St Mungo Community Housing Association (202346162)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346162

St Mungo Community Housing Association

31 July 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of mice.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns around inadequate heating.
3. Handling of carpet replacement works.
4. Response to the resident’s requests for compensation due to lift outages.
5. Response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health, and welfare concerns.
6. Complaint handling.
7. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an assured shorthold tenant. Her tenancy began in 2019 and ended in 2024. She occupied the property with her disabled daughter. The property is a 2 bedroom, fourth-floor flat. A managing agent (a subsidiary of the landlord) managed the property on the landlord’s behalf. The block is owned by a freeholder which has its own managing agent. The landlord transferred ownership of the property to another landlord around 25 January 2024.
The resident and her daughter both have asthma and bronchitis. The resident has depression and anxiety. She feels her health issues stem from the property’s condition.
The tenancy agreement shows the landlord was obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property “in good repair”. This also applied to any installations for the supply of heating, sanitation, or electricity. In relation to the block’s communal areas, the landlord was obliged to ensure the lighting was working and any main entry doors were secure. This wording confirms the landlord was not responsible for maintaining the block’s lift. The resident was obliged to provide access for repairs and inspections.
Its relevant repairs policy shows the landlord aimed to respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours of a report. The timescales for urgent and routine repairs were 5 and 20 working days respectively. Urgent repairs were defined as defects that caused serious inconvenience to residents, or that were likely to cause further problems. The landlord aimed to involve residents in its decision-making. This approach applied to issues such as working hours and repair completion timescales. The landlord would maintain regular contact with the reporting resident.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its relevant procedure document shows it aimed to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 20 working days. The document shows the landlord was obliged to investigate “each ground” of a complaint and provide a clear outcome. The procedure allowed the landlord to reach a “not enough information to decide” finding. Though its use was discouraged, the finding applied where a complaint could not be resolved using a “balance of probabilities” approach.

