Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

South Tyneside Council (202119356)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119356

South Tyneside Council

11 May 2023

 

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:
    1. Repairs following the resident’s reports of damp in her bathroom.
    2. The removal of fly-tipped waste left in the resident’s garden.
    3. The resident’s reports of pests within the property and the level of compensation offered.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority.
  2. The resident initially reported issues of damp in her bathroom around 9 February 2021. An inspection was carried out on 2 March 2021 which identified black mould on the ceiling and walls. The bathroom extractor fan was replaced on 9 March 2021. A further appointment was arranged to apply a mould treatment to the walls, tiles and ceiling of the bathroom and reseal around the windows on 9 April 2021. However, the operative reported no access to the property and left a card.
  3. The landlord has advised that the resident first reported that waste, including mattresses and fridges, had been left in her garden on 17 May 2021 following work to repair her garden fence. She noted that these items had been fly-tipped and were not previously within her garden boundary. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that the resident pursued her concerns regarding the dumped waste during a phone call on 9 July 2021.
  4. The landlord’s records show that work to apply the mould treatment to the bathroom was carried out on 16 August 2021 following the previous no access appointment.
  5. The resident initially raised a formal complaint on 23 August 2021. She expressed dissatisfaction that the fly-tipped waste had not been moved from her garden despite her calls and added concern that that there was no seal around her bathroom, and she continued to experience damp in her bathroom.
  6. The landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s bathroom on 1 September 2021. The surveyor noted that pest droppings were present when they removed the bath panel and that there were mattresses and fridges at the rear of the property which needed to be cleared. Works were raised to remove and refit the bath, retile the bathroom and to renew a section of floor under the bath, the bath panel and the bathroom shelf if required.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 2 September 2021 and confirmed that works to the bathroom had been raised. Following a telephone call with the resident that day, it had contacted pest control within the local authority’s Environmental Health department (EH) and asked that EH attend to assist the resident in the management of mice. It provided direct contact details should the resident not hear from EH. It also agreed to remove the rubbish from the resident’s garden and apologised for any inconvenience or upset caused.
  8. The landlord’s records show that EH visited on 3 September 2021 and laid poison bait in the bathroom and the drain at the rear of the property. A further visit was completed on 10 September 2021 which established that there had been small takes from the bait. Another visit was completed on 17 September 2021 where no takes or rodent activity was reported. The landlord’s records show that work to remove the resident’s bath, renew the bath panel, retile the bathroom and refit the shower were completed between 27 September 2021 and 8 October 2021.
  9. The resident requested to escalate her complaint around 13 October 2021. She advised that operatives who attended to complete work were brilliant but that she was dissatisfied with the overall timescale and lack of contact or notification of repairs. She expressed dissatisfaction that the repairs to her bathroom had not been completed until that week and that she had wasted holidays from work. She advised that she had been unable to use her bath since April 2021 and that she had been showering at work or in her late mother’s property. In addition, an operative had attended to remove the rubbish from her garden, however, the wrong operative had been sent and this was then completed over a week later.
  10. The resident reported flies in her property on 13 October 2021. In response, EH attended on 14 October 2021. EH noted that the resident had been killing the flies with a fly spray which meant that there was little activity at the time of the visit. EH also checked the drains and established that all of the bait had been taken. This, along with other factors, suggested that the pest issue related to rats, not mice as previously thought. A camera survey of the drains was carried out the following day which found a breakage in the pipework.
  11. The resident called the landlord to discuss her complaint on 19 October 2021. She remained dissatisfied and advised that the issues experienced were having a negative impact on her mental health. She was dissatisfied with the length of time the bathroom repairs had remained outstanding and that the bathroom flooring had not been replaced as requested by the inspector. She was also dissatisfied that holes in the brickwork were not filled, that it had taken four months to clear the rubbish from her garden and that EH had not returned to the property two weeks after placing poison boxes as promised.
  12. Works to fill external holes in the external brickwork of the property outside the bathroom and holes under the bath were reported as completed as an emergency repair on 20 October 2021. Work to repair the broken drain was completed on 22 October 2021.
