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

Southwark Council (202207965)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207965

Southwark Council

6 April 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 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. The resident’s reports of a pigeon pest control issue.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat in a block with a balcony, and his daughter has physical health vulnerabilities that he has informed it have been affected by the pigeon infestation. The landlord is a local authority, which has a tenant management organisation (TMO) that deals with some aspects of pest control for the landlord.
  2. The resident stated that he first reported to the landlord that there was a pigeon pest control issue at his property from when he moved there in 2016 to 2017 onwards. Although its repair and communication records from 2016 onwards showed that it only received a report of pigeons and their waste in a communal intake room in May 2018, which it removed at that time. In January 2019, the landlord then received a report that its TMO needed to inspect the resident’s balcony for pigeons and their waste, which they inspected in February 2019, and that a pest control contractor received an order for in April 2019 to clean the balcony and install bird prevention netting there in May 2019.
  3. In April 2020, the TMO informed a contractor that the balcony of the property above the resident’s did not have bird prevention netting and that, due to this, pigeon droppings from that property were impacting him, for which cleaning and preventative measures were requested. In June 2020, following the lifting of some Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, the contractor inspected this and gave a quote for recommended works, including fire proof pigeon netting, cleaning and biocide wash. At that time, ongoing gas works meant that pigeon proofing works could not go ahead due to scaffolding being in place for the former. Following the removal of the scaffolding, the pigeon proofing works were completed in October 2020.
  4. On 28 January 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the TMO due to the distress which had been caused by the ongoing pigeon pest control issue. He was unhappy with the smell and mess left by the pigeons, and stated that this was a hazard which impacted the ill-health of his daughter. The resident added that he had been reporting the issue since 2016, and that the lack of communication from the TMO, or action to gain access to his upstairs neighbour’s property to complete bird prevention works, was making the issue worse.
  5. On 4 and 12 February 2021, a pest control contractor cleaned pigeon waste from the resident’s balcony and then fitted pigeon spikes to his and his upstairs neighbour’s properties’ balcony railings, respectively, but he continued to report the pigeon pest control issue. The TMO’s stage one complaint response of 15 February 2021 stated that the above works had taken place, and that these were reasonable steps to reduce the risk of future issues given the circumstances, but that they could not guarantee that there would no longer be future pigeon debris or waste on his balcony.
  6. The resident’s final stage complaint to the landlord on 20 February 2021 outlined that he had reported his previous concerns about the pigeon pest control issue from 2016 to 2020, but that the eventual works for this did not solve the problem, and were followed by failures to access his upstairs neighbour’s property to do so. He added that a pest control contractor had missed an appointment with him on 9 January 2021, his balcony had been left with pigeon waste by them, and that he sought compensation for his and his family’s distress and inconvenience, and for his daughter’s ill-health.
  7. The resident then chased the landlord for further works and a final stage complaint response on 18 and 24 March, 1 April, 18 May, 16 June and 26 July 2021. This was for reasons including because the situation was ongoing, his daughter’s ill-health was worsening, the lack of updates about his reports or complaint, and the bad smell coming through his window from waste, feathers and subsequently the two dead bodies of pigeons.
  8. In August 2021, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in it responding to his complaint due to the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic, and for the delay in the completion of further works by the TMO due to the cost of these, but that it had instructed the TMO to arrange an inspection and accept the cost. Following the TMO’s inspection in August 2021, further pigeon proofing works were recommended, including more spikes and a new net.
  9. The landlord’s final stage complaint response on 27 August 2021 stated that, although the works had not yet been completed, it did not want to delay the response further. It apologised that the complaint response and the works could have taken place earlier, but that the TMO had taken reasonable steps to deter the pigeons, given their limited budget. Although they could not guarantee that this would solve the problem, given the pigeons’ easy access to any balcony, and they had not fully explored other options to address this with the landlord.
  10. The landlord stated that, once the further recommended works were completed in September 2021, it would review the handling of the complaint and consider appropriate compensation for the delays in this, and in resolving the issue. It also invited the resident to provide it with a medical report for his daughter, for it to consider his request to receive damages for the effect that he reported to her ill-health.