Summary of events

On 14 September 2023 the resident reported mice to the landlord. Records show she felt they were entering the property through hollow panelling in the bathroom. She was concerned the mice were a risk to her young daughter. The records said the landlord would arrange to visit the resident because she was unhappy with the condition of the property. They also said the resident reported a full inspection had already been completed in July 2023.
The resident complained to the landlord on the same day. She said she was “really frustrated” because her “disabled child (was) around the pests a lot”. In addition, a previous inspection (assumed in July 2023) had established that panelling was needed around the bath to address rodent entry points. However, the landlord had not contacted her to arrange the repair. The resident also said it was difficult to contact the landlord by phone or online.
Repair records show the landlord’s pest control contractor was unable to access the property on 20 September 2023. The landlord called the resident 5 days later about the failed visit. Call notes show the resident felt the landlord was “lying” about the no access incident. Separate records show the pest control contractor visited the property the next day. The key points from the contractor’s report were:
1. The resident reported she had been living with pest issues for a year.
2. Droppings were found in the kitchen and bathroom. Bait was placed in these areas.
3. There were multiple entry holes that could be sealed. The contractor would address them during its final visit.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 10 working days after the resident complained. It said there had been problems accessing the property. However, the resident was also promised visits that were not fulfilled. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s pest concerns. It fully upheld her communication concerns. The landlord said it had substantiated them by calling its own contact number. It promised to work with its contact team to improve their performance going forwards. The landlord awarded the resident £25 as a goodwill gesture.
In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord provided a timeline that shows the block’s lift broke down on 30 September 2023. From the evidence both parties provided, it was unclear when the lift was repaired. The information seen indicates the outage was still ongoing when the property was transferred to a new landlord in late January 2024.
On 1 October 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She wanted the landlord to resolve the infestation and reconsider its position on her complaint. She raised a new issue around unsuitable heating in the property. She said the landlord had told her the heating would be fixed (she did not provide any additional details). In summary, the resident felt the landlord had neglected the property and its approach was contrary to its repair obligations. In addition, its communication was inadequate and repair records had been lost. Other key points were:
1. The landlord had not addressed the resident’s concerns about the duration of the infestation.
2. The resident was not responsible for any access issues. Before its recent appointment, she had not been contacted by the pest contractor and it had not left any calling cards (to say an appointment was missed).
3. In addition to the “damages and emotional distress” caused by the rodent and heating issues, the resident had taken time off work to facilitate an appointment.
Records show the pest contractor was unable to access the property on 3 October 2023. Subsequently, the landlord issued another stage 1 response on 26 October 2023. It addressed the resident’s heating concerns. This was around 18 working days after the resident raised this issue. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint but it did not acknowledge a delay. Other key points were:
1. The landlord’s contractor would attend the property’s storage heaters on 6 November 2023. During its visit, the contractor would address the outstanding works from the resident’s previous complaint.
2. The landlord was aware of the resident’s work commitments. Its contractor wanted permission to complete the repairs while she was at work. The resident should complete the contractor’s disclaimer.
3. The resident reported 2 operatives had already inspected the property but there had been no updates since then. The landlord was sorry for the lack of progress or a clear action plan. It upheld the complaint based on this failure.
The resident replied the next day. In summary, her email said the pest control works were incomplete and key aspects of her complaints had been ignored. She felt the landlord had “discriminated” against her “and (her) mental health”. This was on the basis she had a learning difficulty and the overall situation had impacted her mental health. In addition to reiterating some previous concerns, the resident alleged the landlord had breached data protection regulations. This was on the basis it had no record of the inspection in July 2023 (the resident reiterated this assertion several times during the timeline). Other key points were:
1. The pest contractor had left the resident’s washing machine in the middle of the kitchen floor (to lay bait behind it).
2. The resident would approach the Ombudsman. The landlord should only contact her by email going forwards.
In internal correspondence on the same day, the landlord asked if it should attempt mediation with the resident. It said it wanted to “avoid escalation to the Ombudsman”. This was on the basis the landlord had received adverse findings from the Ombudsman in other cases. Since it issued a stage 2 response on 27 October 2023, the evidence suggests the landlord decided not to pursue mediation. Though it partially upheld the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not award any compensation. Other key points from its response were:
1. The landlord’s managing agent was responsible for coordinating pest control. It would contact the resident to arrange access.
2. The landlord was unable to access the property on 28 September 2023 to complete scheduled repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.
3. The repairs had been rescheduled for 6 November 2023 and they now included heating works. On completion, the repairs would be inspected.
4. The landlord’s repairs manager was addressing the communication issues the resident had reported.
5. The landlord was handling the resident’s heating concerns as a separate complaint.
Records show the landlord attended the property on 6 November 2023 and recommended changing the heating system. The landlord did not provide a detailed account of its inspection findings. Around a week later, the resident emailed the landlord about repair works that were due to start on 14 November 2023. She said the works could proceed but they needed to be finished by 3:30pm because she needed to attend a meeting at her daughter’s school.
The parties’ records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 14 November and 15 December 2023:
1. An initial pest control visit was completed as part of a 3 stage treatment programme. Related records said the risk was “remote” and there was “no (pest) activity on site”.
2. A second visit was completed around a week later. Records said no bait had been taken but droppings were still “being seen”. The contractor laid a different type of bait.
3. The contractor was unable to access the property on 27 November 2023 to complete its final visit. Records show it held an incorrect phone number for the resident and it cancelled the job when it was unable to contact her.
4. The resident called the landlord on 28 November 2023. She reported repairs were ongoing but the radiators had been fixed. Call notes said a property inspection had been completed and there was “no health and safety issue”. From the wording used, it was unclear if the resident supplied this information.
