Stonewater Limited (202229688)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229688

Stonewater Limited

15 August 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of rats in their kitchen;
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy for a house. The resident’s husband has acted as her representative and point of contact throughout the complaint period.
On 22 September 2022 the resident reported that rats had come through the external wall, and they had eaten food in the kitchen.
The landlord raised a job to its pest control contractor, which attended on 3 October 2022 and confirmed that there was evidence of rat activity under the kitchen units. It told the landlord that there was a damaged airbrick, and repairs would be required to seal holes in the wall as well as air vents.
The landlord’s records show that it raised an urgent repair for the blocking of the access holes to its repairs contractor on 7 October 2022. The repairs contractor attended on 13 October 2022, but did not carry out the works after concluding there was “no work to be done”.
On 27 October 2022 the pest control contractor told the landlord that rats were still accessing the property, and it could not finish the works until the holes were filled in.
On the same day, the resident requested that the landlord replace the kitchen worktops, because the rats had walked and urinated on them. They repeated this request to the landlord on 1 November 2022, and the landlord raised a job for an inspection of the worktops, to identify if any work was needed to mitigate any health risks.
The landlord’s records from this time indicate that it was planning to install a new sink, which we understand was part of a wider programme of works in the resident’s street. The landlord recorded that it would delay this until after it had inspected the kitchen, as had been requested by the resident.
The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint on 15 November 2022, after the resident expressed their dissatisfaction that the rat infestation had not been resolved after “14 weeks”, and that they had not received an update regarding their request that the worktops were replaced. They told the landlord they were not cooking in the house due to the rats, and their life was being made miserable, causing them to feel depressed. The landlord’s records indicate its pest control contractor had attended on that day, and measurements were taken for the kitchen sink, however the resident had advised that no work was carried out to fill the remaining access holes.
The landlord’s records from 16 November 2022 show that it had initially raised the inspection of the worktops to “the wrong contract”, which had caused a delay. Its records also show that its repairs contractor was finding it “difficult” to talk with the resident by this point. Its repairs contractor said it had offered to fill in the holes the previous day, but had been told (we understand this to be by the resident) that the units and worktop would be replaced. It told the landlord that there was “no point” in collecting and fitting the sink if the worktops were to be replaced, but noted that it did not believe this was necessary and that “a deep clean would probably suffice”. The landlord’s surveyor agreed to attend the property to confirm the scope of works, and noted that they believed “there to be very little wrong in the property.”
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 16 November 2022. The resident chased a response several times in the days following this. On 22 November 2022, the landlord recorded having had a “fairly heated” discussion with the resident. It noted that the resident was “not satisfied” to be told to wipe down the units with disinfectant, and had refused an appointment for the landlord’s surveyor to visit with the repairs contractor.
The resident reiterated this refusal in a phone call with the landlord on 25 November 2022. The resident told the landlord they were “annoyed” because a different member of staff from the landlord had previously agreed to change the worktops.
The landlord’s internal records show that by 28 November 2022 the pest control contractor had advised it that there was no longer a rat infestation at the property. Its repairs team discussed that it would not send further repairs operatives to the property until the resident agreed in writing to the scope of works.
The resident had chased the landlord again for an update that day, and the landlord posted its stage 1 response letter to them at the end of the afternoon. The resident does not use email and this is their preferred method of contact for written communications.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response letter, dated 29 November 2022:
1. Summarised the resident’s complaint as concerning the length of time it had taken to resolve the rat infestation, their request that the kitchen units and worktops were replaced because rats had urinated on them, and their request for compensation because they had to purchase meals instead of preparing food in the kitchen;
2. Explained it had spoken with its pest control contractor, and confirmed there was no infestation detected at its latest visit. It explained that rat infestations take “some time” to treat, due to the need to place bait and monitor for activity to trace the rats;
3. Advised the resident to wipe down their surfaces with disinfectant, and that it would not replace the units or worktops;
4. Explained it had made attempts to visit to carry out repairs, but these visits had been refused by the resident, because they thought there were holes behind the kitchen units. The landlord confirmed that the pest control investigation had evidenced that this was not the case;
5. Explained that its repairs team wanted to visit the resident’s home with the repairs contractor, to talk through what could be done to clean the units and worktops. The resident had refused this, and the landlord “encouraged” them to reconsider;
