Together Housing Association Limited (202206695)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206695

Together Housing Association Limited

30 April 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:

a.     The resident’s report of a rat infestation which contaminated his property and water supply.

b.     Gas safety.

c.      The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom house and the tenancy commenced on 15 June 2020.
3. The resident suffers from physical and mental health vulnerabilities.

Landlord obligations

4. The landlord’s repair obligations are set out at section 2 of the tenancy agreement and at Section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which states:

a.     The landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house and keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling house for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water.

b.     The resident must allow access for the landlord’s staff, agents, contractors, or statutory undertakers to carry out repairs, other works, and annual servicing, for example gas safety checks.

c.      Reasonable notice will be given if the landlord needs to enter the resident’s home to inspect it or to carry out work.

d.     If access is not provided, legal action may be taken, or, in an emergency (for example where someone’s safety is at risk), the landlord may force entry into the property.

e.     If it has to force entry to carry out an emergency repair or check, the home will be made secure immediately and arrangements would be made to repair any damage caused.

5. Gas Safety (Installation and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 (GSIUR)

a.     Under regulation 36 of the GSIUR, landlords are required to carry out annual safety checks on gas appliances and flues (and ensure a record is kept and issued, or in certain cases, displayed to tenants) and carry out ongoing maintenance.

b.     Regulation 36A of the GSIUR includes the following provisions:

1. “Where a safety check of an appliance or a flue made in accordance with regulation 36(3)(a) or (b) is or was completed within the period of two months ending with the deadline date, that check is to be treated for the purposes of regulation 36(3)(a) and (b) as having been made on the deadline date”.
2. The ‘deadline date’ means the last day of the 12-month period within which the check is or was required to be made.

6. The Approved Code of Practice and Guidance (ACPG) – The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 (GSIUR) as amended by the 2018 regulations; the amended ACPG provides information on how to meet the requirements of the GSIUR and includes the following:

a.     Clause 304 of the ACPG states that the changes set out in regulation 36A aim to offer more flexibility in the gas safety checking regime – however, it is not compulsory for landlords to take advantage of this change. If they prefer, landlords can continue with their current regime of gas safety checking, as long as it meets the legal minimum requirements as set out in regulation 36.

b.     Clause 311 indicates that where a gas safety check is carried out less than 10 months after the previous gas safety check, this will have the effect of ‘resetting the clock’ and the deadline date will now be 12 months from the date of this latest check.

c.      Clause 312 states that where the property remains tenanted it is an offence to have no current gas safety check record in place.

7. The landlord’s repairs policy states:

a.     Each repair is assigned a priority based on the information the resident has provided.

b.     ‘Priority 1’ repairs are attended within 24 hours and are those that need making safe or repairing where there is an immediate risk to life or to the property.

c.      ‘Priority 2’ repairs are completed within 28 days and are those that do not pose immediate risk to person or property and can be carried out by appointment.

8. The landlord has an obligation under both the tenancy agreement and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) in respect of the water supply. This is limited to the supply of water after delivery to the dwelling and is concerned with water for drinking, cooking, washing, cleaning, and sanitation.

Scope of investigation

9. The resident believed the quality of the water had been affected by the presence of rats in the property and associated parasitic rat lung worms which caused him illness. This Service understands the resident feels the landlord has failed to properly address issues which has impacted his health. We recognise the concerns he reported have affected him and caused distress.
10. In relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role or expertise to assess whether the water quality was contaminated. This is because this Service does not make findings on technical aspects in relation to a property or repairs.
11. It is also not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination on matters such as the impact on health, as this is not in this Service’s expertise and jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, reasonably applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation, and followed good practice when reaching decisions. This Service will only investigate the landlord’s handling of the reports of water quality, not the affect it had on his health.

Summary of events

Events relating to gas supply inspections

12. Between 31 January 2022 and 13 May 2022, the landlord:

a.     Wrote and hand delivered 6 letters to the resident advising him of its need to inspect his gas safety supply. It also left 3 calling cards following unsuccessful visits to his property to inspect the gas supply.

b.     It asked for him to contact it urgently to arrange the gas inspection on several occasions and advised if it did not receive contact, it would have to disconnect the gas supply at the meter.

c.      On 13 May 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it had disconnected the gas supply to make the property safe. It explained it had made several attempts to contact him but did not receive a response. It therefore had to take this action in the interest and safety of all concerned.