5. On 5 December 2023 the resident reported the block’s lift had been out of service for 7 weeks. She said there had been several similar incidents over the years. She felt the landlord had received compensation from the freeholder but had failed to pass it on (to her). She said the freeholder’s managing agent told her the compensation was £4 per day.
6. The resident reported pest control had not returned to check the property. She said more droppings were appearing daily and her daughter “(had) tried to lick droppings accumulated behind the sofas”. She also said there was never any “follow through” from the landlord and she was reaching the end of her tether.
7. In internal correspondence on 7 December 2023, the landlord said the resident had “reignited” her complaint because pest issues were ongoing. It also said its pest contractor should reattend urgently.
8. The resident told the landlord she was unable to facilitate a full day of pest control works because she was unable to take additional time off work. She wanted the works condensed into a 2 hour morning visit.
9. The resident reported pest control failed to attend a prescheduled morning visit. She said the operative told her they had overslept and they were unable to wait until she returned home.
10. The landlord apologised for the pest contractor’s conduct. In a related interaction, the resident reiterated the infestation had been ongoing for over a year.
11. The resident chased the landlord about carpet replacement works. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows its heating repairs left gaps in the property’s existing carpets.
On 18 December 2023 the landlord completed a joint visit to the property with its pest contractor. Records show several holes were filled in the pantry area. The contractor recommended 3 additional monitoring visits and some outdoor bait boxes. The landlord’s own notes said there was “a potent rotten/ammonia smell in the bathroom” but the contractor was unable to find the source of the problem (the evidence suggests the smell related to the infestation). The notes also said the landlord needed to complete a further inspection. Other key points were:
1. The resident was unhappy about the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the pest issues.
2. She wanted the landlord to acknowledge the property lacked sufficient heating for around 4 years.
3. She was also unhappy about outstanding kitchen and bathroom repairs, failed appointments, and communication issues.
Two days later, the resident told the landlord she had complained about various issues for the past year. These issues included mice, heating, lifts, and panelling for the kitchen and bathroom. She said the landlord failed to log her complaints previously due to an error. She also said she had several open complaints that had not been finalised. The resident reiterated several previous concerns. She felt the landlord should award her proportionate compensation.
The parties exchanged emails on 28 December 2023. The landlord’s complaints team asked the resident to confirm the outstanding repairs to the property. Its email detailed 3 complaints that were open for the resident. The landlord asked the resident to provide details of any other complaints which had not been logged. The resident replied none of her open complaints were resolved and she had already provided all the relevant information.
Later that day, the resident raised a new complaint about outstanding carpet works. She said 5 weeks had passed with no communication from the landlord. She reiterated previous concerns about lift outages, outstanding complaints, compensation, and discrimination. She wanted the landlord to address her concerns in a single complaint and begin its investigation at stage 1. A pest control monitoring visit was completed that evening. Records said the resident had not found any additional droppings since the contractor’s last visit.
On 11 January 2024 the resident chased the landlord’s stage 1 response. Her correspondence was based on a deadline the landlord previously provided. The landlord’s complaint handler replied they were working late and there would be no delay. A stage 1 response was issued on the same day. This was around 9 working days after the parties exchanged emails on 28 December 2023. The response only addressed carpets, lifts, and communication issues. Other key points were:
1. The landlord approved carpet replacement works in November 2023. It was sorry the works were delayed. They would be completed over a weekend to suit the resident’s schedule. The works would begin on 13 January 2024. The resident’s related complaint was upheld.
2. There were various reasons for the communication issues the resident had reported. They included staff turnover, incomplete repair processes, and a lack of focus on customer relations. Though it upheld the resident’s related complaint, the landlord did not reference any specific incidents.
3. The landlord lacked sufficient evidence to reach a decision about the resident’s lift complaint. It would liaise with relevant colleagues and update the resident accordingly.
4. The landlord was working to increase collaboration between its departments. It felt residents would benefit from its efforts in due course.
5. The resident’s complaint highlighted “historic and current issues”. In line with the resident’s request for compensation, the landlord awarded her £250 as a goodwill gesture.
The resident replied the next day. In summary, she said the landlord had failed to address the long-term issues that were included in her complaint. She also said it had overlooked her discrimination concerns and the family’s vulnerabilities. She felt her asthma stemmed from the property’s inadequate heating. She wanted the landlord to revisit its compensation calculation.
The resident updated the landlord on 13 January 2024. She said its carpet fitters had not been given the correct measurements, so they were unable to complete the works. She reported both bedrooms were unusable due to splinters in the exposed flooring. In a follow up email, the resident made a formal escalation request. The landlord subsequently confirmed it would issue a stage 2 response by 22 January 2024.
The landlord wrote to the resident on the above date. It said its previous response had failed to address her concerns in full. As a result, her complaint would be reinvestigated at stage 1. The letter said the resident should contact the block’s freeholder for compensation relating to the lift outages. It also said the landlord had previously given her the freeholder’s contact details.
Call records show the parties spoke on 23 January 2024. The landlord said it had contacted the freeholder for information about the lift. The resident queried whether its pest contractor would return for additional treatment works. The landlord advised the contractor was waiting to see if the resident reported further mouse activity. The notes said the resident had seen droppings but there had been a “drastic reduction”. The landlord agreed its pest contractor would return to the property.
Records show the landlord transferred ownership of the property to another landlord on either 24 or 25 January 2024. On 30 January 2024 the landlord’s pest contractor attended the property again. Corresponding records show droppings were identified in the living room and kitchen so additional bait was laid. The contractor said a joint visit with the landlord was needed. This was so kickboards in the kitchen could be removed without causing damage.
On the same day, the landlord issued another stage 1 response. It was written by the same operative that issued the landlord’s previous stage 1 response. The new response contained a similar amount of detail. It increased the landlord’s previous compensation award to £500. The landlord’s revised calculation was based on distress and inconvenience, delays, and inconsistent complaint handling. Other key points were:
