Southern Housing (202405752)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom house with a garden. The resident has mobility issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The resident’s reports of the rat infestation and associated damage caused.
   2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was a reasonable offer of redress in the handling of the rat infestation and associated damage caused.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of the rat infestation and associated damage caused.

4. It is clear throughout this case that the resident had to spend a significant amount of time chasing the landlord for it to attend to complete the pest control work both following the first rat treatment and when she reported the issue had reoccurred in January 2024. However, when its pest control contractor did attend, it did so on multiple occasions and completed the necessary treatments. It resolved the issue finally in April 2024.
5. With regards to the damage caused by the rats, the landlord raised the works on 3 occasions over a period of 12 months yet did not complete any works. During that time the resident, who has mobility issues, was left unable to fully use her garden and to chase the landlord for updates.
6. However, in accepting that its service had fallen below the standard expected, the landlord offered compensation of £465. This offer is line with our remedies guidance where maladministration has occurred and is commensurate with the failings found in this report.
7. Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s handling of the situation could have been improved, it has recognised the impact of the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right

Complaint handling.

8. The landlord’s complaint handling fell below the standard expected. It delayed at stage 1 and while it communicated the delay initially, it then did not provide its response for a further 26 days after the date it gave. Its response did not cover all the complaint points and had many errors. It did not acknowledge or register the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. While it apologised and offered compensation for the delays at stage 1, it did not evidence that it had acknowledged all its failings, nor did it acknowledge the delays at stage 2.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

9. When the resident first reported rats in her property in May 2023, the landlord appropriately attended 3 times to complete treatments. However, the landlord did not arrange the recommended follow-on works after those 3 treatments. This caused the resident to chase the landlord for updates. While this delay was unacceptable, the landlord accepted its service fell below the standard expected and in apologising offered compensation to reflect the delays.
10. The resident chased the landlord again on 20 October 2023. However, the landlord has not provided any details of communication between itself and the resident throughout the duration of this case. This suggests an issue with its record keeping. Record keeping is a core function of a landlord’s repairs service, not only does it help the landlord in fulfilling its obligations, but it enables outstanding issues to be monitored, managed, and ensures it completes repairs promptly.
11. Following contact from the resident, the landlord arranged for a different contractor to undertake pest control works. The contractor completed several rounds of treatment, and it then removed the bait boxes on 4 January 2024 following no further sightings. While the rats returned, the landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified contractors when they are satisfied a job is complete.
12. The resident reported that the rats had returned on 16 January 2024, yet the landlord delayed in raising the necessary works order until 27 February 2024 during which time the resident, again, had to chase the landlord. This is further evidence of a lack of effective system to track and monitor outstanding repairs.
13. The landlord raised the further works on 27 February 2024 following which its contractor completed further treatments. It was satisfied it had resolved the issue on 17 April 2024. While there was a delay in raising the works, its contractor then attended and appropriately completed 3 treatments and resolved the issue, in line with its policy.
14. During the issue with the rats, it was clear that the rats had caused damage to the resident’s garden which the landlord agreed to resolve. However, there was significant delays in the landlord completing these repairs. It raised these on 3 separate occasions, yet its contractor did not attend on 2 of those occasions. Furthermore, it did not follow-up on the works after a missed appointment. During that time, it left the resident living with a garden that she could not utilise due to her specific mobility issues.
15. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said it had requested its repairs team to chase up the garden works and it would contact the resident by 25 September 2024. However, we are aware this did not happen which caused the resident to spend further time chasing the landlord for updates.
16. The landlord in this case apologised to the resident and accepted that its service had fallen below the standard expected. It offered compensation to the resident of £465, through which it reflected that it caused inconvenience to the resident, its record keeping had been poor, it had delayed in completing the works and it did not follow its policy and procedures.
17. Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s handling of the situation could have been improved, it has recognised the impact of the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances. 

18. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case is the 2024 edition. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect timescales.
    2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days, in line with the Code.
    3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within 47 working days which was not compliant with the Code. It did write to the resident twice to ask for an extension. Its last extension was until 28 May 2024, yet it did not provide the response for another 26 working days. The landlord therefore acted outside of its policy and the code.
    4. The stage 1 response had many errors, and it was clear the landlord had not proofread the response before sending it to the resident.
    5. The stage 1 response did not address the issue of the damage caused to the garden by the rats despite the resident raising this in her formal complaint. This was not compliant with the Code as the landlord must address all issues raised within a complaint.
    6. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 July 2024 yet there is no evidence the landlord logged or acknowledged this request. The landlord did not log the request until 13 September 2024 following contact from us. This is not compliant with the code and highlights a lack of effective system to log and monitor complaints.
    7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 September 2024, 3 working days after the acknowledgement and therefore, in line with the Code.
19. In the response the landlord accepted that its complaint handling at stage 1 had been below the standard expected and not in line with its policy. It went someway to put things right by offering £125 compensation. However, it did not recognise the full impact of its failures during the complaints process. Therefore, we have found maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. It is clear throughout this investigation that the landlord’s record keeping fell below the standard expected by us as set out in our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. The landlord should consider completing a self-assessment against this report.

Communication

21. Overall, the landlord has not shown that it had effective communication with the resident as it has failed to provide us with any records. The landlord needs to ensure that it has effective communication with residents from the outset and must consider reviewing its case management system to ensure repairs are logged, tracked and residents kept up to date with progress.