The Guinness Partnership Limited (202307967)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307967

The Guinness Partnership Limited

15 October 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestation in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a block of flats owned by the landlord. The resident has vulnerabilities linked to her mental health.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 April 2023. She stated that ants were coming into her bedroom, and she requested for assistance in resolving the issue.
  3. On 12 May 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said she had paid for pest control to attend and resolve the issue with the ants in her bedroom. She requested for the landlord to reimburse her these costs.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 May 2023. It stated that according to the resident’s tenancy agreement any pests inside her home would be her responsibility to resolve. It said that she had not allowed enough time for it to investigate if the pest issue was coming from a communal area before she instructed a contractor to attend her home. It had not failed to act and would not reimburse her costs. It apologised for not contacting her within 2 working days of making her initial report and offered her £25 for distress and inconvenience.
  5. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. She stated that the ant nest was in the communal area, so it was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve. She asked it to repay her costs of £184.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 June 2023. It stated that it had given the resident clear and consistent advice about her responsibility for treating pests in her home. It acknowledged that it failed to return her call back request within its advised 48-hourtime limit.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord refused to reimburse her pest control costs and brought her complaint to this Service for investigation
  8. Following contact from this Service, the landlord issued a revised offer to the resident on 12 March 2024. It said while the advice it provided in its stage 2 response regarding its responsibilities was correct, it should have been more proactive in inspecting the communal areas to establish responsibility. In addition to the £25 it offered in its stage 2 response, it offered £200 for distress and inconvenience and agreed to reimburse the resident’s £184 pest control costs. This was a total payment of £409.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In contacting this Service, the resident reported that the landlord’s handling of the pest control issues had negatively affected her health. Whilst we do not doubt her comments, in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme; The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that its actions or inaction has affected her health. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Reports of pest infestation in the property.

  1. The resident made her initial request for assistance in relation to the ants in her bedroom on 24 April 2023. The landlord stated in its complaint response that its policy is to respond to service requests within a 48-hour period (2 days). It, however, did not respond to this request until 3 May 2023. Its response was 7 days outside its service level agreement. The landlord recognised this failing in its complaint response, it apologised and offered goodwill payment of £25. Whilst the amount offered by the landlord was appropriate, it was not reasonable to term this payment a ‘good will gesture’ because this was compensation for its own failure. Landlords should be mindful that it might not help its relationship with residents to term the compensation for its failures as good will gestures.
  2. The resident reported the pest infestation on 24 April 2023. She reported that she believed the ants could spread to the communal areas. She also informed the landlord when she contacted it on 2 May 2023, that independent contractors had attended and advised that the infestation was at an early stage and could potentially affect the whole block. The contractors were unsure where the ants originated from.
  3. According to the landlord’s pest control policy, it would be its responsibility to resolve pest infestation if there is an infestation that has a substantial risk of spreading and impacting neighbouring properties in a tower block. It states that it will assess this on a case-by-case basis.
  4. Its policy also states that “when the origin of the pests is unsure, the landlord should raise an order within 2 days to a specialist pest control contractor so that the problem can be identified and treated as quickly as possible, ideally within 5 working days of the initial infestation report. This is so that it deals with the infestation quickly to minimise the risk of spreading. During the inspection, the contractor should be able to determine where the pests have originated from, and this is to form the basis for deciding who is responsible for treating the infestation.”
  5. After the resident informed the landlord of her concerns regarding the ants spreading to the communal areas and being unsure of the origin of the ants. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed an inspection within 5 days to determine the origin of the ants and the possibility of a whole block infestation.
  6. In this case, the landlord did not order an inspection. Instead in its internal correspondence on 4 May 2023, 10 days after the resident’s initial report, it stated that it would not raise an order for the inspection of the property. It stated that the ants could be “flying or normal ants” and by the time its contractors attended the ants would have disappeared. It said it was the resident’s responsibility to resolve the issue and that she could get products from the local stores to resolve the issue.
  7. The landlord’s response was not appropriate. It was not reasonable to assume the nature of the ants in the property and to conclude it was the resident’s responsibility without first completing an inspection. As stated above, an inspection was not completed. This was a failing and not in line with its policy.
  8. The resident’s tenancy agreement, in accordance with the landlord’s pest control policy, states that she is responsible for resolving pest control issues in her home and the landlord is responsible for resolving pest control issues in the communal areas.
  9. On 12 May 2023, the resident informed the landlord that there was an ant nest outside her patio area, on the communal pathway near the carpark. According to the landlord’s policy, after it received this report, it should have completed an inspection within 5 days. However, in this case, it informed the resident that it would not complete an inspection as it was her responsibility to resolve the issue.
  10. This response was not appropriate because the resident reported that the infestation was in a communal area. Furthermore, even if it did not agree that the ants were in the communal area, its policy states it must inspect to confirm responsibility so it would have been appropriate to have completed an inspection before informing the resident that it was her responsibility.
  11. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerability in relation to her mental health. Its pest control policy states that if the resident is vulnerable, it would attend the property to inspect and to establish if the resident requires additional support. It states, it would assess the situation and advise the resident of the decision and responsibility.
  12. In this case as stated above, the landlord failed to complete an inspection neither did it establish if the resident required any additional support. There were at least 3 instances where it failed to follow its policy. This was unreasonable and would have caused unnecessary distress to the resident.
  13. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  14. In its stage 1 and stage 2 response, the landlord stated that the pest infestation was the resident’s responsibility because it believed the infestation was in her bedroom. It was right in stating that the resident was responsible for pest infestation inside her home, however, it did not complete an inspection so it could not have known that the pests were inside her home and thus her responsibility. It failed to acknowledge this error in both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses.
  15. In the landlord’s revised stage 2 response of 12 March 2024, it said it should have taken more responsibility to complete an inspection of the communal areas when the resident reported the pest infestation. It admitted that this would have enabled it to establish responsibility. It said it had instructed its contractors to complete an inspection of the communal areas to ensure the areas were secure. It apologised and in addition to the £25 pounds it previously offered, it offered £184 as reimbursement for the resident’s cost towards pest control and £200 to acknowledge the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This was a total payment of £409.
  16. The remedies offered by the landlord in its revised stage 2 response would have been considered reasonable and appropriate. However, because its original complaint response did not acknowledge its service failures, it is uncertain that the landlord would have admitted its failings and offered remedies if the resident had not escalated her complaint to this Service. Its revised offer does not constitute reasonable redress as it was the resident who took the initiative to escalate her complaint to this Service. Furthermore, the resident has reported that she is still experiencing issues with pest infestation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestation in the property.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the £409 it previously offered on 12 March 2024, if it has not already done so.
    3. Inspect the resident’s flat and the surrounding area to determine if the issues with the ants persist and whether any existing infestation is from a communal source. If the issue remains ongoing, the landlord must confirm to the resident and this Service who is responsible for resolving the issue. If it holds responsibility, it must share its plans to permanently resolve this issue with this Service.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of this determination.