1. The landlord had spoken to the operative who inspected the property’s heating in November 2023. They denied they had advised the property was impacted by “a four year heating gap”. Ultimately, there was insufficient evidence for the landlord to reach a decision.
2. The landlord acknowledged the resident was unhappy with the “prolonged timeline for carpeting replacement” and associated communication issues. This aspect of the resident’s complaint was upheld.
3. The resident wanted the landlord to reconsider its compensation based on the impact to her family. The landlord upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint but it did not provide a supporting rationale.
4. The landlord would soon replace its repairs contractor due to performance issues. It was also committed to improving its internal communication.
The evidence suggests the freeholder updated the landlord about the block’s lift on 31 January 2024. The landlord did not provide a copy of the freeholder’s correspondence. However, it discussed the update during internal correspondence in May 2024. At this point, the landlord said the freeholder confirmed it would compensate leaseholders for the outage in due course (assumed when the duration of the outage was known). The landlord felt the compensation would be a matter for the resident’s new landlord. It also said it was unsure if the freeholder’s information had been relayed to the resident.
The parties’ records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 6 February and 5 April 2024:
1. Pest control filled gaps under the property’s bath and kitchen cupboards. Our records show the resident approached the Ombudsman around the same time.
2. During a follow up visit, the contractor found droppings behind the washing machine. It completed additional proofing works. The landlord’s own records referenced a lingering smell in the bathroom.
3. A further pest control visit was completed on 20 February 2024. The contractor’s records said an “intensive investigation” confirmed there was no mouse activity since its last visit. Bait was removed from the property.
4. Soon afterwards, the resident reported the foul smell was now affecting the kitchen as well as the bathroom.
5. The resident made a further report several days later. She said there was more evidence of mice so pest control needed to return. She also said she had been hospitalised by the stress of the situation, which was “becoming unbearable”. In addition, she could only facilitate an hour long visit on certain weekdays. Otherwise, the contractor should attend after 6pm.
6. The landlord asked the property’s new landlord to assume responsibility for treating the mice. It said it had been a month since the handover and its pest contractor previously confirmed the infestation had been cleared.
7. About a week after the landlord’s request, the new landlord confirmed it would address the mice. Around the same time, the landlord shared a copy of its pest contractor’s final report with the resident. The resident subsequently denied she had signed the document (to say she was satisfied with the outcome of the visit).
8. Based on the resident’s concerns the document had been “falsified”, the landlord made enquiries with the pest contractor. The contractor said the resident “had to rush off to pick up her daughter from school”, so its operative completed the paperwork in their van.
9. The evidence suggests the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint around 15 March 2024. On this date, the landlord issued a stage 2 acknowledgement which included a summary of the resident’s complaint. The summary referenced discrimination.
10. In internal correspondence, the landlord said a lack of repair records was hampering its complaint investigation. It highlighted poor communication around “boxing in, panelling and holes attached to pest control”. The landlord felt it should have addressed these repair issues before “coordinating… ongoing pest control”. It said, “To be frank, we made a mess of this” (the landlord’s wording was not entirely clear).
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 17 April 2024. This was around 3 months after the resident’s escalation request in January 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge a delay. Rather than examining the resident’s individual complaint points, its response focussed on compensation. As a result, the landlord did not address some of the resident’s key complaint issues. These issues included discrimination and a long-term lack of adequate heating. The landlord’s main points at stage 2 were:
1. Though it was no longer responsible for the property, the landlord was keen to resolve the resident’s complaint.
2. The landlord was happy to increase its compensation by £250. Its new offer was now £750 in total.
3. The offer included £500 for “considerable service failure”. This was to acknowledge the resident repeatedly chased repairs and her complaints were passed between staff. It also recognised the landlord’s actions were contrary to its policies (including repair timescales), and the landlord repeatedly failed to resolve the complaint.
4. An additional £250 would address the distress and inconvenience caused by having to chase repairs and raise complaints.
In internal correspondence around a month later, the landlord discussed increasing its compensation again. It considered awarding the resident £1,000. This was based on £250 each for 4 separate complaint points.
The landlord supplied its case evidence to the Ombudsman in early June 2024. Its file summary said the landlord was unable to locate key repair information including the resident’s initial reports, inspection records, and repair logs. The landlord attributed this to a technical problem with its database. Elsewhere in its evidence file, the landlord implied it had no record of the family’s vulnerabilities on its systems. It said it had not been notified of any vulnerabilities when the tenancy began. The landlord’s evidence confirmed the resident’s weekly rent was £316.69.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 18 July 2024. She said the infestation and foul smell were ongoing. She also said the family were unable to spend more than a few minutes in the bathroom due to the smell. In addition, the mice were now affecting other areas of the property. The resident also said:
1. The landlord never installed the recommended panelling in the bathroom (understood to be pipe boxing).
2. The new landlord was trying to resolve the infestation. It felt the landlord’s sealing works had made treatment more difficult.
3. The landlord had increased its compensation award following its stage 2 response. It wanted the resident to accept a revised offer and withdraw all of her complaints. The resident felt its approach was unfair.
4. The landlord’s new compensation figure was £2,500. It comprised £500 for the lift issues, £500 for pest control issues, £750 for the heating issues, and £750 for the carpet.
5. It took the landlord’s contractor 4 days to replace the carpet. This was due to measurement issues.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or loss of earnings. The resident should seek legal advice if she wants to pursue these matters through the courts.
Around June 2024 the landlord increased its compensation by a large amount. This was about 2 months after its stage 2 response was issued. While the revised award was both welcome and significant, it seems to have been prompted by the Ombudsman’s involvement. The resident has said conditions were attached. In the circumstances, the landlord’s late compensation award is evidence of complaint handling delays and failures. Its revised offer cannot fairly be considered part of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP).

