Sedgemoor District Council (202206650)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206650

Sedgemoor District Council

8 November 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 bed bugs at the property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority. He has lived at the property, a house, since 2013. Section 2 (17) of the resident’s tenancy agreement states it is the resident’s responsibility to “remove any infestation of pests and vermin promptly on it coming to your attention”.
3. In November 2019, following a large-scale bed bug infestation at a block of its flats, the landlord updated its pest control process. The process still enforced the position that pest control is the tenant’s responsibility. However, in cases of bed bug, mice or rat infestations, in order to ensure infestations were not left to escalate, the new process stated the landlord would pay for an initial assessment of the issue and then offer advice and a list of local contractors with whom customers could arrange their own further treatment. The landlord would also offer the option of a rechargeable service.
4. On 27 July 2021, the resident requested the landlord inspect his property for bed bugs, as his children regularly visited a relative at another block of flats that was having issues with bed bug infestations. In August 2021, the landlord requested that its pest control contractor (Contractor A) inspect the property. However, no treatment was carried out as Contractor A reported they found no evidence of bed bugs. The resident says that Contractor A told his mother-in-law (who was at the property during the inspection) that they found “larvae” rather than bed bugs.
5. On 14 January 2022, the resident raised a complaint, as he said Contractor A was incorrect when they advised there were no bed bugs present, and his family were now being bitten by bed bugs. There is no record of the resident’s complaint being dealt with formally. However, the landlord arranged for the property to be inspected by another contractor (Contractor B) on 16 February 2022. Contractor B found evidence of bed bugs and carried out a full insecticide, dust and steam treatment. When the resident reported In March 2022 that the problem had not been resolved, the landlord paid for Contractor B to carry out a further treatment on 6 April 2022. The landlord covered the costs for both treatments but advised the resident he would be responsible for funding any further treatments.
6. On 9 May 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint, as he stated there were still bed bugs at the property and he was unhappy that the landlord had advised it would not fund the cost of further treatment. He said he had had to dispose of over £2500 worth of belongings due to the bed bugs and he wanted to be compensated for those items and for the landlord to continue to pay to treat the infestation. In its stage one complaint response on 23 May 2022, the landlord said its decision not to pay for any further treatments was fair, as the resident’s tenancy agreement confirmed that removal of bed bug infestations was his responsibility and it had already paid for two treatments as a good will gesture. A panel review at stage two of its complaints process also concluded the landlord had acted reasonably when it refused to fund any more treatments. 
7. The resident contacted this Service as he believed the landlord should continue to pay for treatment to eradicate the infestation. After contact from this Service on the resident’s behalf, the landlord offered to pay for one further treatment using a different contractor. However, the resident refused the landlord’s offer as he had read bad reviews for that contractor. He also considered that heat treatment would be the best solution as previous pesticide treatment had not worked.

Assessment and findings

8. The landlord has provided this Service with copies of the resident’s original tenancy agreement and a blank copy of its revised tenancy agreement. The original tenancy agreement makes clear that “any infestation of pests” is the resident’s responsibility, while its revised agreement specifically states that the removal of bed bugs is a tenant’s responsibility. The landlord’s pest control process also confirms that pest removal is the resident’s responsibility, although it will cover the cost of the first assessment appointment for any infestation. 
9. When the resident reported his concerns about a possible bed bug infestation at his property, the landlord responded appropriately by promptly arranging for Contractor A to inspect the property. As landlord records show Contractor A reportedly found no evidence of bed bugs at the property, it was reasonable that no further treatment was carried out at that stage. However, this Service has not seen a copy of the contractor’s report and it is not appropriate that this does not appear to have been kept within the landlord’s records. Maintaining accurate and comprehensive records helps landlords evidence the steps they have taken and justify any further actions, or decision not to take further actions.
10. The resident reported Contractor A told his mother-in-law they had found “larvae” rather than bed bugs and he subsequently made a complaint to the landlord in January 2022 because he believed there were in fact bed bugs present in his property. As this Service was not present during the inspection and has not seen a copy of Contractor A’s original report, it is not possible to determine if this advice was given. However, following the complaint, the landlord acted reasonably by arranging for a further inspection from a new contractor. When Contractor B confirmed the presence of bed bugs in the property, the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its pest control process by paying for the first inspection and treatment in February 2022.
11. It is noted the complaint the resident made about Contractor A’s report did not go through the landlord’s formal complaint process. However, as the landlord’s complaint policy states it “will strive to resolve all initial contacts at the first point without the need for further escalation” it was reasonable the landlord tried to resolve the resident’s complaint informally, by arranging for another contractor to inspect the property and paying for the treatment.
12. This Service cannot determinate whether there were bed bugs present at the resident’s property during the time of the first inspection in July 2021 (or whether the infestation started after that date), but it is noted there is no evidence the resident made any further reports to the landlord between the original inspection in August 2021 and his complaint in January 2022. However, as there was a possibility that there had been bed bugs at that time and Contractor A’s report was incorrect, the landlord acted reasonably by paying for a second treatment to be carried out in March 2022, as a goodwill gesture. It was also reasonable that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations by reminding him he would be responsible for any further treatments, as pest control was ultimately his responsibility. Records show the landlord ultimately paid for two treatments, and in doing so, used its discretion to go above and beyond its obligations.
13. When the resident raised a complaint in May 2022, the landlord’s responses at both stages of the complaints process were consistent and appropriately explained that pest control is the resident’s responsibility. It also reasonably noted that although its pest control process allowed it to fund one visit, it had gone beyond that and funded two treatments and acted fairly in doing so. Although this Service does not doubt that the bed bug infestation has been incredibly stressful for the resident and his family, this Service has not found evidence of any maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s report of an infestation. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports promptly and used its discretion to arrange, and pay for, a further inspection and round of treatment in an attempt to resolve the problem.
14. As a social landlord, the landlord has limited funds and it would not be reasonable to expect it to continue to fund the bed bug treatments indefinitely. However, following contact from this Service, in August 2022 the landlord offered to fund a third and final treatment by a different contractor. It is noted that the resident refused this treatment and stated he would prefer the landlord use a heat treatment rather than another chemical treatment. This Service cannot order the landlord to fund a heat treatment (which is a newer, more expensive form of treatment) as the landlord has to work within a budget and this Service considers its discretionary offer of another chemical treatment to be reasonable offer. However, a recommendation will be made for the landlord to consider whether it would be possible for the resident to pay the difference between the cost of the chemical treatment and the cost of a heat treatment, if the property is suitable for heat treatment.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of bed bugs at the property.

Recommendations

16. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to reiterate its offer of funding a third and final chemical bed bug treatment, and to consider whether it could arrange for a heat treatment to be organised if the resident could resident could pay the difference in cost.