  13. A further visit was completed on 29 October 2021 to remove some vegetation in the resident’s front and rear garden. On the same day, the resident reported that there were holes present behind her toilet which had not been present before the bathroom works. EH restarted pest treatment under the resident’s stairs around this time following the resident’s reports of pest droppings on her landing.
  14. EH reattended on 2 November 2021 to advise of any pest proofing repairs needed and recommended work to seal gaps around pipework in the downstairs toilet and airbricks at the front of the property as well as sealing a gap in the wall at the rear of the property and removing droppings from under the bath. On 10 November 2021, works were carried out to excavate and renew a section of the drain gully, complete a further drain CCTV survey, complete the works recommended by EH to seal gaps around the property, and renew a section of skirting board at the resident’s request. Work to decorate the resident’s bathroom was also completed on 15 November 2021.
  15. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 18 November 2021 and explained the following:
    1. Several repair jobs were identified within the bathroom on 2 March 2021 and were raised. One repair was attended to and completed. An additional repair was attended to on 9 April 2021, however there was no access to the property and a card was left. It added that when a missed appointment card was left, it would be the resident’s responsibility to call and book a new appointment.
    2. It noted that the resident had called on 9 July and 23 August 2021 in relation to the outstanding repairs. Due to government imposed self-isolation guidance affecting staff levels, it was only able to offer emergency repairs between 19 July 2021 and 23 August 2021. It apologised if this had not been explained to the resident at the time and for any miscommunication about rebooking the appointment following the missed appointment. It confirmed that all repair works related to the bathroom had now been attended to.
    3. It acknowledged that new flooring was not installed in the bathroom. It explained that this job was raised as a precautionary measure to take into consideration once the bath panel had been removed. The operative found that the replacement was not required during the job which was why new flooring was not installed.
    4. The surveyor found animal droppings during the inspection on 1 September 2021, which they reported to EH, who attended the property on 3 September 2021. The surveyor noted that the rubbish in the garden and some holes could have been contributing to the pest issues. It had continued to work with EH and complied with any instructions given. This included carrying out a drain survey and completing subsequent repairs. It apologised if the resident felt that EH did not attend in a timely manner and explained that it was unable to investigate EH’s actions or policies. It confirmed that the resident could raise a complaint with EH directly if she was dissatisfied with its actions.
    5. A repair job was raised to fill holes within the walls and within the bathroom. This was attended to; however, the operative was unable to gain access to the property. The resident made contact, and this was completed on the same day as an emergency repair. It appreciated the amount of distress and upset this caused.
    6. In relation to the rubbish in the resident’s garden, it confirmed that she had reported the issue on 17 May 2021 and that this was passed to its area management team. The resident had raised additional concerns that the rubbish had not been moved on 9 July and 23 August 2021. It confirmed that the rubbish had now been removed. It apologised that this was not arranged sooner and the lack of communication regarding this issue.
    7. Due to the delays in service and the stress and inconvenience experienced, it offered £375 compensation. It also apologised and confirmed that it would provide feedback to its area management team to improve its service.
  16. The landlord’s records show that the resident had informed the landlord that she had disposed of several personal belongings due to the pest activity on 19 November 2021. The landlord’s records show that it asked her to provide an inventory of the items she disposed of. This included various kitchen items, curtains and net curtains, bedding, a bed and mattress, a wardrobe, towels and carpets in the three bedrooms.
  17. The resident continued to report the presence of flies in her property on 7 December 2021, the records showing that EH attended on 8 December 2021 and used a smoke generator to eradicate any remaining flies. She reported issues of flies again in January 2022. The landlord believed that the issue might be the result of rodent carcasses below her floorboards and had explained that it would not be able to open the floorboards and remove these whilst the resident was in the property. It offered a temporary move from the property (decant), but the resident declined and advised that she would remain in the property. It had offered to help the resident with a permanent move due to the issues experienced, however, the resident did not wish to move from the property. It also agreed to reimburse the resident for the cost of items she had disposed of once the issue had been resolved.
  18. A joint visit took place between the landlord and EH on 9 February 2022. EH did not believe that there was any further rodent activity and established that the flies were likely from rodent carcasses. EH confirmed that if two floorboards in each of the bedrooms could be lifted then further smoke could be used to resolve the issue. This work was completed on 16 February 2022, while the resident was at work. Smoke generators were used but no evidence of pest activity or carcasses were found. The landlord offered to pay for a hotel for the resident for a few nights due to the distress experienced, but she refused. It also offered to deep clean the property, but the resident advised that she would arrange this herself.