  11. Throughout September 2021, the landlord experienced issues with the behaviour of the operatives attending the resident’s property, and in sending him an incorrect appointment letter for 9 September 2021, for which it offered him £50 compensation. This was in addition to difficulties in gaining access to his upstairs neighbour’s property to complete the recommended works there. In October 2021, its contractor identified that, due to the poor condition of the balcony on the neighbour’s property, they would need to make this safe before completing the pigeon proofing works there. The pigeon proofing works to the property above were then completed in November 2021. Although the resident continued to report pigeon pest control issues.
  12. On 15 July 2022, the landlord provided its compensation offer to the resident after he chased it for this on 10 March and 5 and 15 July 2022. It stated that, as the balcony affected by the pigeon pest control issue was outside, compensation at the rate of a minor impact from this was suitable, and that it could not agree that this had caused health issues for his daughter, as this was beyond its expertise.
  13. The landlord therefore offered the resident £465 total compensation, which was broken down into £105 for its complaint handling delays, £260 at the rate of £5 per week each for its delays in completing the works and for his distress, and £100 for his time and trouble in chasing it for updates or to progress the issue. It also explained that it was only compensating him for the period between February and August 2021, as it considered that necessary steps were taken outside of this period, with no guarantee that they would completely resolve the issue, referring him to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
  14. The resident subsequently complained to this Service that the pigeon pest control issue was ongoing, and that there were now dead pigeons near his property. He sought the resolution of this, an environmental health assessment of the situation, and further compensation for distress, inconvenience and his daughter’s ill-health. The resident attributed his daughter’s asthma to the issue, for which he provided her GP’s records showing that this had been an active problem since December 2018.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has stated that he is still experiencing nuisance from the pigeons, has requested an environmental health assessment for this, and damages for his daughter’s ill-health. This Service acknowledges that these concerns must be very distressing for him, but they are outside the scope of this investigation to consider. This is because, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of his reports of pigeon nuisance since July 2022 is not something that this Service can consider at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this.
  2. The resident’s request for an environmental health assessment of the pigeon pest control issue is also outside the scope of this investigation under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, as this Service may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. This is because complaints about local authorities’ environmental health departments fall properly within the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. The resident’s request for damages for how the situation has impacted his daughter’s health is additionally not something that this Service can consider. This is because we cannot determine liability or award damages for impacts on health and wellbeing, as we do not have the authority or expertise to do so, and therefore this is an outcome which is not within our authority to provide, contrary to the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Although the landlord has been recommended below to provide the resident with details to enable him to submit a liability insurance claim to its insurance section for any impact on his daughter’s ill-health, as this is beyond its and this Service’s expertise.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pigeon pest control issue

  1. While the resident stated that he first reported the pigeon pest control issue from when he moved in to the property from 2016 to 2017 onwards, there are only records of his reports from January 2019 onwards. Although this Service does not doubt his comments, we can only rely on the evidence provided to us in order to make a determination. Therefore, this report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the pigeon pest control issue from January 2019 to July 2022.
  2. The landlord’s repairs guide booklet states that it will attend non-urgent works within 20 working days. Its website states that its pest control service can assist with bird infestations by inspecting and carrying out works for these at no cost to its tenants.
  3. The landlord responded to the reports of the need to inspect the resident’s balcony for pigeons and their waste in January 2019 appropriately via its TMO inspecting this in February 2019. This was in accordance with its website confirming that it could inspect such bird infestations, and it also went on to follow the website when a pest control contractor cleaned his balcony and installed bird prevention netting there in May 2019 to deal with this, which was suitable.
  4. The TMO’s inspection was additionally carried out in line with the landlord’s repairs guide booklet’s 20-working-day non-urgent works timescale. Moreover, it was not necessarily unreasonable for it to take longer than this for the pest control contractor to complete works to deal with the pigeons, as they had to wait for the outcome of the inspection and carry out specialist works for this.