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mice

The resident has said the infestation began around September 2022. This was based on her comments to the pest contractor on 20 September 2023. From the information both parties provided, the Ombudsman was unable to assess what happened before July 2023. This was due to a lack of evidence. While there were no direct records of an inspection in July 2023, the resident has consistently said the landlord specified repairs to address the mice at this point. Given the available evidence, our assessment focussed on events from July 2023 onwards.
The evidence shows the infestation has been ongoing for around 13 months. This was based on the period from July 2023 to date. Repairs were the new landlord’s responsibility from around 25 January 2024. About a month later, the landlord’s pest contractor deemed the property was clear from infestation. The landlord was entitled to rely on its contractor’s professional opinion, so it was reasonable for the landlord to end its involvement in February 2024. It notified the new landlord accordingly about the resident’s subsequent report of mice.
The landlord’s repair policy shows the landlord should have responded to urgent repairs in 5 working days. This suggests it should have completed the recommended panelling around the bath within 5 working days of its inspection in July 2023. In contrast, the evidence shows there were still gaps under the bath in early February 2024. This confirms the landlord could have done more to resolve the infestation. Its subsequent comments around making “a mess” of the situation (made during its internal correspondence) support this conclusion.
Mice are potential hazards to be avoided or minimised under the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS confirms homes should not contain deficiencies that may give rise to hazards. It also confirms any means of access used by pests should be reduced to a minimum. The evidence shows the landlord failed to minimise the access points within a reasonable timescale. This was contrary to the HHSRS approach. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s failure contributed to the overall duration of the infestation.
The evidence suggests the above identified issue may have stemmed from other significant failures on the landlord’s part. Specifically, its poor record keeping and communication. The evidence suggests the landlord failed to comply with its July 2023 repair recommendations because it had no record of them. It also suggests the landlord compounded this problem by failing to engage with the resident about the inspection. To resolve matters, it should have asked her for relevant details such as the date of the inspection and the attending operative’s name.
There were other record keeping and communication issues. For example, the landlord’s pest contractor was unable to attend its final treatment appointment on 27 November 2023. This was because it had an incorrect contact number on file for the resident. It should have notified the landlord its treatment works were incomplete. Instead, the contractor cancelled the remaining works. As a result, the resident had to chase the landlord in early December 2023. Her comments around a lack of “follow through” were understandable in the circumstances.
The above information confirms the landlord’s record keeping and communication failures also contributed to the overall duration of the infestation. The information also shows these failures caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was unfair, unreasonable, and inappropriate at various points. Its late compensation offer shows the landlord eventually recognised that it should have awarded the resident a significant amount of compensation.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right, and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
During its ICP, the landlord awarded the resident £25 in mice related compensation. This was highly disproportionate given the duration and impact of the infestation. It is reasonable to conclude the resident’s enjoyment of the property was significantly reduced during the above identified 13 month infestation period. In addition, given the rooms that were affected, she had limited respite from the situation. Though it was aware of a foul smell, there was no indication the landlord made a meaningful attempt to address it.
Given the above, the Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay the resident proportionate compensation to put things right. Our award will reflect the evidence we have seen. In line with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation, our calculation will include separate elements to reflect the resident’s loss of enjoyment, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused. The loss of amenity aspect is based on the principle that the resident cannot fairly be expected to pay her full rent given her reduced enjoyment of the property.
The Ombudsman’s loss of amenity calculation is not a rent refund. However, it will be broadly equivalent to a 16% rent reduction for the period between 1 July 2023 and 20 February 2024 (around 8 months). The calculation is based on the premise that the resident could still use her kitchen and bathroom, but her enjoyment of these key living spaces was severely curtailed. The rate will reduce to 8% for the period from 21 February 2024 to date (around 5 months). While it was reasonable for the landlord to end its involvement in February 2024, the resident is still living with issues that it failed to resolve accordingly. The evidence shows the landlord bears some responsibility for the ongoing issues.
Overall, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. It could have done more to resolve the infestation and it failed to comply with the HHSRS approach within a reasonable timescale. Its record keeping and communication failures contributed to the overall duration of the infestation. They also caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident. During its ICP, the landlord only awarded the resident £25 in related compensation. This figure was highly disproportionate given the duration and impact of the infestation. There was a prolonged impact to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of inadequate heating

A key aspect of the resident’s complaint involves a long-term lack of adequate heating. The landlord repeatedly said it did not have enough information to reach a decision on the matter. It later told the Ombudsman it was unable to retrieve key repair information due to a technical issue with its records. Due to its lack of records, we could only assess the landlord’s response to this issue from 1 October 2023 onwards. It is recognised the situation is unfair to the resident. We will assess the landlord’s record keeping in the relevant section below.
On 28 November 2023 the resident confirmed the radiators had been fixed. There was no evidence to show she reported further heating issues to the landlord after this date. Based on the period between the above referenced dates, the landlord rectified the reported heating problem within 41 working days. This was a reasonable timescale because an inspection was needed (assumed to specify the scope and materials) prior to the works. The landlord’s repair policy shows it responds to routine repairs within 20 working days.
This means the landlord had 20 working days to complete an inspection and another 20 working days to complete the repairs. From the evidence provided, the Ombudsman was unable to establish the exact date the repairs were completed. Nevertheless, we were unable to point to any unreasonable delays overall. In its response on 26 October 2023, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It accepted 2 separate heating inspections had been completed. It also accepted there was a lack of progress or updates afterwards.
The evidence shows the landlord accepted the resident’s version of events (without verifying it) and apologised. Based on the extent of the failures it identified, the landlord should have awarded compensation. For example, it is reasonable to conclude a repeat inspection was both avoidable and inconvenient for the resident. The landlord’s apology was disproportionate in the circumstances. Overall, there was service failure in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s handling of carpet replacement works

