats were in the walls. It said that it had recently attended another flat in the block for a similar issue and was confident that there was a drainage issue. It suggested that no real progress would be made until the landlord had completed the drain survey it had recommended and had fitted an anti-rodent device. It said this would help stop rats getting into the wall cavities and would help control the infestation.
The Ombudsman notes that its drainage contractor did not attend until 31 October 2023, due in part, to a lack of clarity by the landlord over where its operatives could park. When its contractor eventually did attend, it was unable to complete the drain survey because the landlord’s purchase order had not stated there was an active rodent issue. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, these delays were inappropriate and avoidable. It is understood that its contractor then needed to obtain a separate quote from its own pest control sub-contractor before investigations could proceed, which added further delay.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord also received an informal communication from the local authority private sector housing team at the end of October 2023, after the resident escalated concerns to the local authority about rats. The local authority encouraged the landlord to engage the services of a pest control company to ensure there were no points of access for rats to enter the property. The local authority said that the landlord should complete these works within 2 months.
The landlord raised a new works order on 1 December 2023, after the landlord’s drainage contractor sent in a new quotation. This was to:
1. strip back all expanding foam and anything blocking holes
2. check for proof of entry points, and reseal
3. carry out a full waste drain jetting and survey
4. and fit a non-return valve into the outgoing waste pipe / waste drain chamber.
This work was later scheduled for 15 December 2023. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have encouraged its contractor to complete this job in a timelier manner, given that the drain survey remained outstanding from July 2023.
However, the Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord acknowledged itself at stage 2, that it had taken longer than expected to address the resident’s concerns about communal pest control. It was positive that it recognised there had been delays arranging identified works, recognised that it should have managed the work with its contactors better, and committed to putting things right.
However, the landlord’s drainage contractor did not complete the drain survey on 15 December 2023 as planned because its sub-contractor was unable to attend. Although this may not have been avoided, this left the job incomplete and the matter unresolved. The landlord confirmed in the final complaint response, that its drainage contractor attended on 20 December 2023 and 3 January 2024, but there was no sign of pests or an issue with the drainage. The Ombudsman has not been able to verify this from the evidence seen but this suggests that rats were entering the building by another route. This could have been identified earlier, if the drain survey had been carried out in a timelier manner.
As an interim measure, the landlord approved a “4-part blitz treatment” of the block in January 2024, “to tackle the infestation post drain survey”. The landlord’s internal communications also show that the landlord considered completing a full structural survey of the block. This was appropriate given the findings from the drain survey.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 January 2024. The resident said she was living in fear of rats and was no longer using her kitchen, the rats had eaten and chewed some of her food, she could smell rat urine in the kitchen, and suggested that the kitchen would need to be changed.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the following day to carry out the structural survey of the building. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its own in-house team to carry out the survey. But given its evident challenge to eradicate rats from the building, it may have been prudent for the landlord to have instructed a specialist structural engineer. It is noted that the landlord’s surveyor did not identify any structural issues with the building. More baiting was recommended “to act as a deterrent”, which had already been instructed.
The landlord held an internal meeting on 17 January 2024, to discuss next steps. It noted that the resident was no longer using the kitchen and “had taped up the door”. It agreed that its contractor should reattend to block up any holes and bait. The landlord sought quotations for the work, which were later approved. However, it is understood that it was nearly 6 months before its contractor attended, finding evidence of rats in the void behind the kitchen cupboards. The landlord completed follow-on works to prevent further rat ingress on 1 July 2024, in line with recommendations from its contractor. This included installing boards behind the kitchen cupboards and boxing in around the soil stack.
The Ombudsman accepts that this job required more than one contractor, which may have presented some logistical issues for the landlord. The Ombudsman also accepts that issues with access and the resident being on holiday for a week in May 2024, was likely to have created some unavoidable delay in the landlord completing the work.
However, the resident’s justification for wanting the kitchen cupboards removed at the same time as the proofing works was reasonable, to avoid dispersing the rats further into the kitchen. In the Ombudsman’s view, poor communication and misunderstandings between the landlord and its contractors about the job were significant contributory factors in the delays that arose. Given the landlord’s statutory obligation to keep the property free from hazards, the landlord ought to have completed its investigation and any identified follow-on works in a timelier manner.
It has not been possible to verify from the evidence seen, that the kitchen was unusable due to rodent activity in the cavities and behind the kitchen units. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the likely distress caused to the resident by noises in the wall cavities, and the constant worry that rats were accessing the property. The landlord was aware from its own inspection in January 2024, that the resident was no longer using the kitchen. In the Ombudsman’s view, if the landlord believed the kitchen was still useable it should have communicated this to the resident at the time. There is no evidence that it did, which is troubling. The landlord’s silence was likely to have reinforced the resident’s perception that the kitchen was unusable and elevated her expectations about compensation.