Other events

13. On 4 January 2022, the resident reported to the landlord there were rats in the wall cavities and attic. He explained he could hear the rats chewing through things and moving.
14. On 17 January 2022, the landlord attended to inspect the reported infestation.
15. On 18 January 2022, further works were ordered for its specialist pest control contractor to attend and clear any contaminated lagging bait and trap the loft space, blocking off any possible access spots for rats to enter.
16. On 1 February 2022, the landlord’s pest control contractor completed the instructed works. It reattended on 10 February 2022 to inspect the traps. It found no evidence of an infestation or any droppings to suggest the presence of rats.
17. On 25 March 2022, the resident notified the landlord of his intention to make a legal claim relating to his concerns the condition of the water supply was toxic and caused him to contract a parasitic brain infection. The infection he stated, was caused by flesh eating worms in his water supply.
18. Between 14 April 2022 and 19 April 2022:

a.     Following the resident’s legal claim notification, he requested to speak with the director of the landlord. The resident stated he raised a complaint during a call with the director. The landlord states it has no record of this and the call was to discuss the legal claim and resident’s reported condition.

b.     The landlord created a safeguarding case for the resident. It attempted to contact the resident several times and attend his property to discuss the reported issues and inspect his gas supply. It received no contact from the resident to arrange a gas safety inspection.

19. Between 1 July 2022 and 11 July 2022:

a.     The resident contacted the Ombudsman to raise his complaint.

b.     This Service provided further details of the resident’s complaint to the landlord and asked it to contact him to discuss his complaint. The resident asked to work with the landlord to resolve the matter. If no complaint had previously been raised, it should write to the resident by 22 July 2022, and explain the reasons for its decision, advising the resident of its informal complaint procedure.

c.      The landlord advised it had not received a formal complaint from the resident, he had only made service requests relating to the pest infestation and a personal injury claim for his parasitic infection. It asked for time to discuss the matter with the resident.

20. On 12 July 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to respond to the concerns the resident raised to the Ombudsman. It explained:

a.     It was sorry for any distress and inconvenience it may have caused.

b.     The resident had raised service requests for actions to be taken, not a complaint. It therefore did not classify it as a complaint within its informal complaint’s procedure.

c.      Its contractors had inspected the property following reports of an infestation. It could not see evidence of an infestation; however, it took precautions and baited the property.

d.     The resident submitted videos in support his account of the property conditions. However, it could not see or hear what the resident was suggesting was evidence on the videos.

e.     It raised concerns for the resident’s welfare. It also made several attempts to access the property to inspect the gas safety. However, the resident did not allow access. Under its legal duty, it had to disconnect the gas supply for the safety of the resident and neighbours.

f.        It asked the resident to provide evidence to support his claim the landlord had made him unwell. It did not receive formal medical evidence to support the resident’s claims. It had not received reports from any other residents in neighbouring properties or the local authority to advise of similar concerns. It would, however, arrange for the water to be tested for contamination.

21. On 13 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord in response. He explained:

a.     The source of his infection was from rat lung worms which were spread from infected rats. He believed the pest control contractors hoovered up evidence of rat droppings and put mesh over the holes in the attic. The property was infested by rat lung worms in every wall, the ceiling, flooring, and water supply. He had been diagnosed with rat lung worm parasites by his GP and had since developed encephalitis meningitis. The parasitic larvae were in his brain stem.

b.     He reiterated his legal claim position and he had raised this to the landlord’s director. He was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his reported property condition.

22. On 18 July 2022:

a.     The resident requested to be moved from his property.

b.     The landlord offered to transfer the resident to a new property in response. It explained it would however need to complete a property inspection and its previous attempts to access the property were refused by the resident.

