Sovereign Network Homes (202220575)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220575

Sovereign Network Homes

23 January 2024

 

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 the resident’s reports of vermin in her property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a flat owned by the landlord. She lives with her two children.
  2. The resident first reported finding 2 dead mice in her kitchen cupboard to the landlord on 1 July 2022. The landlord visited her property on 6 July 2022. It found gnawing marks on the kickboards and left baits in place. It identified further works to remove the corner kickboards to investigate for entry points and logged this as high priority.
  3. The landlord arranged a follow-up appointment for 3 August 2022. It rescheduled the appointment for its next available date, 23 August 2022, as the resident could not be reached.
  4. During the visit of 23 August 2022 the landlord removed the kickboards as planned and a hole was discovered in the wall. Thus, further works were required to seal the hole with a rodent-proof material. This could not be done during the appointment as the kitchen units needed to be removed for access to the hole. The landlord completed a report, setting a due date of 30 August 2022 for the outstanding works.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 December 2022 as no works had been completed. She explained her concerns about the rodent problem and the impact it was having. She said she had found droppings in and out of her cupboards and described it as “very unhealthy and not fit to live with.”
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response on 30 December 2022 the landlord apologised for not yet resolving the problem and explained why the delay had occurred. It would monitor the repairs going forward. It offered compensation of £414 for the effect and inconvenience on her, along with the time taken to resolve the issue.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord to stage 2 on 11 January 2023 as the problem was still not resolved. She described her property as smelling “really bad” and said she had found a dead rat and droppings in her living room. She explained how distressed she and her family were and asked the landlord for urgent help in resolving the problem.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 February 2023. It apologised for not contacting her when promised and acknowledged that nothing had progressed. It confirmed that an appointment had been made for the works to be completed on 14 February 2023 and offered its apologies, along with an increased compensation offer of £565.
  9. The landlord did not attend the 2 scheduled appointments and the resident brought her complaint to this Service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s delays.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord was first aware of vermin in the resident’s property on 1 July 2022, when she reported finding 2 dead mice. It visited on 6 July 2022, within 3 full working days. There are no specific timeframes published by the landlord for this type of issue, but its 3-day response to her report appears reasonably prompt.
  2. The landlord found evidence of rodents underneath the kitchen units during its visit on 6 July 2022, but was unable to fully access the area without removing the kickboards which it could not do at the time. It left baits in place and logged an action to return and further examine the area. These actions were reasonable and in line with its pest policy which states it will deliver treatments or carry out proofing works to any defects to prevent access.
  3. The landlord did not take further action until 3 August 2022. There were no further reports from the resident in this period, and the pest policy does not outline a timeframe for rodent proofing works. Accordingly, the time between its appointments to complete the work does not appear unreasonable.
  4. The landlord had been unable to contact the resident ahead of the appointment on 3 August 2022. It attempted to attend her property despite this. It could not access her property and could not contact her. It rescheduled the appointment for the next available date, 23 August 2022. The evidence shows this appointment timing was unavoidable as it had to ensure the relevant contractors were available and the initial delay was not its fault as it made efforts to contact her. During this appointment, it identified further works and set a due date for these of 30 August 2022.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 December 2022 as no works had been arranged or completed since the appointment on 23 August 2022. In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged the delay and inaction. It apologised, explained what had gone wrong, and offered £414 compensation. It said it would monitor the outstanding work to ensure its completion. This was a reasonable response, in the circumstances, and the remedies offered by the landlord were relevant and proportionate. However, no evidence has been provided to this Service showing that it took any further action to arrange appointments, leading to the resident escalating her complaint on 11 January 2023.
  6. The landlord arranged an appointment at the resident’s property for 18 January 2022. An inspection underneath the kitchen units during this appointment found further rodent droppings. It found that the required works identified on 23 August 2022 were still necessary and obtained a quote for these on 25 January 2023. It acted quickly following her stage 2 escalation, ultimately arranging for works to take place on 14 February 2023 as part of its stage 2 response provided to her on 10 February 2023. There were then 2 missed visits, on 14 February, and 3 March, for unclear or disputed reasons in which it said she had refused works as she wanted new kitchen units installed. She denied saying this and no evidence has been provided to this Service to confirm either account. The landlord completed finally the works on 30 March 2023.
  7. The total time to complete the work was approximately 37 weeks since the first report on 1 July 2022. This was a long timeframe by any reasonable measure. Some of it was not in the landlord’s control (including the lack of access in August 2022), but there is no clear explanation for the rest of the time taken. Pests, including rodents, are classed as a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System and the resident’s concerns about the ongoing problem were wholly understandable. Given their nature, there should have been a sense of urgency by the landlord in resolving the rodent problem, and no evidence of such urgency has been seen in this investigation.
  8. The landlord acknowledged it had provided a poor service in both its complaint responses. It apologised but failed to act promptly in completing these repairs even after its first complaint response. It offered a total of £565 compensation which was reasonable and in line with its own complaints policy. Remedies guidance issued by this Service provides for compensation payments of £100 to £600 for failures which have adversely affected a resident with no permanent impact. The offered amount in this case is in the top of the range set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance.
  9. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles set out the approach to providing remedies. The three principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case the landlord’s offer of compensation was fair and shows it has taken steps to put things right. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation to assist it in learning from the outcome of this case.
  10. The resident advised this Service in a phone call on 19 January 2024, that to date, she had not received the offered compensation from the landlord following its offer on 10 February 2023.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

Recommendations

  1. In light of the shortcomings found in this investigation, the landlord should consider reviewing the case and identify what steps it has taken, or will now take to ensure the same delays are not repeated in future responses to pest reports.
  2. If it has not done so already, it is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £565, as previously offered.