  5. The landlord also initially responded appropriately via the TMO to the resident’s report on 28 January 2021 that the pigeon pest control issue was still ongoing by arranging works to address this within 20 working days. This is because the pest control contractor cleaned pigeon waste from his balcony and then fitted pigeon spikes to his and his upstairs neighbour’s properties’ balcony railings on 4 and 12 February 2021, respectively.
  6. The landlord’s handling of other pigeon proofing works at the resident’s neighbour’s property also experienced some delays that were outside of its control. This included the report from the TMO to the contractor in April 2020 that the neighbour’s balcony’s lack of bird prevention netting meant that pigeon waste was impacting the resident’s balcony, for which cleaning and preventative measures were requested. As the first Covid-19 pandemic lockdown was in place from 26 March to 23 June 2020, the landlord was only completing emergency works at that time due to Covid-19 restrictions.
  7. Moreover, in June to October 2020 the landlord needed to erect scaffolding to complete gas works at the resident’s building, which meant that bird prevention netting could not be installed at the property above his until this was completed. Similarly, in September to November 2021, there was a delay in the contractor completing further pigeon proofing works to his upstairs neighbour’s balcony due to difficulties gaining access, the condition of the balcony, and the need to prioritise the works to make the balcony safe first. It was reasonable for the landlord to prioritise the gas and balcony works ahead of the bird prevention works, to ensure the safety of its residents, staff and contractors.
  8. However, where there is likely to be a delay to outstanding works, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident to explain the reasons for the delay, and provide a new timescale in which it believed that it would complete the works. There is nevertheless no evidence that it did so to effectively manage his expectations throughout this period, which was poor communication on its part. This was shown by the occasions when the resident had to chase the landlord for an update on works due to take place, including on 18 and 24 March, 1 April, 18 May, 16 June and 26 July 2021.
  9. On 9 September 2021, the landlord also incorrectly sent a letter to the resident to inform him of an appointment on that date that its operatives did not attend. Its poor communication with him on that occasion would have led him to experience further distress and inconvenience, and it was therefore appropriate for it to offer him £50 compensation for the missed appointment, as this was the maximum amount recommended by its compensation policy for missed appointments.
  10. Moreover, there were unnecessary delays caused by communication issues between the landlord and the TMO, which were therefore controllable. In August 2021, the landlord identified that there had been a delay due to the TMO not accepting the cost of the further pest control works at the resident’s upstairs neighbour’s property. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to apologise to him for this and to instruct the TMO to arrange an inspection and accept the cost, which they did in August 2021, for which it appropriately explained to him what the next steps would be, which showed it trying to manage his expectations.
  11. Although the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the works completed by the landlord, it took reasonable steps to deter the pigeons as it arranged the proofing works recommended by its pest control contractor’s expert inspections, and it would have been difficult for it to be able to completely remove the pigeons in the area. In addition, it managed his expectations about this, by repeatedly explaining that it could not guarantee that there would be no future pigeon debris or waste on his balcony to completely resolve the issue.
  12. The landlord also appropriately recognised that, throughout its handling of the pigeon pest control issue, there were the above delays in it responding to requests for and completing the pigeon proofing works, which impacted the resident. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, this Service’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of the case. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, its compensation policy, and our remedies guidance.
  13. Ultimately, the landlord attempted to put things right by completing the pigeon proofing works, and the steps taken by it to do so were reasonable in the circumstances. It also attempted to put things right in respect of its delays in providing updates for and completing the works by offering the resident another £360 compensation in view of its failings for these.
  14. The compensation award was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy’s recommendation of payments from £5 per week each for delays in delivering a service and distress, for which it appropriately offered him £260 for 26 weeks of delays from February to August 2021. It also suitably offered the resident £100 compensation for his time and trouble in chasing its lack of updates during this period, for which the policy recommended payments from £50.
  15. These awards additionally complied with this Service’s remedies guidance, which recommends compensation from £100 for failures that adversely affected the resident, including delays in getting matters resolved, distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. The above compensation has therefore been recommended below to be paid to him, if he has not received this already. However, the landlord would also be expected to respond to any ongoing reports of pest control issues with the pigeons in accordance with its website and good practice, as well as to take steps to ensure that its failings in the resident’s case do not occur again in the future.