The resident’s recent update to the Ombudsman suggests the carpet works were outstanding for around 7 weeks. This was based on the period between 28 November 2023 and 16 January 2024. The resident chased the landlord several times during this period due to its lack of communication. The evidence also shows, once they started, the works took longer than expected because the landlord’s contractor was not given all the necessary measurements. It is reasonable to conclude this was a coordination failure on the landlord’s part.
It is likely the situation was both avoidable and inconvenient for the resident. On that basis, the landlord should have awarded a proportionate amount of compensation during its ICP to put things right. Though it awarded compensation during its ICP, the landlord did not provide a breakdown of its award or a clear rationale to support its calculation (this was a procedural failure related to the landlord’s complaint handling). As a result, the Ombudsman was unable to establish if its compensation was reasonable at this point.
Overall, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. Though it attempted to put things right for the resident during its ICP, the Ombudsman was unable to establish whether the landlord’s compensation was reasonable or proportionate at this stage. This is because the landlord failed to break down its award or provide a supporting rationale. If its late offer of £750 in related compensation was made during its ICP, it is likely the Ombudsman would have reached a reasonable redress finding instead.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for compensation based on lift outages

The landlord’s case evidence largely addressed the lift failure in September 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen sufficient evidence to assess the landlord’s response to any lift outages before this date. The evidence suggests the above referenced outage was ongoing for around 4 months when the property was transferred to the new landlord. This was based on the period between 30 September 2023 and 25 January 2024. From the evidence provided, it was unclear when the lift was eventually repaired.
The tenancy agreement shows the landlord was not responsible for maintaining the lift. Although it was not responsible for the repair, the landlord was responsible for administering the resident’s tenancy. As her main point of contact, it should have liaised with the freeholder (or its managing agent) on the resident’s behalf. In contrast, the evidence suggests it referred the resident to the freeholder a number of times from December 2023 onwards. This was unreasonable given the resident did not have a direct relationship with the freeholder.
During its ICP, the landlord said it lacked sufficient information to reach a decision about the lift. However, it promised to liaise with various parties to gather the information. The landlord subsequently submitted an enquiry to the freeholder. Though the freeholder replied, no evidence was seen to show the landlord ever relayed its information to the resident. Ultimately, the landlord failed to fulfil its promise to the resident. This was likely distressing for her. The landlord’s approach was unfair and unreasonable given the circumstances.
The landlord’s subsequent complaint responses did not address the resident’s lift concerns. As a result, the landlord failed to recognise the above identified failures during its ICP. Given what went wrong, the landlord should have compensated the resident for the inconvenience she was caused by its unreasonable referrals and unfulfilled promise. Ultimately, her understandable concerns about the lift warranted a proper response. Given the circumstances, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
The landlord’s post-ICP compensation award included £500 in respect of this complaint point. This suggests the landlord eventually realised it should have addressed the resident’s lift concerns previously. We considered whether the landlord’s late offer was proportionate in the circumstances. The resident has repeatedly said the block’s managing agent told her she was due £4 per day in compensation which would be paid directly to the landlord. There were 117 days between 30 September 2023 and 25 January 2024 (117 x £4 = £468).
Based on the above, the landlord’s late award was sufficient to cover the freeholder’s daily compensation (for the period the resident was the landlord’s tenant). However, it was not sufficient to cover the additional distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s above identified failures. The Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the evidence provided.
In summary, the landlord gave the resident conflicting information about the lift outage. It initially referred the resident to the freeholder. This was unreasonable because the resident did not have a direct relationship with the freeholder. Later, the landlord promised to gather information from various parties. Though the freeholder replied to an enquiry, there was no evidence the landlord relayed its information to the resident. The landlord failed to fulfil its promise and its subsequent complaint responses failed to address the resident’s lift concerns.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. No evidence was seen to show the landlord withheld a payment from the freeholder.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health, and welfare concerns

