Southwark Council (202343570)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom, first-floor flat.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of a pest infestation.
   2. Staff conduct.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation.
   2. Service failure regarding staff conduct.
   3. Reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of a pest infestation

4. The bedbug infestation took more than 9 months to resolve, during which time pest control visited on numerous occasions to treat and monitor the resident’s home.
5. The landlord failed to consider whether it needed to provide any temporary measures to support the resident, such as temporary accommodation.
6. It did not make a call back to the resident.
7. There was a delay in completing a final pest control treatment.

Staff conduct

8. The landlord acknowledged that the resident experienced difficulties contacting the resident services officer.
9. The resident services officer did not use an out of office notification to provide the resident with an alternative contact while she was away from work.
10. The landlord appointed another officer to liaise with the resident, but there is no evidence that the new officer contacted the resident as it advised it would in its stage 1 complaint response.
11. There is no evidence that the landlord considered awarding the resident compensation in recognition of the distress caused by its failings.

Handling of the complaint

12. The landlord’s complaints policy was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code.
13. It did not act in line with its published complaints policy. However, it acknowledged and addressed its failings.

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

What we have not considered

14. The resident told us that the bedbugs infestation caused him stress and anxiety. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for him to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. Although we’ve not investigated this further, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Handling of a pest infestation

15. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires that landlords ensure residential properties are fit for human habitation.
16. Due to a bedbug infestation, pest control visited the resident’s home 9 times between 14 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. It repeatedly treated his home and reported that the infestation might be coming from another property. This prompted the resident to complain that a neighbour’s living conditions were impacting him and make the landlord aware that his daughter was living with him and was a cancer patient.
17. The resident said his neighbour was always unavailable when pest control visited but the landlord did nothing, so he made appointments and provided access for pest control to enter his neighbour’s property. The landlord said pest control experienced access issues due to complexities regarding the neighbour’s circumstances, which is where the bedbugs came from and delayed its ability to resolve the infestation sooner. It has provided evidence that pest control made 7 attempts to access the neighbour’s property, successfully treating the property on 3 occasions. It was appropriate that pest control tried to deal with the cause of the infestation to try to prevent this from spreading further into the neighbouring properties.
18. On 26 December 2023, the landlord noted that the resident said he had been sleeping on the floor for 6 months due to the bedbug infestation and raised a call back request. However, there is no evidence that it contacted him, which showed a lack of empathy for his situation. It would have been useful for the landlord to liaise with the resident to discuss the next steps it would take and consider whether it needed to provide any temporary measures to support him, such as temporary accommodation.
19. Pest control visited the resident a further 6 times up to 25 March 2024, reporting low level bedbug infestation on each occasion. On 9 April 2024, the landlord noted that the resident’s home needed a final pest control treatment, but there is no evidence that it took any further action until after it issued its stage 2 complaint response on 3 May 2024. This was not reasonable and, again, this showed a lack of empathy for the resident’s situation.
20. The resident said he had to replace possessions including furniture and bedding as well as stripping wallpaper and repainting walls due to the infestation. Pest control noted that he disposed of his mattress due to bedbugs. It is not our role to determine whether the landlord is liable for damage to the resident’s items, as this is more appropriate for an insurance claim or a court. When responding to our request for evidence, the landlord said it advised tenants to take out contents insurance. However, where a resident does not have this, its insurance policy covers events where it is the cause of damage or has contributed to this.
21. To resolve the bedbug infestation in the resident’s home, pest control made numerous visits to treat and monitor the infestation over a period of more than 9 months, which no doubt caused the resident distress and inconvenience. During this time, pest control experienced issues accessing the resident’s neighbour’s property, which is where the bedbugs came from, due to complexities regarding his neighbour’s circumstances. This delayed its ability to resolve the infestation sooner. Despite being aware of the resident’s living situation, the landlord failed to consider whether it needed to provide him with any further support or temporary measures and did not make a call back. These failings, alongside the delay in completing the final pest control treatment, represent maladministration.

22. The resident said he was unable to contact the resident services officer and her manager. Neither party has provided any evidence regarding the resident’s attempts to make contact. However, in its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed its resident services officer had been away from work, which likely caused the resident distress.
23. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it had appointed another officer to liaise with the resident and that it would contact him the following week. However, there is no evidence that it did this, which likely caused the resident inconvenience.
24. When the resident escalated his complaint, he said the resident services officer and her manager had failed to take any action regarding his neighbour’s welfare. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it was limited in the information it could provide due to data protection. However, it confirmed actions it had taken to support his neighbour, which demonstrated its consideration for his neighbour’s welfare.
25. Also in its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised that there had been no out of office notification to advise that the resident services officer was unavailable and appointed another officer to liaise with the resident. It demonstrated it had learned from this by reminding staff to use out of office notifications to provide residents with an alternative contact when they are away from work.
26. Overall, the resident experienced difficulties contacting resident services due to not being provided with an alternative contact when the resident services officer was not available. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered awarding compensation in recognition of the distress caused by its failings. The landlord’s failings represent service failure.

27. 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 April 2022 edition. The landlord had a published complaints policy that did not comply with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
28. However, in accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 3 working days and issued a stage 1 response within a further 15 working days, which it did.
29. Also in accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have issued a stage 2 response within 25 working days of receiving an escalation request. The resident initially asked to escalate his complaint on 8 February 2024, following which the landlord emailed him to check it had correctly understood why he wanted to escalate. On 11 March 2024, the landlord acknowledged an escalation request that it said it had received 3 days prior. However, it has not provided any evidence of either escalation request, which indicates an issue with its record keeping. Although the landlord kept the resident updated, it did not issue a stage 2 response until 3 May 2024. This was 24 working days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy, which likely caused the resident inconvenience.
30. In recognition of the delay in responding at stage 2 and the inconvenience caused, the landlord offered £100 compensation. As this was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance, we have found reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

31. The landlord has since published a complaints policy that complies with the timescales set out in the statutory Code, effective from April 2024.

Communication

32. The landlord demonstrated it had learned from this complaint by identifying communication failures, which it addressed by ensuring staff follow the correct process and use out of office notifications to provide residents with an alternative contact when they are away from work.