6. Advised the resident they could escalate the complaint to stage 2 if they remained dissatisfied.
The resident called the landlord to discuss the stage 1 response on 30 November 2022. They reported that they could still hear rats. The landlord’s internal notes show its staff discussed at the start of December 2022 that it would not be advisable to fill the holes until further pest control treatment was carried out, because the rats might breed in the cavity and cause damage. The repairs team discussed internally that the resident needed to allow its contractor to carry out the work the landlord had asked of it.
The resident called the landlord on 5 December 2022 to report the issue again. The landlord’s records show that its repair team discussed that the resident would need to agree to the works before it would arrange a joint visit from its repairs and pest control contractors.
On 7 December 2022 the resident’s member of parliament (MP) contacted the landlord on their behalf. The landlord spoke to the resident on 8 December 2022, and advised them that they needed to allow access for the work to seal the holes. The resident told the landlord the rats had chewed through the cover for the downpipe.
On 12 December 2022, the resident agreed for a joint appointment with the pest control and repairs contractors. The landlord noted that it tried to call the resident on 15 December 2022, and left an answerphone message when there was no answer. It spoke with the resident the next day, and confirmed that its contractor would fill the access holes, using battening and mesh if required. The landlord explained the pest control contractor had confirmed there was no ongoing rat activity at the property, and said it would complete a deep clean of the kitchen area. It reiterated that it would not replace the worktops, although it would ensure an adequate work surface was in place if the new sink did not fit with the existing worktop. The landlord raised a job to its pest control contractor for the deep clean, to be carried out as a joint visit with the repairs contractor, and noted that it was likely this would be scheduled to take place after Christmas.
The landlord’s internal communication from 19 December 2022 show that its repairs team set out its position:
1. The landlord’s pest control contractor had confirmed there was no rat activity. Its repairs team could not understand why a deep clean had been offered, and suggested that this was not necessary and should be cancelled;
2. It had asked its repairs contractor to attend and block up the access holes only, which could be done with the kitchen units in situ. It would not authorise additional work;
3. It noted that there had been concerns about the behaviour of the resident in the past. It did not think it necessary for the landlord’s staff to attend the appointment with its repairs contractor, however it suggested that the contractor should attend in pairs;
4. It required the resident to agree to the works in writing before it would arrange for the contractor to attend, to avoid wasting the operatives’ time.
The resident spoke with the landlord on 21 December 2022, and it advised them that they would need to confirm they were happy with the works to prevent further delay. It advised that the plan was for the repairs contractor to attend on 13 January 2023 to block the holes, and that the deep clean had been discussed and it had been decided that it would no longer be going ahead.
The landlord’s internal records show that the next day, the landlord decided that as the resident had twice agreed verbally to the works, it would be reasonable to proceed with organising the appointment rather than requiring a written agreement from them.
The appointment went ahead in early January 2023, and on 9 January 2023 the resident called the landlord and told it they were not happy with the repairs that had been done to fill in the holes. They advised that the contractor had used expanding foam, and it should have used wire wool first. The resident called again on 12 and 13 January 2023, seeking to confirm whether an inspection regarding the rats would take place on 13 January 2023. The landlord confirmed that the appointment was scheduled for 18 January 2023.
The landlord reiterated to the resident again on 18 January 2023 that it would not be carrying out a deep clean on the worktop, and that the rat issue had been resolved. It advised that the appointment that had been scheduled was to block the entry points.