23. On 5 August 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman to advise he was not satisfied with the landlord’s informal response. On the same date, this Service asked it to log the resident’s complaint and formally respond to the resident by 19 August 2022.
24. On 20 September 2022, the landlord met with the resident to discuss the present circumstances:

a.     The resident explained he believed the property condition was killing him. There were parasites living in the walls, floors and ceiling and they were eating away at his flesh and body.

b.     He had no heating or hot water due to the gas being capped off. However, he would not use the water and purchased bottled water instead, which he used to bathe, drink, and flush the toilet.

c.      The landlord explained it had been attempting to gain access to the property since January 2022 and he had refused access. However, he agreed to talk to the landlord going forward.

d.     The landlord confirmed it had made referrals to:

1. social services, however, they would not take on his case and advised the landlord’s mental health team to discuss the case with the resident
2. its mental health team, however, the resident would not engage with them
3. the resident’s GP, which it believed had made a referral to mental health services.

e.     The landlord agreed to a management transfer as he allowed access to inspect the property condition in August 2022. At the inspection, it could not see evidence of the property being infested with worms. However, there was evidence of water bottles and no floor coverings.

f.        It agreed to test the resident’s water supply and as he had not used running water for a considerable amount of time, it would also complete legionella tests.

g.     The resident emailed the landlord to explain he was angered it believed he was suffering from a mental health episode, and it was in denial of the actual cause of his parasitic infection. He also explained he had provided photographs of his body where he was experiencing the infection and provided his medical records which supported his view.

25. On 22 September 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It explained:

a.     It was a regulatory requirement for it to complete an annual gas safety check. It made several attempts to complete the inspection but was refused access. It had no other option than to disconnect the gas supply to protect the resident and other neighbours’ safety.

b.     It attempted to speak with the resident following disconnection of the gas supply and access the property to complete the inspection on several occasions, but these were unsuccessful. It recognised the resident may have benefited from support from other external organisations for his mental health. It appreciated the resident was offended it questioned his mental health, however it was not done to offend or upset the resident. It had a duty to safeguard the resident and provide additional support.

c.      It had not received medical evidence from the resident’s GP or concerns raised by the local authority’s environmental health team to support the points the resident made. The resident provided photographs of his medication however, this did not support his claims.

d.     It offered the resident a management transfer due to the distress he reported. However, it’s transfer policy required it to inspect the property before it could facilitate a management transfer. The resident refused to allow the inspection to take place for several months. Once it was provided access in August 2022, it attended with its neighbourhood officer, repairs coordinator, and gas team coordinator. Whilst it found no evidence to support the resident’s reported property condition, the property was in satisfactory condition to allow it to agree to the transfer. It would offer a new property once a new property became available.

26. On 4 October 2022, the resident advised this Service he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response and requested the complaint was escalated. This Service informed the landlord of the escalation request.
27. On 12 October 2022, with the resident’s permission, the landlord discussed the resident’s reported condition with his GP. The GP could not share personal information but confirmed the resident was not suffering from any physical health condition.
28. On 21 October 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained:

a.     It had offered to assist the resident to inspect his gas supply since it was capped off due to legal requirements. It had not been allowed access to inspect the gas supply since it was capped.

b.     It would offer a management transfer when a property was available.

c.      It had not received any professional medical evidence to support the resident’s claim the condition of the property was causing him illness. It had spoken to the resident’s GP and they confirmed the resident had been seen face to face by the out of hours service in recent times. They confirmed the resident did not have a physical health condition they were aware of or had seen.

d.     It offered to test the resident’s water supply.

e.     It would continue to offer the resident support. It had also signposted him for further medical assistance which may be helpful to his health and wellbeing.

Events post complaint

29. On 16 November 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to provide him with an update on what it was actively looking into to further support him:

a.     It confirmed whilst he complained about his current property, it wanted to reassure him it would still like to offer him alternative accommodation. Although it noted the resident had not yet provided it with his preferred areas of choice.

b.     It provided him with information of a property it had identified in the local area which it owned and managed. It also explained it had alternative properties in other areas of the region should he want to move there.

c.      If the resident wanted to be rehoused by another landlord, it would assist him with identifying alternative properties with such landlords.

d.     It also offered the resident the option of a deep clean, redecoration and water testing at his current property. However, it would require him to provide it access to the property. It offered the resident a decant to a new property whilst the described works were carried out. It also provided additional options such as completing the works when the resident could choose availability or providing him with a travel pass and lunch expenses to leave the property whilst works were completed.

e.     It explained it wanted to reconnect the gas supply as soon as possible, despite previous attempts to gain access to the property being unsuccessful. It could reassure the resident its gas team would wear PPE whilst completing its safety inspections. Additionally, if the resident would not allow it access, it would provide electric radiators to heat his property. It asked him to urgently provide his response.

