Southern Housing (202306243)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306243

Southern Housing Group Limited

22 November 2024

Amended at review.

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 follow 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of nuisance and rodent infestation resulting from overgrown nearby wildland and his next-door neighbour’s garden.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident holds an assured tenancy on a 3-bedroom terraced house with a garden owned by the housing association landlord. He lives with his wife and children. The resident has a disability involving his spine that, at times, restricts his mobility.
4. The neighbour next door lives in the end-of-terrace house. Adjacent to the neighbour’s garden is a wildland owned by a utility company with overgrown shrubbery and trees, exceeding the height of the neighbour’s roof. Ivy had grown from the wildland over the neighbour’s boundary fence, onto the house’s external wall, and up to the roof.
5. Since 2017, the resident has complained to the landlord several times about rodent infestation from his next-door neighbour. In November 2021, this service investigated one of these complaints and ordered the landlord to treat the resident’s garden for pests, inspect the neighbour’s property, and carry out proofing work on the fence between the resident and the neighbour.
6. The landlord wrote to this service in early 2022 and said its pest control operatives had said the infestation likely originated from the wildland, as the overgrown trees and shrubs provided easy access for rodents into the property’s garden. Operatives said that this was exacerbated by the condition within the neighbour’s garden, which also had overgrown greenery and items stored there that could harbour rodents. The landlord said It could not gain access to the neighbour’s property, and until the landowner takes action, the landlord could only treat the ‘consequences’ but not the ‘source’ of the infestation. In the meantime, it said it would continue to treat the resident’s garden while working on a ‘final resolution’.
7. In March 2022, the landlord accessed the neighbour’s property. Despite previous indications that the neighbour’s drain could have been an ingress point, the drain was in good working order. Meanwhile, the landlord established who the landowner was and gave the resident the details. It said that its housing office may assist the resident in writing a letter to the landowner. The landlord continued treating the resident’s garden for rats during this period.
8. The resident raised his formal complaint in August 2022. He said the landlord had not followed the advice it had received from its pest control operatives. He asked that the landlord take preventative measures to stop future infestations and property damage. He asked the landlord to clear the neighbour’s garden, including placing bait boxes in the garden, and keep it clear. He also wanted the landlord to take action, including litigation, to force the landowner to clear the vegetation on its land.
9. In September 2022, the landlord sealed the gaps in the fence between the resident’s and the neighbour’s gardens. Following the repair, the level of infestation measured by the amount of bait taken had improved from ‘moderate’ to ‘low’, and the treatment had been stopped. The pest control repeated their earlier recommendation and said that to avoid repeated infestations, “all trees and shrubbery within the wildland needed to be cut back, including the neighbour’s garden and the Ivy attached to the neighbour’s house. The overgrowth wilderness allowed rats and mice easy access to the property’s garden”.
10. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 25 October 2022 and reiterated it was “committed to having a plan to ensure it resolved the overgrown vegetation and infestation issue”. On 31 October 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord’s CEO by way of escalating the complaint. He chased the landlord to respond in November and December 2022, February and May 2023. The resident approached this service on 19 May 2023. Following our intervention, the landlord sent its final response letter on 1 August 2023. It said it would send a surveyor to assess the wildland and pest infestation and report on any required work.
11. The landlord’s surveyor visited the property on 10 October 2023 and agreed that the landlord need to contact the landowner to address the condition of its trees and shrubbery. The surveyor also said the landlord should send a letter to the neighbour reminding him of the condition of his tenancy agreement to upkeep his garden.
12. During this investigation, the resident advised that except for a single treatment of the neighbour’s garden in March 2022, the landlord did not follow the recommendations it had received from its pest control operatives and surveyor. The landlord sent evidence to this service in July 2024, showing it had approached the landowner in May 2024, who agreed to send its engineers to clear and treat the land and undertake further work as necessary.

Assessment and findings

13. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of nuisance and rodent infestation resulting from overgrown nearby wildland and his next-door neighbour’s garden