The resident contacted the landlord the next day and asked for a larger sink. The resident called the landlord on five more days in January 2023, and on 1 February 2023 the resident asked for the landlord to send them a letter outlining its position.
The landlord noted in early February 2023 that the resident wanted compensation, as well as for the sink and worktop to be replaced. They wanted the worktops to be sanitised and the house to be fumigated.
The landlord and resident spoke in mid-February 2023, and the resident disputed that they had stopped operatives from carrying out repairs. The resident chased a letter from the landlord on 16 and 17 March 2023.
On 21 March 2023 the landlord advised the resident that its contractor would attend to repair the access holes on 29 March 2023. The landlord’s records indicate this did not go ahead, but it is unclear which party decided to stop this.
On 3, 17, and 25 April 2023 the resident chased the letter and update from the landlord.
On 10 May 2023 the repairs contractor attended and filled in access holes, and advised the landlord that the resident remained unhappy as they still wanted the units removed. The resident advised the landlord that this was not correct, and the operatives had not done “anything”. The resident chased a response from the landlord on four more days in May 2023, and again on 7 June 2023.
On 7 June 2023 the landlord’s surveyor noted that they had scheduled an appointment to inspect the holes in the kitchen on 20 June 2023. They had approved a deeper sink, and its pest control contractor would do “one final inspection” to make sure there were no rats present.
On 14 June 2023 the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
The landlord’s records indicate that, on or around 22 June 2023, the resident refused the fitting of the replacement sink because it was the same depth as the existing one. The landlord’s contractor told the landlord that it would need details of the required dimensions before ordering another one.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 28 June 2023. It:
1. Summarised the resident’s complaint, and identified that they wanted their worktops and sink replaced, and compensation for food items;
2. “Deeply” apologised for the delay in filling the holes;
3. Confirmed that its surveyor had attended on 20 June 2023, discussed the outstanding issues, and agreed to replace the sink. The surveyor had advised the resident that, as the work tops were in good working order, the landlord would not be replacing them. The surveyor had raised some other repairs, which are outside the scope of this investigation;
4. Explained that the surveyor had instructed the landlord’s repairs contractor to block up any remaining holes in the kitchen, but it wanted to reassure the resident that these had not been identified as the entrance point for pests;
5. Expressed empathy for the resident’s frustration during the rat infestation, and recognised that they had explained they ordered meals in while they felt unable to prepare food in the kitchen;
6. Offered the resident £200 compensation, made up of £100 for inconvenience and £100 for “delays”.
The landlord’s records show the resident expressed further dissatisfaction with the situation in July 2023. In September 2023 the resident complained that the new sink was not of good quality and was hard to use. The landlord ordered replacement taps.
The resident has explained to this Service that they still want a deep clean to be completed in the kitchen, although they understand that the fumigation may no longer be necessary. They do not understand why it took so long for the landlord to carry out the necessary work, and they do not think the blocking of the access holes was done to a good standard.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of rats in the kitchen

The landlord arranged pest control relatively quickly, and the first appointment took place seven working days after the resident’s initial report of rats. The landlord did not have a pest control policy in place at the time. Its ‘pest control jobs process’ (guidance for its staff), in use at the time, set out that its contractor would usually be expected to contact the resident between five to eight days after a job was referred to it by the landlord.
The landlord’s guidance for its staff advised that there must be a minimum of “seven to eight days” in between visits by its pest control contractor. The landlord advised its staff that this gap was required under the law. This is a reasonable timeframe, because it does take several days for poison to take effect.
The landlord’s pest control guidance for residents explains that it can take up to three visits from pest control to get rid of rats. It is normal that more than one round of treatment will be required to eradicate a rat infestation, and by 28 November 2022 the pest control contractor had confirmed that there was no further evidence of rats. We note that the resident indicated to the landlord that they could hear rats on 30 November 2022, and the resident has since clarified to us that they agree that this treatment did get rid of the rats.