30. On 22 December 2022, the landlord agreed with a quote of £1,440.00 for a deep clean and redecoration. The resident agreed to confirm his availability with the contractors.
31. In August 2023, the resident accepted a move to a new property offered by the landlord. However, following inspection, he believed the new property had the same infestation and problems as his previous property. He therefore decided not complete the property transfer.
32. On 29 August 2023, the landlord confirmed a deep clean of the property was completed. However, its decorating works were delayed as the resident prevented access to the property.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s report of a rat infestation which contaminated his property and water supply.

33. On 4 January 2022, the resident reported rats in his attic and walls. The landlord completed an inspection of the property on 17 January 2022. It arranged for its contractors to attend on 18 January 2022 to inspect the property, lay bait traps and cover off any potential access points. Its contractors reattended on 1 February 2022 and confirmed it did not find evidence of an infestation, due to there being no droppings and that traps had not been disturbed. The landlord’s repairs policy allowed it 28 days to complete repair related actions. Whilst its inspection took place 13 days after the reported issue, it ensured its response was within its policy timescales. This was good practice by the landlord to ensure a responsive repairs service.
34. Whilst its inspection did not find evidence of an infestation, it took steps to investigate further and arranged for a specialist pest control contractor to attend. Whilst the resident believed the contractors had hoovered up evidence of any rat droppings, there is no evidence to support this view. Therefore, the landlord was assured by its specialist contractor that the infestation had been fully investigated and could find no evidence of an infestation. It was entitled to rely upon the advice of its pest control contractors as they are experts in the area being investigated; and unless evidence is provided which is contrary to the contractors’ report, the landlord would have no reason to dispute their advice.
35. This Service understands that the potential pest infestation would have been very distressing for the resident and he believed there had been parasitic rat worms present within his property. However, there is no evidence to suggest its specialist contractors found evidence which supported the resident’s view. The landlord also reviewed photographs and videos provided by the resident which he said showed evidence of the rat worm infestation. However, the landlord could not find evidence to support resident’s reports from the supplied photographs and videos. The available evidence suggests that the landlord took reasonable action to investigate the issue once it became aware of it by offering to carry out pest control treatment which confirmed no infestation. This was good practice by the landlord.
36. A property would not automatically be uninhabitable because of a pest infestation. However, despite not finding evidence of an infestation, the landlord demonstrated it wanted to support the resident as much as possible. It offered the resident a property transfer as it recognised the distress the resident was experiencing by living in the property. This was good practice and was evidence the landlord took its responsibility for the resident’s welfare seriously.
37. The landlord also acted appropriately to consider its safeguarding responsibilities following its investigations. Whilst the resident did not agree with the landlord’s views that he required support from mental health services, the landlord discussed matters with social services, internal mental health support services and the resident’s GP to support a referral to mental health services. This was good practice by the landlord to make these enquiries and ensure the resident’s needs were met and monitored. This service recognises the resident was unwilling to engage with the landlord’s attempts to support the resident’s mental health.
38. It is not possible to know from the resident’s evidence whether there was an infestation or if there was a significant risk to the resident’s health and safety. This Service cannot determine health impacts as explained within the scope of this investigation. However, this Service would expect the landlord to make the appropriate enquiries to ensure there were no risks to the resident from living in the property. In addition to its pest control investigation, the landlord reviewed photographs provided by the resident of his medical prescriptions and medical record excerpts and discussed matters with the resident’s GP. The GP confirmed there was no evidence to support the resident’s belief of a parasitic infection. The landlord showed it acted reasonably to discuss health impacts with the resident’s GP and inform its next steps to appropriately support the resident.
39. The landlord discussed the resident’s reports with the local authority’s environmental health team, reviewed its portfolio of properties and noted no reports had been made that the water quality had been reported. However, it offered to test the resident’s water supply to provide reassurance, conduct a deep clean of the property and redecorate. Whilst the resident did not believe these actions would change his circumstances, the landlord showed by taking these steps, it was committed to supporting the resident to live in the property. This was evidence of good tenancy management by the landlord.
40. Furthermore, the resident notified the landlord of his intention to pursue a legal claim. This Service cannot investigate the landlord’s response to the resident’s legal claim. However, the landlord communicated effectively with the resident to explain it required a legal medical report to support the resident’s claim which would be referred to its insurer. It also appropriately signposted the resident to its insurer, should he commence a legal claim. This was good practice. Should the resident intend to pursue a legal claim, he should discuss his case with a solicitor.
41. This Service recognises the resident believed his property was infested. However, we have seen evidence the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously and investigated, confirming there was no evidence of an infestation. It offered to provide him with support and make changes to his living environment despite not having evidence which suggested it should pursue these actions. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a rat infestation which contaminated his property and water supply, amounted to no maladministration.