  19. Following a meeting with the resident on 4 March 2022, where the resident had reported ongoing issues and the impact on her mental health, she agreed to be decanted to a hotel while further investigation of the property and any further remedial works took place. A hotel was booked for the resident between 15 March 2022 and 24 March 2022. The resident’s furniture was removed from the property on 15 March 2022 and an inspection between EH and the landlord took place to establish a schedule of works. The records show that the floorboards were lifted in each bedroom and checked for pest activity. There were no carcasses or flies present. EH attended and fumigated these areas. The bath panel and the kitchen plinths were removed, and no rodent activity or flies were found. Further works to remove bricks around the perimeter of the property, inspect and fumigate were carried out. The landlord also replaced the resident’s carpets in the three bedrooms as a gesture of goodwill.
  20. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 April 2022 to question why she had not heard anything further regarding her complaint and she was advised that the investigation was completed in November 2021 at stage two. The resident later confirmed that she would be approaching this Service. She wanted an apology for all that had happened, and the landlord reiterated its apologies from several members of staff. She was also dissatisfied that she had not been given the option to choose the colour of the carpet placed in the bedrooms and that these clashed with her wall decoration. The landlord offered to paint the room, but the resident said that the walls needed to be wallpapered. The landlord’s records show that it agreed to do this, but the resident declined.
  21. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 April 2022. It offered the resident £2850 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused, impact on her wellbeing and to replace items of furniture the resident had disposed of or destroyed. In its communication with this Service, the landlord has confirmed that its offer of £2850 was in addition to the £375 compensation offered within its stage two complaint response.
  22. The resident referred her complaint to this Service in May 2022 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her bathroom repairs, waste removal and ongoing issues with pests in the property. She advised that the issues with pests had a significant impact on her mental health and wellbeing. She advised that she had slept downstairs since discovering the pest issues and had not been able to use her bathroom, showering at work or at her late mother’s property instead. She expressed concern that the flooring below her bath had not been replaced and advised that she could still smell rodent excrement. She wanted to be compensated fairly for the impact on her wellbeing and the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is not within the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to investigate the actions of the local authority’s Environmental Health department as this Service is only able to investigate complaints about the actions of local authorities in connection with their housing activities in so far as they relate to the provision or management of housing. Complaints related to the actions of a local authority’s Environmental Health service may be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). If the resident has concerns about the actions of EH, she may wish to approach EH directly with her concerns and approach the LGSCO if she remains dissatisfied with their response.
  2. In her communication, the resident has advised that the landlord’s handling of the pest issues had a significant impact on her mental health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the issues complained of caused considerable distress, but it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to decide the cause of, or liability for, any impact on a resident’s health. Such a decision would more appropriately be decided through a personal injury claim or by the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for repairs needed to the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, external pipes, internal and external walls and floors, excluding floor coverings. It is also responsible for repairs needed to baths, showers it had installed, and major plasterworks and tiling. The resident is responsible for internal decoration of the property, including paint or wallpaper and floor coverings.
  2. The policy states that emergency repair issues should be “made safe” within four hours. Urgent repairs should be completed within one to three working days and routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. If the tenant is not at the property at a scheduled appointment time, a card will be left informing the tenant that the repair order has been cancelled and that they should contact the landlord to request another appointment.
  3. The policy further states that residents are responsible for the contents of their home (including their furniture and belongings). The landlord’s tenant handbook recommends that residents arrange home contents insurance for their belongings.
  4. The landlord has advised that it has no specific policy in relation to pests, but that it has a service level agreement with the local authority’s Environmental Health team for pest control. The response time for this service is three working days. EH would be responsible for carrying out pest treatments and recommending any structural repairs as needed, which the landlord would be responsible for completing.