14. Under the home management policy, the landlord will provide pest management services where pests represent a risk to health or safety (such as “high-risk” pests, including rats and mice). The procedure involves:
    1. A pest contractor will visit the property to assess the problem (after establishing that the pest is one it will treat).
    2. If the contractor finds that the infestation presents a clear risk to health or safety, then treatment should be carried out without delay.
    3. To avoid repeat infestations, the contractor must carry out proofing work as part of the treatment service.
    4. Where the pest is gaining access because of structural or repair issues, the contractor should advise the contract manager to ensure necessary repairs. Emphasis should be placed on blocking holes and gaps connecting homes with neighbouring properties and communal and external areas.
    5. In respect of multiple property infestations, the contract manager will liaise with the landlord over the need for a thorough programme of treatment, and the landlord will arrange block or estate-wide communication informing tenants of the treatment and reminding them of their responsibility to adhere to estate regulations.
    6. If the communal infestation is serious and involves rats, the landlord has an obligation to inform the local authority (who may be able to assist by treating areas for which they are responsible). The area service manager will decide whether or not to inform the local authority.
15. Landlords must consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Pest infestations, including rodent infestations, are potential category-one hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. These can result in, among other things, gastrointestinal disease (from the spread of infection), stress (because of difficulties keeping the home clean), infections (spread by rats and mice), and nuisance.
16. In addition to being situated next to the wildland, the terraced houses are parallel to railway tracks, separated by a concrete fence and an additional area of greenery before the tracks. The landlord’s pest control officers also highlighted this area as a possible harbouring spot for rats. Therefore, the presence of rats is not evidence of failure in itself.
17. In early 2022, the landlord wrote to this service and said it sought a “final resolution” to the reoccurring pest infestation. Its pest control operatives had established on 6 January 2022 that rats originated from the wildland which should be cut back, cleared, tested, and treated for rat burrows. Operatives said the trees, shrubbery and climbing ivy allowed rats and mice an easy access route into the property’s garden and onto the building. The landlord said that until the landowner took action to address these issues, with the neighbour allowing the landlord access to the property, it was “unable to treat the source and could only treat the consequence”.
18. On 18 February 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it had established who owned the wildland. It provided the details to the resident and said it could help by sending a letter to the landowner. However, it then decided it would not do that. The reason was unclear and was not explained to the resident. While contacting the landowner directly was an option open to the resident, it demonstrated the landlord had not taken ownership of managing the infestation, which, according to its pest control policy, should be handled under the landlord’s policy. The landlord has not evidenced that it followed this procedure.
19. The resident maintained his dissatisfaction with the landlord. In response, the landlord said it had now contacted the landowner, who reportedly told the landlord it would only speak with the resident directly and not the landlord. The landlord said it had provided the landowner with the resident’s contact details and he would be contacted soon. This has not happened, and despite repeated requests for clarifications by the resident and requests for evidence by this service, no evidence was provided. This was not appropriate.
20. Pest control operatives treated the resident’s garden 10 times between November 2021 and November 2022. They reported “moderate-level activity”, measured by the amount of bait taken. In September 2022, the landlord repaired the fence between the resident’s and neighbour’s gardens. The following pest control treatment in October 2022 reported a “lower-level activity”, followed by a “low-level activity from within the resident’s garden” in November 2022, which was the last treatment by pest control. No further infestation reports have been raised since. Evidently, repairing the gap in the fence and continuing with pest control treatment significantly improved the adverse impact on the resident.
21. The landlord wrote internally in May 2022 that it had complied with the orders of our 2021 investigation report. It said it could now close the case; However, it said it would “still need to consider the wider issues that will likely see future complaints from the resident […] Given that the above could lead to a re-occurrence of the issue, are we expected to develop a position/service offer in advance?  For instance, are we expected to pursue [the landowner] to maintain their land? Would we consult residents regarding some form of a proactive baiting programme, or do we only treat as and when an issue may occur?  There are also issues with [the neighbour’s property].
22. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to take advantage of the period of low infestation and work with the neighbour to find a solution that would align with the landlord’s desired ‘final resolution’. The landlord provided no evidence of engagement with the neighbour since March 2022, when it entered the neighbour’s property to comply with our 2021 orders. The landlord was not resolution-focused here.
23. In their October 2022 penultimate visit to the resident’s garden, pest control operatives reported that to avoid reinfestation, “all trees and shrubbery within the wildland needed to be cut back including the neighbour’s garden and the Ivy attached to the neighbour’s house”. The landlord had correctly identified in May 2022 that it should consider the wider issues and the likelihood that repeated infestation “could well reoccur”. In its October 2022 stage 1 response, the landlord reaffirmed its commitment to having a plan to ensure it resolved the overgrown greenery and infestation issue.
24. The resident’s email to the landlord’s CEO on 30 October 2022 explained the overgrown trees had grown taller than the roofs of the terraced houses. He said if a rat managed to gain access, this would impact all the connected houses due to the internal compartmentalisation. He said the “worst scenario would be for an electricity wire to be gnawed and chewed, which could lead to a fire spreading to all houses”.
25. The British Pest Control Association says the problems associated with rats are not limited to public health. They can also cause structural damage, including the sheathing around electrical cables and pipes, which presents a significant fire risk and gas and water leaks. The landlord’s pest control policy also emphasises that the landlord would ensure the structure of the dwelling house was not compromised, particularly in connected houses and residential blocks. This was a legitimate concern, and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to demonstrate the actions it had taken or would take to alleviate the resident’s concern.
26. The landlord responded to the resident 10 months later in its August 2023 final response letter. It said it would send a surveyor to reassess and report on any required work. The surveyor attended 2 months after that, on 10 October 2023, and recommended that the landlord contact the landowner to maintain its land. Pest control operatives gave the landlord this advice on 6 January 2022. It had the details of the landowner since February 2022; however, the initial contact was made in May 2024, which was inappropriate.
27. The landowner agreed to attend, cut back, clear and treat the land, and it said it would do this by 6 August 2024. The landlord achieved this by composing 10 sentences across 3 emails to the landowner, based on evidence that had been available to the landlord since February 2022. It is clear that the landlord was able to solve this complaint as part of its compliance work on the orders made in our 2021 report. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord.
28. Overall, the emerging theme in this case is clear:
    1. The landlord was aware it needed to support the neighbour, but there was no evidence of engagement since March 2022, approximately 619 working days until the date of this report.
    2. In its October 2022 stage 1 response, it committed to finding a solution to the reoccurring infestation and overgrown greenery. This solution has not been implemented to date.
    3. It took 51 working days from its August 2023 final response letter to arrange a surveyor’s inspection on 10 October 2023.
    4. Initial contact with the landowner was made in May 2024, 150 working days after its October 2023 surveyor report. However, the landlord had known it had to do so since 6 January 2022, and therefore, an overall delay of 596 working days.
29. The resident reported that catching and killing rats was distressing for him and his family. He shared with the landlord the details of how it had done so and how it cleaned the garden. He reported that he uses gardening as a physical activity to assist with his disability, and it was evident that he wanted to reduce the risk of repeated infestation as much as was realistically possible. The resident also reported concerns about the increased fire risk and damage to the property, which could be mitigated by taking reasonable preventative measures to reduce the risk.
30. The measures the landlords needed to take had been highlighted by its operatives. Orders have been made below for the landlord to put this right for the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
31. Finally, there is no indication that the landlord has ‘learned from outcomes’ in this case or detailed any actions it would take to prevent similar issues from recurring. A further order is made below to address this. 

