Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202408415)

Background

1. The resident lives in a high rise block and has raised concerns about an ongoing pigeon infestation. She reported concerns that this posed a health hazard but felt the landlord had not listened to her or answered her questions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. A pigeon infestation at the block.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a pigeon infestation at the block.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not evidence any investigation into the root cause of the reported pigeon infestation or show that it considered the length of time the issue has been ongoing for.
5. The landlord complied with its timeframes when responding to the complaint. However, it has not shown that it followed up any of the actions it committed to in its final complaint response which has delayed the resolution of the complaint.

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.

6. The resident expressed concerns about the impact of the pigeon’s presence on her health. The Ombudsman cannot make findings about any reported impact on health and wellbeing as the Courts are better placed to consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. We can, however, consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
7. The tenancy conditions do not say what the landlord’s responsibilities are in the event of pest control issues. It does say that the landlord is responsible to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
8. The landlord is also the local authority in this case. Our investigation can only consider its actions in its capacity as a landlord. It would be for its Environmental Health services to assess whether a hazard or a statutory nuisance existed under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and Environmental Protection Act. Therefore, it’s not something we can consider.
9. The landlord has said it does not have a pest control policy but says the situation was discussed with its PCS. The PCS said it would check there was no bird feeding, ask for a full investigation of the block and seek advice from a specialist service. We have not seen evidence from the landlord that any of these actions were taken.
10. In response to the resident’s request for netting, the landlord has shown that it considered this. It provided a detailed and clear explanation as to why it would not allow or put up netting or screening, which it said was because of fire safety reasons and advice from the RSPB. This explanation was reasonable as fire safety and animal welfare is important.
11. However, the landlord’s general advice to the resident about deterring pigeons was not sufficient. It had not identified whether there was a problem and, if so, what the cause was. Having not taken any specific action to directly address the reported issues, it put an unfair onus on the resident to take steps herself. In addition, its responses did not show it fully considered the reported duration of the issue or the impact to the resident.
12. Due to the landlord’s overall response, we have found maladministration and ordered compensation in line with our remedy’s guidance. This is to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident where there is a failure that hasn’t had a permanent impact but has adversely affected the resident.

13. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the timescales in the Code.
14. The landlord complied with the above timeframes when responding to the complaint.
15. The landlord spoke about action it would take in its final response but did not provide any clear timeframes for when these actions would be taken or how it would feed this back to the resident. This has delayed getting this matter resolved, is not compliant with the Code, and can have a detrimental effect on its relationship with the resident.

Learning

Communication and record keeping

16. If it has not done so already, the landlord should consider having a clear policy in place for dealing with pest control issues which clearly outlines its responsibilities and when specialist intervention is required. Having a clear policy in place, will help to ensure a consistent approach in the future.
17. The landlord should reflect on how it can ensure that it follows up any action detailed in its complaint responses and how this can be evidenced. This will help to maintain and build trust with residents particularly where commitments are made.