Once an infestation is successfully treated, the landlord needs to ensure that appropriate repairs are carried out so that it does not recur in future. In the case of rats, this means blocking up access holes so that rats cannot enter the property. Several holes and access points were identified in the resident’s kitchen. The landlord’s guidance document for staff did not specify a timeframe for these repairs to be completed, but did explain that they should be raised to its contractor only once the infestation was confirmed to have been cleared.
It is standard that access holes are not filled or blocked until treatment is completed, to allow rats to exit the property. In this case, it was identified by the landlord’s repairs team that there was a risk that rats would breed in the cavity walls and cause further damage, if the holes were blocked too early. The landlord’s records show that its various teams were still discussing this matter into early December 2022, which suggests that there was not clear lines of communication for the sharing of information between its pest control contractor and its repairs team.
The landlord’s records show that, by this point, there was an added complication because its repairs team and contractors were finding it difficult to reach agreement with the resident about the extent of the works required, resulting in some appointments being attended but works not being completed. The repairs team decided they needed written agreement from the resident to the proposed works, before they would arrange a further appointment. They also went on to advise the repairs contractor to send its operatives in pairs.
As well as its responsibility to the resident, the landlord has responsibilities to its staff and contractors. For this reason, we expect it to have a policy in place so that its staff know how to respond should they encounter potentially unreasonable behaviour from residents. At the time of the events, the landlord had an ‘unacceptable customer conduct policy’ in place. This has now been replaced by its ‘managed relationship policy’, in place since the end of September 2023.
The unacceptable customer conduct policy set out that the landlord must ensure that it provides residents “with clear guidance on what is expected and what will not be tolerated”. It says that its staff will discuss the matter with residents where appropriate, with the aim of de-escalating the situation if possible. It guides its staff that if they consider that a further remedy is required, it would expect that in most cases this would involve a warning letter being sent to the resident “outlining that the behaviour is not acceptable and will not be tolerated and warning them against any continued unacceptable conduct”.
In this case, there were indications that the repairs team, and its contractor, did not feel confident in applying the landlord’s policy. There was no clarity provided to the resident about what about their behaviour was unreasonable, even when this had the effect of delaying the arrangement of repairs appointments. The landlord told the resident that they would have to agree to the proposed works in writing, but it did not put this in writing itself. This led to confusion, and did not de-escalate the situation.
The landlord’s contractor attended and carried out work to block the holes in early January 2023. It returned to carry out further work in May 2023, after the resident had repeatedly questioned the quality of the work that had been done. As part of its stage 2 complaint investigation and resolution in June 2023, the landlord inspected the kitchen for access holes, and confirmed that there were no remaining access points for rats, however it asked its contractor to fill in any holes in the kitchen. The fact that there have been no further rats entering the property suggests that the repair work was effective, and the landlord did apologise in its stage 2 complaint for the initial delays. In our opinion, its offer of compensation for the delays was proportionate.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, at the end of November 2022, confirmed to the resident that they would need to clean the kitchen themselves, and that the landlord would not replace the worktops. After the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with this position, on 12 December 2022 the landlord agreed to organise a deep clean of the kitchen. It confirmed again that it would not replace the worktops.
The landlord’s records show that members of its staff disagreed that a clean was necessary, and after internal discussions the landlord advised the resident on 21 December 2022 that this had been cancelled. This left the resident feeling frustrated at the changing messages they were receiving from the landlord. We observe that this was an unhelpful change of position from the landlord, after the resident had already raised concern that they had initially been told one thing regarding the worktop replacement, which they said had then changed.
A further inspection from the landlord, arranged while it was investigating the resident’s stage 2 complaint, confirmed that the worktops were in good condition and did not need replacement. This is a reasonable position for the landlord to take, and its record of communication with the resident shows that it has been consistent in this advice. There is a possibility that the resident mistook comments that the landlord made about the potential need to change the worktop that housed the sink, if the new one did not fit. This was related to a wider programme of works to kitchens in the resident’s area, which was happening around the time of the rat infestation. However, it has not been possible to confirm whether this was the case, because there is not a record of the comments the landlord and its contractors made to the resident at the initial pest control and repairs appointments. The landlord should consider how it can better capture the advice regarding follow-on works that is made verbally to residents at repairs and pest control appointments.