The resident’s reports of damp in her bathroom.

  1. The resident initially reported issues of damp within her bathroom on 9 February 2021. An inspection took place on 2 March 2021, which was within the landlord’s routine timescales. Appointments to renew the resident’s extractor fan, apply an anti-mould treatment and reseal around the window were arranged for 9 March 2021 and 9 April 2021. However, it is noted that only the initial appointment to renew the extractor fan was completed as the operative had reported having no access to the property on 9 April 2021.
  2. In line with the landlord’s repairs policy, the resident is responsible for re-booking appointments that they had not been available for. The landlord acted reasonably within its complaint responses to the resident by explaining the process and apologising if this had not been communicated effectively. Ultimately, the landlord would not be obliged to rebook the appointment on the resident’s behalf, however, it would be appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident in an attempt to rebook an appointment where the repair relates to issues such as preventing ongoing damp and mould, which could pose a health risk to residents. The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging its poor communication regarding this matter and apologising to the resident.
  3. The landlord’s records show that work to apply the mould treatment to the bathroom was carried out on 16 August 2021 following the previous no access appointment. While this was outside of the landlord’s routine repair timescales following the resident’s reported call on 9 July 2021, the landlord had advised that it was primarily completing emergency repairs between 19 July 2021 and 23 August 2021 due to the impact of Covid-19 on its staffing levels at the time. As such, the delay during this period was outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising to the resident if this had not been explained.
  4. Following the resident’s continued reports of damp in her bathroom on 23 August 2021 within her complaint, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging an inspection of the bathroom on 1 September 2021. Following this, works to remove the bath, re-tile the bathroom and reinstate the bath and shower were completed between 27 September 2021 and 8 October 2021. It is noted that the resident has said that she was advised that the works would take place on 27, 28 and 30 of September but that works were also needed on 29 September and additional tiling works were found to be required which extended the timeframe of the repairs. The landlord’s records show that works were intended to take place between 27 and 30 September 2021 but it remains unclear from the evidence provided by the landlord as to why the works took approximately ten working days to complete. While it would be the resident’s responsibility to allow access for works and take time off work where required, there is a lack of evidence to confirm that her expectations were successfully managed during this period and the extended timeframe of the repairs to her bathroom was likely to be frustrating.
  5. The resident expressed concern that the bathroom floor was not replaced by the operatives who attended despite this work being raised by the surveyor on 1 September 2021. The landlord acted appropriately by explaining that this was raised as a precautionary measure in case it was necessary once the bath was removed and refitted. It was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors who established that this was not necessary during the works. It may have been helpful for the landlord to have managed the resident’s expectations by advising that this may not be necessary at an earlier date, however, there is no evidence to suggest that new flooring was required, and its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. Within her communication to the landlord and this Service, the resident advised that she had not been able to use her bath from May 2021 until works were completed and that she had been using bathing facilities at her late mother’s home nearby or showering at work. While it is understandable that the presence of damp and mould, along with the presence of pests, was likely to be inconvenient for the resident, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the resident had been instructed not to use, or was otherwise unable to use, the bathing facilities within her property during this period. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident had informed the landlord that she felt unable to use the bathroom at an earlier stage prior to her complaint.
  7. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging its miscommunication which may have contributed to the delay in completing works following the initial inspection on 9 March 2021. It also acted appropriately by apologising to the resident for any communication failures related to the impact of Covid-19 on its repairs service. While it did not specifically refer to delays in completing the bathroom repairs once they began on 27 September 2021, it acted reasonably within its complaint responses by apologising for delays in its service and the inconvenience experienced and offered a total of £375 compensation in relation to its handling of both the bathroom repairs and waste removal (which will be discussed separately below). This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance and is considered proportionate in instances of service failure which adversely affected the resident such as delays in completing repairs and poor communication.
  8. Alongside its apologies to the resident, the landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. As such, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

The removal of waste left in the resident’s garden.