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

32. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says a positive complaint-handling culture is integral to the effectiveness with which landlords resolve disputes, the quality of the service provided, the ability to learn and improve, and the relationship with their residents. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. Many failures identified in this report were also found in our 2021 report, indicating missed learning opportunities.
33. The resident raised his stage 1 complaint on 22 August 2022. Against a target of 10 working days, the landlord responded 46 working days later, on 25 October 2022. Concerningly, against a target of 20 working days, the landlord’s stage 2 response was sent 194 working days later, on 1 August 2023. The landlord’s delay was not in accordance with the Code. It did not agree on the extensions with the resident, leaving the resident having to chase the landlord to respond on several occasions. It added further distress to the resident during an already challenging time.
34. The evidence shows that the resident had to repeatedly explain to the landlord what the complaint was about.  This is unreasonable and when looked at with the delays in the process, it is concerning and demonstrates a lack of process management and oversight in the landlord’s complaint-handling process.
35. We have identified complaint handling failures, and this has caused the resident distress and inconvenience.  Therefore, we find maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay £200 compensation to acknowledge and put right these failures.
36. The complaint-handling failings identified in this case align with complaint-handling failures identified in a special report on the landlord by the Housing Ombudsman Service, published in May 2024. In which, we made recommendations in relation to improving complaint handling, including staff training. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make additional orders as they overlap the expectations of the special report.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of nuisance and rodent infestation resulting from an overgrown nearby wildland and his next-door neighbour’s garden.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

39. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:

1. Contact the landowner to discuss the progress made by the landowner in cutting back, clearing, and treating the land. If this has not been completed, the landlord should contact the landowner at regular intervals (fortnightly or monthly) until the work is completed or until a specific timeframe of completion is communicated to the landlord.

2. Once the landowner has completed the works to the land, the landlord must complete treatments to the terraced houses under its responsibility that are affected by the rodent infestation. The landlord can also consider instructing its pest control operatives to assess whether it would be beneficial to coordinate the timing of the treatment by the landowner to coincide with the treatment of the terraced houses.

3. Provide monthly updates to the resident until the landowner’s land and the terraced properties are treated.

4. Should the resident report any rodent infestation in the future, the landlord must take reasonable steps to contact the landowner within a reasonable timeframe to request that it treat its land if this is the cause of the infestation or contributing towards the infestation (this order applies insofar as the landlord is responsible for the rodent infestations under its policy).

40. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must write to the neighbour and arrange for pest control operatives to inspect the property and garden. It must then follow any recommendations by operatives within a further 4 weeks.
41. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must write the resident a letter of apology for the failure identified in this report. It must also pay the resident directly a total of £600 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, comprising of the following:
    1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s report of nuisance and rodent infestation resulting from overgrown nearby wildland and his next-door neighbour’s garden. if it had already paid the resident £60 it offered during the internal complaint process, this could be deducted from the total amount.
    2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint. if it had already paid the resident £150 it offered during the internal complaint process, this could be deducted from the total amount.
42. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must conduct a case review within 6 weeks from the date of this report. It must identify learning and improve its working practices. The outcome of the above review must be shared with this service within 6 weeks from the date of this report. The review must include the following:
    1. The landlord’s lack of ownership was demonstrated by its failure to make timely contact with the landowner and the reason why it was unable to evidence earlier communications it reportedly had with the landowner.
    2. Failure to follow its pest control operatives’ advice and failure to follow its process.