Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202308820)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308820

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

6 December 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 response to the resident’s reports of pests within the property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 2 June 2023.
3. On 12 June 2023, the resident reported that she had been in the property for 5 days and bedbugs had infested her carpet and furniture. The landlord offered to raise a job for pest control to attend, however, she did not want chemicals sprayed on the furniture and would only accept a heat treatment. Alternatively, she asked the landlord to replace her furniture and carpets. She added that she and her children had insect bites. She contacted the landlord again on 14 June 2023 and the landlord again offered to arrange a pest control visit but she declined.
4. In its stage 1 complaint response on 15 June 2023, the landlord:
   1. Confirmed the property had been empty since March 2023 and a number of operatives attended to complete repairs in the period. Its operatives were responsible for reporting bites. If operatives reported bites, work would stop while it fumigated the property. It confirmed it received no reports of bites.
   2. Confirmed that bed bugs were usually found in soft furnishings and could lay dormant, but without a food source they would die off after 3 months. It confirmed there was no soft furniture in the property while empty and no evidence the bugs were in the property prior to her moving in. There were also no previous reports of bed bugs during the previous tenancy.
   3. Said it covered the costs of treating certain pests, including bed bugs. It had spoken to its pest control contractor who would need to assess the property before determining which treatment was best.
   4. Said it was not liable to cover the replacement of the resident’s furniture as there was no evidence to support an infestation was in the property prior to her moving in, and it could not be liable unless it directly caused the issue or it had failed to resolve the issue within a reasonable period.
   5. Noted that it had offered for its pest contractor to attend but the resident had declined. It reiterated its offer and confirmed that if she declined, she would be liable for treating the bed bugs.
5. On 16 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that it was fleas not bedbugs in the property. The landlord’s records indicate that she believed that if pest control sprayed her furniture, it should replace her furniture. She also asked the landlord to escalate the complaint as it had given incorrect advice about the lifespan of bedbugs.
6. In its stage 2 complaint response on 3 July 2023, the landlord: 
   1. Confirmed that it did not receive any reports of pest issues during the previous tenancy which lasted 3 years and 7 months. Its repair history confirmed it had not received any reports and had not needed to carry out fumigation or treatment. The reason for terminating the tenancy was also unrelated to any pest issue.
   2. Reiterated that operatives were in the property but were not bitten while completing repairs before the tenancy began. As such, it was not on notice of any pest or bug activity before the tenancy began. It added that it had cleaned the property before she became a tenant, and its cleaning team did not report any problems.
   3. Explained that it had offered a pest control contractor to visit on 2 occasions on 12 and 14 June 2023 but the resident had declined its offers. On 15 June 2023, it confirmed that the contractor would need to visit to assess the required treatment.
   4. Its pest control contractor attended on 16 June 2023 and submitted a report to the landlord. They said they did not see signs of activity, and the resident did not want the beds checked as she was confident the issue was fleas. The resident kept 2 insects in a jar, 1 was a ladybird larva, and 1 was a fruit fly. They placed 7 insect monitors and reattended on 21 June 2023. A flea was found. They also checked the bed and sofa but found nothing. They confirmed that fleas could be picked up anywhere including on public transport or schools. They offered a further visit and chemical spray which the resident declined.
   5. Confirmed that the findings did not show that there was an infestation. It was unable to offer compensation or replace furniture as there was no evidence of an infestation before she moved in. It said that if she did not want the treatment, it would take no further action. It confirmed that it could only be held liable if it directly caused the issue or failed to resolve the problem in a reasonable period of time.
7. Following the complaint, the landlord’s records indicate that the resident accepted the offer of treatment and that there were no further pest reports after 20 July 2023.
8. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she did not agree with the landlord’s response. She wanted it to replace her carpet and furniture.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. As part of the complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to replace her furniture and carpets. The landlord offered an explanation as to why it was not liable to replace furniture and carpets. The resident also raised concern that she and her family had been bitten by insects in the property and she believed the landlord was liable. It is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to determine liability or comment on the likely outcome of a liability claim as these matters are best suited to an insurance claim or court.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of pests within the property

10. The landlord has confirmed that it does not operate a pest policy. Its website says that, in most cases, it is the tenant’s responsibility to deal with pests. However, the landlord is responsible for dealing with fleas and bedbugs where there is a problem with the building.
11. Following the resident’s report of bedbugs in the property on 12 June 2023, the landlord acted reasonably by offering to arrange an appointment with its pest control contractor, who was best suited to deal with any possible infestation. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident declined as she did not want her furniture sprayed with chemicals, but she wanted the landlord to replace her beds, sofa, and carpets.
12. The landlord acted reasonably by contacting its pest control contractor and then confirming that the contractor would need to assess the property in the first instance. This demonstrates it was resolution focused and took the resident’s concerns seriously. The landlord would require evidence of the alleged problem before confirming the action it could take. It was not obliged to replace furniture or carpet at the resident’s request.
13. Over the course of the complaint, the resident said that it was not bedbugs present but a flea infestation. The landlord acted reasonably by arranging a pest control visit on 16 June 2023, within 4 days of her initial report. There were no signs of flea or bedbug activity, and the contractor acted reasonably by re-attending to check insect traps on 21 June 2023, which was within a reasonable timeframe of the initial visit.
14. While an operative found 1 flea across 7 traps, this would not indicate an infestation. The operative reported checking the bed and sofa and found no further signs of an infestation. It was reasonable for the pest control contractor to offer a further visit and treatment given the resident’s concerns, although she initially declined this.
15. The landlord acted reasonably by reiterating the offer of a treatment within its stage 2 complaint response. The Ombudsman notes that the resident confirmed that she wanted the treatment to go ahead following the complaint in July 2023. The landlord has provided contact records from after the complaint and there is no further record of the resident reporting issues after 20 July 2023, indicating the problem was no longer an issue.
16. The resident has maintained that there must have been a pest issue within the property before she moved in and wanted the landlord to admit to this. The landlord has demonstrated it investigated her concerns by communicating with its contractors who worked in the property before the tenancy began, confirming it had replaced the carpet before the tenancy began, and reviewing the repair history for the property. It acted reasonably by confirming that it had not received reports of pest infestations prior to the resident’s tenancy and that there was no current evidence of an infestation. While it could have done more to address her concerns that it had given incorrect information about how long bedbugs can live, this was unlikely to impact the resident as she later believed that this was a flea infestation.
17. A landlord is not expected to consider replacing or compensating residents for damage to their personal items unless it caused the damage either directly or through unreasonable delay. As above, the Ombudsman cannot determine liability. However, the landlord acted reasonably within its complaint response by explaining why it did not believe it was liable. There is no evidence to confirm an infestation or that the resident’s furniture or carpets required replacement as a result. In addition, there is a lack of evidence to show there was a building fault contributing to the alleged infestation for which the landlord would be responsible. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm that it would not compensate the resident or replace her furniture or carpet.
18. The Ombudsman has found no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports. It acted reasonably by offering to arrange a pest control appointment to assess whether the property needed treatment from the outset. Once the resident permitted pest control attendance, they found no evidence to support her claim that there was an infestation but acted reasonably by offering treatment. It demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to investigate her concerns by reviewing the repair history for the property and determining whether it had received previous pest reports. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was aware of any form of infestation prior to the resident moving into the property and a lack of evidence to support her claims of an infestation despite its investigation.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of pests within the property.