  1. The landlord has acknowledged that the resident initially reported that fly tipped waste, including mattresses and fridges had been left in her garden, following repairs to her fence, on 17 May 2021. It has acknowledged that the resident pursued this matter during telephone conversations on 9 July and 23 August 2021, however, there is no evidence that the matter was progressed at an earlier date. The evidence suggests that the waste was removed in September 2021.
  2. The landlord has not disputed the delay in removing the waste from the resident’s garden. Its internal communication shows that the matter had been passed to its area management team but that this had not been completed due to a backlog of works and miscommunication. The landlord acted appropriately within its complaint responses by apologising that the removal was not arranged sooner and for the lack of communication about this. It demonstrated that it had taken points of learning from the complaint by confirming that it would provide feedback to its area management team in relation to the resident’s complaint in order to improve its service. This was appropriate.
  3. The landlord’s overall offer of £375 compensation in recognition of the delays in service and lack of communication in relation to both the delay in removing waste and completing repairs to the resident’s bathroom, is considered proportionate in recognition of the impact on the resident as a result of its failings. The landlord therefore offered reasonable redress in view of the inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident.

The resident’s reports of pests within the property.

  1. It is noted that the resident initially became aware of pest activity in the property following an inspection on 1 September 2021 in response to her initial formal complaint regarding damp in her bathroom. The pest issues continued alongside the resident’s formal complaint and were addressed by the landlord within, and following, its stage two complaint response on 18 November 2021. For completeness, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s actions in responding to the resident’s concerns regarding pests and its offer of £2850 compensation made in April 2022 following its formal complaint responses.
  2. It is understandable that the presence of pests, including rats and flies, in the property caused considerable distress for the resident. Where there are reports of pests, the landlord would be responsible for completing any structural repairs required in order to prevent pests entering the property alongside treatments carried out by EH to eradicate pest activity. The landlord would not usually be responsible for carrying out pest treatments itself but would be responsible for structural repairs to the property and expected to rely on the opinions of qualified EH staff when determining what works to undertake.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord acted appropriately by liaising with EH in a timely manner following the initial identification of droppings on 1 September 2021 and pest treatments and re-visits to the property were carried out by EH between 3 September 2021 and 17 September 2021 when no further pest activity was found.
  4. The resident continued to report pest droppings and flies within her property on 13 October 2021 and a repair to the external drain was found to be required on 14 October 2021. It remains unclear as to whether the repair was arranged by EH or the landlord, however, works to repair the drain were completed on 22 October 2021, which was within a reasonable timeframe following identification of the issue.
  5. The resident advised that she was initially informed that work to fill holes in her bathroom floor was completed during her bathroom repair works on 27 September 2021, however, this is not supported by the evidence provided. On 19 October 2021, she raised concern that operatives had not filled holes in the brickwork which could be allowing pests into the property. The landlord advised within its stage two complaint response that a repair to fill holes within the bathroom and externally had previously been attended to, but there had been no access to the property. It has not specified a date of the no access appointment, nor has it provided records of the failed appointment.
  6. As such, there is no evidence to confirm whether the appointment had been attempted following the surveyor’s report of holes in the bathroom flooring on 1 September 2021, which was likely to cause inconvenience for the resident who needed to chase the work. Nonetheless, the landlord acted appropriately by raising this as an emergency repair and completing works to block up holes externally and within the bathroom on 20 October 2021. It also acted appropriately by apologising to the resident for the inconvenience and distress caused within its complaint response. It is noted that the landlord acted swiftly and completed repairs recommended by EH on 10 November 2021, following an inspection on 2 November 2021.
  7. The landlord made reasonable efforts to support the resident by communicating with her on a regular basis in relation to the pests, offering a referral to support services, a temporary move from the property in January 2022, a deep clean of the property and discussing the options of a permanent move. It is noted that the resident declined the landlord’s offers, which she was entitled to do. However, it was reasonable and resolution-focused for the landlord to make these offers in an attempt to lessen the impact on her.
  8. The landlord acted reasonably by continuing to work alongside EH and offering a temporary move to the resident again in February 2022 following her continued reports of flies within the property despite previous treatments. While temporary decants can understandably cause some level of inconvenience for residents, it was a reasonable offer for the landlord to make given the need to complete a full investigation of the property and the fact that it would not be able to do this with the resident in the property. The landlord’s actions were considered reasonable to ensure that the pests had been fully eradicated. This demonstrates the landlord’s willingness to resolve the issues which posed a potential health and safety risk to the resident.