The resident raised several related concerns during the timeline. She said the property’s condition had damaged her family’s health. She also said the landlord had discriminated against her and her mental health. These matters were important to the resident. No evidence was seen to show the landlord responded to them. In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord implied it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident in its systems. We used our inquisitorial remit to consider the landlord’s overall response to this topic.
It is acknowledged the landlord was responsive to the resident’s concerns about her schedule. The evidence shows it tried to accommodate her preferred appointment times and it even arranged to complete carpet works over a weekend. These actions were consistent with the approach in the landlord’s repair policy (involve residents in decision-making). It is also acknowledged the landlord continued its pest control works for some time after the property was transferred to the new landlord. Overall, these were positive steps.
However, the landlord failed to respond accordingly to other significant health and welfare related concerns. On 14 September 2023 the resident told the landlord her daughter was disabled. There was no indication the landlord engaged with this important information. It is reasonable to conclude it should have updated its records to guide its future interactions with the resident. Had it done so, the landlord would have been able to reflect the information in its decision-making. There was no indication it took either of these steps.
On 14 October 2023 the resident told the landlord she felt it had discriminated against her and her mental health. She also said she had a learning difficulty. The landlord should have engaged with her vulnerability related information in the manner described above. Her concerns around discrimination also required a response. We expect landlords to address this type of allegation through their complaints procedure. In this case, the landlord’s complaints procedure shows it was obliged to investigate each complaint point and provide a clear outcome.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code contains a similar provision (section 5.6 in the March 2022 version). Though the resident raised her discrimination concerns repeatedly, they were not addressed in any of the landlord’s complaint responses. Nor was there any indication the landlord tried to investigate them accordingly. The landlord cannot put things right for the resident or learn from her complaint if it does not investigate her concerns. Ultimately, the resident made a serious allegation that remains unaddressed to date.
The landlord’s lack of engagement was unfair and inappropriate. The evidence points to a related delay of around 9 months from 14 October 2023 onwards. It is reasonable to conclude the situation caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident. It was avoidable if the landlord had followed its complaints procedure. Subsequently, there were similar issues on 12 January 2024. At this point, the resident told the landlord she felt her asthma stemmed from inadequate heating in the property.
Where a resident feels a landlord is responsible for injury or damage to their personal items, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to signpost them to its insurance team or process. In this case, the was no evidence the landlord told the resident how to raise a personal injury claim. This was a serious procedural failure on the landlord’s part. The situation was unfair and unreasonable. The landlord has not addressed the matter to date. Its complaints procedure does not include any information about personal injury or damage claims.
This points to a flaw in the landlord’s existing complaints procedure. Since liability claims against landlords are fairly common (where a resident asserts damage, injury, or lost earnings occurred due to a landlord’s actions or negligence), the situation may give rise to further complaints from other residents. Accordingly, the Ombudsman will log the identified flaw in our internal systems. The log will be passed to our monitoring team who will make their own assessment and intervene if required. Overall, there was severe maladministration in respect of this failing. The resident was impacted by a series of significant procedural failures.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There were serious issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. Significantly, the landlord tried to avoid an independent investigation by the Ombudsman. This was confirmed by its internal correspondence in October 2023, which said the landlord wanted to “avoid escalation” to this Service. Its late compensation offer was further confirmation of the landlord’s approach. The resident felt the offer was intended to prevent her from pursuing her complaint. Based on the above information, the landlord’s approach to scrutiny was concerning.
The landlord should view complaints as a learning opportunity. Using this approach, it can make incremental improvements to its service that will benefit its residents. Based on the approach it adopted in this case, the landlord does not have a positive complaint handling culture. This was further demonstrated by its repeated failure to engage appropriately with the most serious aspects of the resident’s complaint (reports of long-term repair issues, vulnerabilities, health, and welfare concerns, and an alleged breach of data protection rules).
When it did respond to the resident’s complaint points, the landlord’s investigations were typically brief and lacked depth. Though it acknowledged one of her complaints highlighted “historic… issues”, the landlord did not attempt to unpack these issues. For example, it did not try to establish the full repair timeline or quantify the duration of any subsequent delays. Overall, the landlord demonstrated a lack of care in its complaint handling. Its limited investigations effectively trivialised the resident’s complaint.
It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s narrow investigations caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident, who frequently reiterated various key concerns. The landlord’s lack of care also resulted in arbitrary or disproportionate compensation awards that lacked a clear supporting rationale. Though it made a series of increased compensation offers, the landlord was unable to show its awards were either considered or proportionate. As a result, the resident lacked confidence in the offers and the landlord’s overall approach.
The landlord acknowledged its lack of thoroughness during the timeline. In January 2024 it returned the resident’s complaint to stage 1. This was on the basis her concerns were not fully addressed by the landlord’s initial response. Similar quality issues subsequently arose during the landlord’s second investigation at stage 1. Ultimately, the landlord’s reinvestigation added little value and resulted in a delay for the resident (around 3 months). Later, there was no obvious improvement in the quality of the landlord’s stage 2 response.
There were complaint handling delays during the timeline. The most significant was the delay between 11 January and 17 April 2024. There was a shorter delay in October 2023. Since the landlord failed to recognise them, it failed to address the delays accordingly. Given their overall duration, it should have compensated the resident. For clarity, overlooked issues are a technical failure. They are likely to result in an adverse finding from the Ombudsman. To ensure any procedural issues are addressed accordingly, the landlord should routinely consider its own complaint handling during every investigation.
The evidence confirms the landlord was often unable to use its ICP as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s complaints. For example, the resident’s complaint about mice did not lead to any improvement in her situation, or the landlord’s handling of the infestation. When repair issues were rectified, such as the heating or carpet replacement works, the landlord was unable to draw matters to a fair conclusion during its ICP. If it wants to avoid the Ombudsman’s involvement, the landlord needs to improve the quality of its complaint handling.
Overall, there was severe maladministration in respect of this complaint point. The landlord tried to avoid an independent investigation by the Ombudsman. It repeatedly failed to engage with the most serious aspects of the resident’s complaints. Its narrow investigations caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident, who frequently reiterated various key concerns. Its lack of care resulted in arbitrary or disproportionate compensation awards. The landlord was often unable to use its ICP as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s complaints.