The resident has explained to us that they were expecting the landlord to fumigate the property. It is again possible that there was a misunderstanding between the resident and the pest control operative about the works that would be required, but it is not possible to confirm this because a record of their verbal advice at their visits was not made. As above, the landlord should consider how it can capture these conversations in future.
Fumigation for rats may refer to smoke/ chemicals used to target rat nests in enclosed spaces, or it may refer to treatment necessary if the rats are also bringing pests such as fleas into a property. Nothing we have seen in the case records indicates that the extent of the infestation required this type of treatment, and the pest control operative confirmed that the rats had been eradicated during November 2022. The resident should be reassured that fumigation is not required at this time, and that it was appropriate that the landlord and its contractors did not carry this out.
The landlord has a new pest control policy, which came into effect in 2024. The policy does specify time frames for the first visit, setting out that cases will be assessed into two categories of risk, with the highest being attended within 24 hours, and the lower risk being attended within seven calendar days. The policy also sets out that in the case of damaged belongings, the landlord may make a compensation payment in line with its compensation policy, if it has been proved that the cause of the pests was “solely the result of negligence” on its part. These are welcomed improvements from the landlord and help address some of the observations in this case.
The landlord’s policy and guidance documents do not discuss the matter of cleaning where there has been a rat infestation. This has contributed to a lack of clarity around the landlord’s responsibilities in this case. It is reasonable to expect that residents will have questions about what the landlord will or will not do to address the effects of a pest infestation, not just the pests themselves. For this reason, the landlord should now consider in which circumstances it would arrange for cleaning (usually known as ‘deep’ or ‘environmental’ cleans), and in which circumstances the provision of advice or guidance to residents would be sufficient to ensure that hygiene concerns are addressed.
We recommend that the landlord also consider how it could incorporate timescales for the follow-up repairs, in particular to block off access points for rats, into its pest control policy.
In summary, the landlord arranged appropriate treatment for the rat infestation, within a reasonable timeframe. It attempted to organise repairs to block the access holes, but completion of these repairs were delayed due to disagreement between the resident and the landlord regarding the kitchen worktops. The landlord should have been clearer in its communication with the resident about the impact their behaviour was having on the completion of the repairs. The holes were repaired in January 2023, with additional work done in May 2023. The landlord apologised for the delays in its stage 2 complaint, and offered the resident £100 compensation, which we consider to be proportionate on this point. The rats have not returned, and the worktops have been confirmed to be in good condition. The landlord did change its position regarding the offer of a clean, and its records have not been detailed enough for us to confirm how the initial disagreement came about.
The key points of learning for it to take from the case are where it could have improved its communication with the resident, especially once it was clear there was disagreement between it and the resident about the works that were needed. We have found service failure on this basis, but note the landlord recognised and offered redress for the delays, and we have seen nothing to suggest that the method of treatment for the infestation and the repairs that were completed were inappropriate. We have made an order below for the landlord to increase its offer of compensation by an amount that we consider to be proportionate to the impact these failings had for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The fact that members of the landlord’s staff were allowed to intervene and overrule its decision to offer a deep clean of the kitchen, in December 2022, suggests that there was not appropriately or clearly designated responsibility for the resolution of the resident’s complaint. The landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint in a much quicker and more satisfactory way when it allowed the clean to be cancelled. It should now consider how it can ensure that its relevant staff have clear guidance as to who is responsible for the identification and authorisation of appropriate and reasonable complaint resolutions.