  9. In her communication with this Service, the resident expressed concern that items were removed from the downstairs areas of the property during her decant, but that no works were completed downstairs. The evidence shows that the landlord had agreed to decant the resident so investigative works could take place. While it is noted that no works were found to be needed in the downstairs area, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange removal of these items to allow it to investigate and complete any required works if needed.
  10. It is noted that the resident had raised concern that she was not consulted regarding the colour of the carpets laid in the bedrooms of the property during the decant. She advised that these were beige and clashed with the internal decorations of her bedroom. While it would have been preferable for the landlord to communicate its intention to replace the carpets and give the resident opportunity to give a preference as to the colour, it was not obliged to do so, and it made a reasonable attempt to put things right by offering to paint the walls, or to wallpaper, following contact on 25 April 2022.
  11. While there were some delays and miscommunication in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests, for the most part it acted appropriately by engaging with EH. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the pests and offering its apologies to the resident.
  12. The resident first advised that she had disposed of a number of personal items on 19 November 2021. It should be noted that the landlord was not strictly obliged to offer to reimburse the resident for the cost of items she had chosen to dispose of due to the presence of pests within the property as these matters would usually be dealt with through an insurance claim. In addition, it would not be unreasonable for the landlord to refuse to reimburse the resident where damage caused by pests could not be evidenced as it should usually be given the opportunity to make an assessment of any damaged items prior to making a decision on compensation to be offered. As such, the landlord acted above its obligations by offering to reimburse the resident for such items.
  13. The landlord offered £2850 compensation after the complaint exhausted its complaints process. It has explained that it initially priced up the belongings the resident had disposed of at around £250. This excluded a bed, mattress and wardrobe as these items were still in the property and had not been disposed of as suggested. The resident then requested compensation for all of the items in the inventory, as well as her sofa which she claimed was damaged as she had to sleep on it due to disposing of her bed and mattress. It then increased the offer to £1425 to cover the cost of all items and a new sofa. It advised that the resident had asked for this figure to be doubled to cover her items and for the stress and inconvenience that had been caused to her which was agreed.
  14. While it is acknowledged that the resident reported having disposed of significant items, where there is no clear evidence of the financial value of these items, it was reasonable for the landlord to calculate the value of such items itself and offer compensation. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £2850 is reasonable in the circumstances, taking into account the identified failings above and the overall impact on the resident as a result of the pests. This level of compensation was significant and within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there have been multiple or long-term failings that have had serious detriment to the resident. The landlord also acted above its obligations which was reasonable in the interests of maintaining a positive landlord/tenant relationship. The landlord’s offer of compensation was therefore proportionate and, together with the apologies given, satisfactorily resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily in relation to its handling of:
    1. Repairs following the resident’s reports of damp in her bathroom.
    2. The removal of waste left in the resident’s garden.
    3. The resident’s reports of pests within the property and the level of compensation offered.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging delays in completing repairs to the resident’s bathroom following her reports of damp and mould. It acted fairly by apologising for any miscommunication regarding its process for no access appointments and the limitations it faced as a result of Covid-19. It also offered compensation which is considered proportionate in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging the delay in removing fly-tipped waste from the resident’s garden and poor communication. It acted reasonably by apologising to the resident and offering compensation which is considered proportionate in view of the impact on the resident.
  3. The landlord acted appropriately by liaising with Environmental Health in relation to pest activity in the property and acting on any recommendations made in a timely manner. There was some delay in completing works to fill holes under the resident’s bath, however, the landlord acted appropriately by apologising to the resident within its complaint responses. The landlord was not strictly obliged to reimburse the resident for personal items she had disposed of as a result of pests, but it acted reasonably in doing so in recognition of the distress caused to her and the impact on her wellbeing.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £3225 as previously offered if it has not done so already, as the Ombudsman’s findings of reasonable redress were made on the basis that this was paid.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord considers providing a breakdown of its compensation offers and explaining how the compensation offered relates to specific elements of the complaint within its responses to residents. This is to provide transparency in relation to how a compensation figure has been calculated.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to the above recommendations.