The landlord’s record keeping

The resident noticed there were problems with the landlord’s record keeping. She feels the landlord breached data protection regulations because it was unable to retrieve key inspection records. It may help to explain that the Ombudsman is not expert in data protection regulations. The resident’s related concerns are better suited to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). We can consider the landlord’s general record keeping and its associated impact.
Record keeping issues impacted several aspects of the landlord’s operations. The evidence confirms its repairs and complaint handling were affected. Most of the repair records the landlord provided were from its (external) pest contractor. It was also noted the landlord mostly used its correspondence (internal and external) to evidence its own actions. There were significant gaps in the landlord’s own records. Some gaps were measurable in years. This was concerning because the resident’s complaints involved potential safety implications.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. Failure to keep adequate records indicates a landlord’s complaint processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policies and procedures and adhere to them, as should contractors or managing agents.
Contrary to the Ombudsman’s expectations, the landlord was unable to provide the resident’s original report of mice. Similarly, we were unable to make a full and fair assessment of the resident’s heating concerns from the evidence the landlord provided. This is because the evidence did not cover the whole period that was in dispute. The resident feels the property’s heating was inadequate from the outset of her tenancy (2019 onwards). We were unable to check if she previously complained to the landlord about the matter.
Due to the landlord’s inappropriate record keeping, the Ombudsman was unable to assess significant portions of the infestation and heating complaint timelines (the landlord was not responsible for repairing the lift). The situation is unfair to the resident and it will likely be disappointing for her. To address the distress and inconvenience caused, the Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay the resident £1,000 in related compensation (£500 each for the heating and infestation issues).

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Response to the resident’s reports of mice.
  2. Response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health, and welfare concerns.
  3. Complaint handling.
  4. Record keeping.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for compensation due to lift outages.
3. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
  1. Reports of inadequate heating.
  2. Handling of carpet replacement works.

Reasons

The landlord could have done more to resolve the infestation and it failed to comply with the HHSRS approach within a reasonable timescale. Its record keeping and communication failures contributed to the overall duration of the infestation. They also caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident. During its internal complaints procedure (ICP), the landlord only awarded the resident £25 in related compensation. This was highly disproportionate given the duration and impact of the infestation.
In October 2023 the landlord accepted 2 separate heating inspections had been completed. It upheld the resident’s complaint based on a subsequent lack of progress or updates. It is reasonable to conclude a repeat inspection was avoidable and inconvenient. The failures the landlord identified suggest the resident experienced a considerable amount of inconvenience. Given what happened, the landlord’s apology was not sufficient to put things right for her.
Though it attempted to put things right for the resident during its ICP, the Ombudsman was unable to determine whether the landlord’s carpet related compensation was reasonable or proportionate at this stage. This is because the landlord failed to breakdown its compensation award or provide a supporting rationale. If its late offer of £750 had been made during the landlord’s ICP, it is likely the Ombudsman would have reached a reasonable redress finding.
The landlord gave the resident conflicting information about the lift outage. It initially referred the resident to the freeholder. This was unreasonable because the resident did not have a direct relationship with the freeholder. Later, the landlord promised to gather information from various parties. Though the freeholder replied to an enquiry, there was no evidence the landlord relayed its information to the resident. The landlord failed to fulfil its promise and its subsequent complaint responses failed to address the resident’s lift concerns.
The landlord was responsive to the resident’s concerns about her schedule. However, it failed to respond accordingly to other concerns about significant health and welfare issues. It failed to engage with information about the family’s vulnerabilities on several occasions. Significantly, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s allegation that it discriminated against her. It also failed to respond to the resident’s assertion that the property’s condition had damaged her health. These were serious procedural failures on the landlord’s part.
The landlord tried to avoid an independent investigation by the Ombudsman. It repeatedly failed to engage with the most serious aspects of the resident’s complaints (reports of long-term repair issues, vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns, and an alleged breach of data protection rules). Its narrow investigations caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident. Its lack of care resulted in arbitrary or disproportionate compensation awards. The landlord was often unable to use its ICP as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s complaints.
Due to the landlord’s inappropriate record keeping, the Ombudsman was unable to assess significant portions of the infestation and heating complaint timelines. The situation is unfair to the resident and it will likely be disappointing for her. It was also contrary to the Ombudsman’s record keeping expectations.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders a relevant member of the landlord’s executive team to apologise to the resident within 4 weeks. The apology should recognise the key failures identified in this report (summarised in the reasons section above). The landlord should share a copy of its relevant correspondence/call summary with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £5,721.15 in compensation within 4 weeks. This figure will replace the landlord’s post ICP offer. Compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £2,128.15 for the loss of enjoyment the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mice (16% of 8 months’ rent = £1,621.45. 8% of 5 months’ rent = £506.70)
2. £500 for the related distress and inconvenience.
3. £75 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around inadequate heating.
4. £750 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s handling of carpet replacement works.
5. £568 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for compensation due to lift outages.
6. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns.
7. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
8. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord to raise a new complaint to investigate the resident’s discrimination concerns accordingly. Prior to its investigation, the landlord should contact the resident to establish the complaint details. During this call, it should signpost the resident to its insurance team or process. This is to ensure she can pursue her concerns about health impacts through the correct channel (if she wants to). The landlord should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct an internal review into the key issues highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks the landlord should present its findings to its senior leadership/executive team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include the landlord’s failure to minimise rodent entry points within a reasonable timeframe contrary to HHSRS, the landlord’s mishandling of the resident’s vulnerabilities, health, and welfare concerns, the landlord’s inability to use its complaints process as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s complaints, and its inappropriate record keeping. Identified improvements should be cascaded to the landlord’s relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.
The landlord should provide evidence it has complied with the above orders within the relevant timescales.