The landlord recognised in the final complaint response, that there had been an ongoing problem with rat infestation within the block, for which it apologised. This was positive. The landlord attempted to put things right by increasing its offer of compensation, which included a payment for loss of enjoyment of the property, which was fair. It also said it would monitor completion of outstanding works through to completion, which it did. But as already referenced, the works were not completed until several months later. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord continued to receive reports about rats from other residents in the block following this, which suggests that there was still an unresolved rat infestation within the block.
When the landlord provided evidence to the Ombudsman for the purposes of this investigation, it referenced difficulties gaining access to some of the properties in the block, which contributed to delays completing necessary works. While the landlord said it had taken a joined-up approach with occupiers and its contractors to ensure that works were completed, this could not be verified from the available evidence.
The landlord told the Ombudsman that there were no outstanding works to the property or the block as of 28 August 2024. But it remains unclear whether the landlord was able to establish the underlying cause of the repeat infestations. In the Ombudsman’s view, until the landlord is able to evidence that it fully understands this, the property remains at risk of repeat infestations. Therefore, the Ombudsman was encouraged to learn that the landlord had instructed a full site survey on 20 August 2024, as a precautionary measure.
The landlord should share the outcome of this survey, with the resident and the Ombudsman. The landlord should also periodically inspect the building at appropriate intervals, to satisfy itself that the measures it has taken to abate the rat infestation were appropriate and offer a long-term solution. In the event of a new rat infestation, the landlord should consider instructing a specialist structural survey of the building.
On balance, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a recurring rat infestation. The landlord acknowledged that there had been failings in its handling of the substantive matter, which adversely affected the resident. It attempted to put things right, but the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.
As a remedy, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation, reflecting the loss of enjoyment of the kitchen between 13 July 2023 and 1 July 2024, arising from the landlord’s delay to address, investigate, and complete works to remedy the rat infestation. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable to compensate at a rate of 12.5% of the weekly rent for the impact on the kitchen over this period. The Ombudsman makes a separate order for compensation, which recognises the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the rat infestation, over the same period. This compensation is calculated in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it had a 2-stage complaint process. The landlord aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days and issue a full response within 10 working days. The landlord aimed to provide a full response to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord could extend the timescale for issuing the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response by a further 10 working days. The policy stated that the scope of the complaint and the landlord’s understanding of expected outcomes, would be confirmed within its complaint acknowledgement.
It is not in dispute, that the landlord issued the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses outside of expected response timescales. The landlord also identified that it had misspelt the resident’s name in the stage 1 response. The landlord has already apologised for this and has offered redress.
However, the Ombudsman remains concerned about the confusion that surfaced in relation to the scope of the complaint, as previously referenced. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have been clearer about the scope of its investigation in its complaint acknowledgement at stage 1 and stage 2. This would have allowed the resident to challenge the landlord’s understanding of her complaint prior to its investigation. If the landlord decided not to accept the complaint, or planned to restrict the timescale of the investigation, it could have explained this to the resident and informed her of her right to contact the Ombudsman to challenge this decision.
As previously stated, it was encouraging that the landlord committed to revisiting the complaint and issuing a final response, following intervention by the Ombudsman. But it was unhelpful that the landlord’s investigation was at odds with the timeline considered by the landlord at stage 1 and 2. The landlord’s final complaint response was confusing because its decision to partially uphold the complaint was based, in part, on historical events that it previously indicated were being considered for reference purposes. This added further confusion.
On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to pay the £175 compensation it previously offered, if this has not already been paid to the resident. No further award of compensation is made. This is because the landlord’s offer was at the higher end of compensation that the Ombudsman would have awarded for distress and inconvenience, based on the available evidence.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a recurring rat infestation
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must pay compensation of £1,575 directly to the resident, which is reduced to £500, if the landlord has already paid the compensation that it previously offered. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £750 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the rat infestation.
2. £650 in recognition of loss of enjoyment of the kitchen arising from the landlord’s delay to address, investigate, and complete works to remedy the rat infestation.
3. £175 in recognition of complaint handling failure.
The landlord must write to the resident with the findings and outcomes from the site survey it instructed in August 2024. Depending on its findings, the landlord must set out the steps that it has already taken, or will take (if any), in response to the survey. This should be presented as an action plan, which must include expected timescales for action, and should detail how the landlord will monitor those actions through to conclusion.
The landlord must commit to periodical inspections of the building, at appropriate intervals, to satisfy itself that the measures the landlord has taken to abate the rat infestation were appropriate and provide a long-term solution. In the event that a new rat infestation is identified in the block, the landlord should consider instructing an independent specialist structural survey of the building. The landlord must set out its intended approach, in writing, to the resident.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.