The landlord should have escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 in December 2022, when they expressed their dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. It again should have recognised the need to do this when the resident asked for it to set out its position in writing in February and April 2023. The landlord did not escalate the complaint until June 2023, which was an unreasonable delay given the frequent contact it had from the resident, who repeatedly set out their dissatisfaction with its position taken in the stage 1 response. The landlord missed an opportunity to confirm and clarify its position regarding the outstanding works, which had the effect of entrenching the disagreement between it and the resident. We have discussed above the impact that had on its ability to attend to carry out repairs in a timely way.
The resident specifically requested compensation for the expenses they incurred whilst the rat infestation was in their kitchen. The landlord recognised and acknowledged this in its stage 2 response, and expressed empathy for the resident around the effect it had on their ability to prepare food. As part of its complaint resolution, it offered the resident £100 for “inconvenience”, however this wording did not make it sufficiently clear whether this was a response to the resident’s request to be compensated for damaged food and additional expense. This left the resident feeling that this point of their complaint had not been resolved, even if that was not the intention of the landlord.
The landlord’s new pest control policy does set out that it may compensate residents where damage to belongings has occurred as a result of negligence on its part. In this case, there is not evidence that the landlord was negligent, however, given the time that has elapsed, it would be reasonable for it to allow the resident to submit details of the expenses to it, and for it to consider and respond to their request for compensation. It is reasonable for it to deduct the £100 it has already paid for inconvenience into its calculation of any compensation amount it agrees to in relation to damage or losses due to the rat infestation.
The landlord did not make effective use of its complaint process to identify what had specifically gone wrong in the resident’s case, and it therefore did not identify and take the appropriate learning from the resident’s experience. The landlord should have recognised the significant failure on its part to escalate the resident’s complaint at a much earlier stage. Its language in the stage 2 complaint response left ambiguity in its position and did not provide appropriate closure for the resident.
When considering the cumulative effect of the above failings, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We have made an order below for it to increase its offer of compensation accordingly.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of pests.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should apologise to the resident for the impact its failures in communication and complaints handling had on their confidence that they had been heard and treated appropriately. It must provide us with a copy once completed.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must confirm to us that it has directly paid the resident a total of £350 compensation, made up of:
1. £100 it previously offered for delays to the repairs;
2. £100 it previously offered for inconvenience;
3. £50 for the impact of its poor communication when responding to the rat infestation;
4. £100 for its failure to make appropriately timely and effective use of its complaint process to fully address and resolve the matters the resident had raised to it.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must give the resident an opportunity to provide details of the expenses they incurred during the rat infestation, consider these in line with its current compensation policy, and respond in writing to the resident confirming its position. If the landlord agrees to any compensation, it may deduct £100 from the total, in recognition of the amount it has already offered to the resident for inconvenience. It must provide us with a copy of this once issued.
Within seven weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must review its pest control policy and consider adding an explanation to confirm in which circumstances it would arrange for cleaning (usually known as ‘deep’ or ‘environmental’ cleans), and in which circumstances the provision of advice or guidance to residents would be sufficient to ensure that hygiene concerns are addressed. It is suggested that this could involve consideration of any known vulnerabilities within the household. The landlord must confirm to us the outcome of this review.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord review the learning from this case, and consider whether it could offer training or guidance to aid its repairs teams, and staff responsible for contracted repairs and pest control, in the identification of unreasonable behaviour and the application of its managed behaviour policy.
We recommend that the landlord consider whether it can improve the recording of verbal discussions, including advice given and details of follow-on work, between residents and members of its repairs team, repairs contractors, and pest control contractors, at visits to their homes.
We recommend that the landlord consider how it could incorporate timescales for the follow-up repairs, in particular to block off access points for rats, into its pest control policy.
We recommend that the landlord consider whether it could provide guidance to its staff which clarifies who is responsible, able, and has authority to identify and agree to resolutions of complaints.
We recommend that the landlord consider the learning from this case, and whether it could improve the sharing of information between its pest control contractor and its repairs team.