  16. The landlord has therefore additionally been recommended below to respond to the resident’s latest reports of pigeon pest control issues, if it has not done so already. It has also been recommended below to review its staff’s, TMO’s and contractors’ training needs regarding communicating about and progressing outstanding long-term works, to try and prevent its failures to do so in his case from occurring again in the future.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint, which has subsequently been revised to comply with this Service’s complaint handling code, stated that a stage one complaint response would be issued within 15 working days, and that a final stage complaint response would be issued within 25 working days.
  2. The resident’s initial stage one complaint was raised on 28 January 2021, and the TMO issued the stage one complaint response on 15 February 2021. This was 12 working days later, and so was within the landlord’s complaints policy’s 15-working-day appropriate timeframe at the time.
  3. However, the resident escalated his final stage complaint on 20 February 2021, and the landlord issued its final stage complaint response on 27 August 2021, which was 130 working days later. This was significantly outside of its complaints policy’s 25-working-day appropriate timeframe at the time, being 105 working days late, and so also prevented him from being able to complain to this Service in a timely manner, which was unreasonable.
  4. Between February and August 2021, the resident additionally chased the landlord for an update or response to his final stage complaint on at least six occasions, including on 18 and 24 March, 1 April, 18 May, 16 June and 26 July 2021. This was evidence of poor communication on its part, and would have had a significant impact on him due to the time and trouble that he spent chasing it, and the distress caused by its lack of updates or responses to his final stage complaint.
  5. Furthermore, the landlord’s final stage complaint response stated that it was best to provide the response at that time, and that it would then review the complaint following the completion of the pigeon proofing works, and offer an appropriate level of compensation. While it was reasonable for it to state that it would review the complaint again following the completion of the works, and it appropriately informed the resident of this in order to manage his expectations, it would have been best practice for it to have considered an appropriate level of compensation at that time. This was in view of the delays which had occurred up until that point and, in not doing so, the landlord further negatively impacted the resident, as he was awaiting a resolution to his complaint for a significant length of time.
  6. Following the final stage complaint response, the landlord stated that the pigeon proofing works were ultimately completed on 29 November 2021, and it then issued its compensation offer to the resident, and referred him to this Service if he remained dissatisfied, on 15 July 2022. This was 156 working days after the works being completed, which was unreasonable, and there is no evidence to explain the delay between the works being completed and its offer of compensation, or to show that he was updated about this. However, the landlord’s delay was significant, and resulted in further distress and inconvenience for the resident, who had to chase it for the compensation offer on 10 March and 5 and 15 July 2022 before he received this.
  7. Within its total offer of compensation, the landlord did suitably recognise that there were delays in its complaint handling from February to August 2021 and, in view of this, it offered the resident £105 compensation for this. This was in line with its compensation policy’s and this Service’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of payments from £50 for such time and trouble, and was evidence that it was trying to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. However, this was not proportionate to also recognise the landlord’s above subsequent complaint handling delay and communication failings.
  8. Therefore, it the landlord has been ordered below to pay the resident further compensation of £145 for its subsequent poor complaint handling, as well as the £105 that it previously awarded him for this, if he has not received this already. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation from £100 for failures which adversely affected the resident. The landlord has additionally been ordered below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy, and of our complaint handling code, in order to ensure that its poor complaint handling in the resident’s case does not occur again in the future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of his reports of a pigeon pest control issue satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £250 further compensation within four weeks for its poor complaint handling, which includes the £105 that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code, in order to ensure that its poor complaint handling in the resident’s case does not occur again in the future.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Provide the resident with details to enable him to submit a liability insurance claim to its insurance section for any impact on his daughter’s ill-health.
    2. Pay the resident the £410 compensation that it previously offered him for its delays in completing works and missed appointment, and his distress, time and trouble, if he has not received this already.
    3. Respond to the resident’s latest reports of pigeon pest control issues, if it has not done so already.
    4. Review its staff’s, TMO’s and contractors’ training needs regarding communicating about and progressing outstanding long-term works, to try and prevent its failures to do so in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
  3. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.