Gas safety

42. The landlord initially commenced its efforts to conduct an annual gas safety check at the resident’s property from 31 January 2022. This was in accordance with its obligations under the gas safety regulations.
43. Overall, the landlord made reasonable attempts to gain access to the property for gas safety checks by writing to the resident on 6 occasions and attending the property on 3 occasions before it decided to cap the supply at the meter on 13 May 2022. The landlord made frequent attempts to complete the gas safety check that it was required to carry out according to its gas safety policy, demonstrating it was willing to use its discretion before capping the gas meter in line with its legal requirements.
44. The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s gas safety policy show that it will force access to complete the gas safety check where it has exhausted its attempts to undertake the check. However, in this case, the gas meter was located outside the property; the landlord has advised that this was why the forced access recourse was not used. Given the landlord was able to cap the gas meter without accessing the resident’s property, this was a reasonable approach to take.
45. The landlord’s contractor did leave a notice on the meter so the resident should have been aware of the contact details that he needed to use to arrange the supply to be restored. It also wrote a letter to the resident confirming the same contact details to advise what had happened, explain why and inform him how to resolve the situation. It also urged him to allow it to conduct a safety inspection and made several attempts after disconnecting the supply to contact the resident to complete an inspection. The evidence suggests the landlord’s handling of the matter was reasonable and it communicated directly and effectively to the resident with urgency, given the inevitable impact of capping a resident’s gas supply.
46. In summary, the landlord’s decision to cap the resident’s gas meter was reasonable as it had not been able to gain access to the property despite numerous letters and visits. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of gas safety amounted to no maladministration.

The associated complaint

47. The resident states he raised his formal complaint with the landlord in April 2022 to the landlord’s director. The landlord said the resident did not make a complaint during this call. This Service has not been provided with any evidence of the phone call. On 13 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord advising he had previously discussed all the facts and responsibilities required by law with the landlord’s director previously.
48. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states a complaint must be defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.
49. This Service does not have enough information to confirm whether the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in April 2022. However, the resident’s proposed legal claim dated 25 March 2022 evidenced he was dissatisfied about the standard of service he received from the landlord. Whilst this Service recognises the landlord was required to process the resident’s notification of a legal claim, it would also be expected to attempt to resolve the dispute informally within its complaint procedure. It should have discussed whether the resident wanted to also make a formal complaint, given his expression of dissatisfaction. The landlord has not provided evidence it did this. This was evidence of a service failing.
50. This Service contacted the landlord on 8 July 2022 to advise it of the resident’s complaint. The landlord confirmed the resident had not formally complained to it previously. On 12 July 2022, the landlord provided the resident an informal response explaining its position relating to his complaint. On 5 August 2022, the landlord was asked by this Service to log the resident’s complaint and provide a formal response following the resident’s request. However, its formal stage 1 response was not provided until 21 September 2022. This was a delay of approximately 6 weeks.
51. The landlord was required to provide a formal response within 10 working days under its complaints policy and the Code. There is no evidence the landlord asked for an extension from the resident to provide its response later. The delay of 6 weeks to provide its stage 1 response was evidence of a service failure.
52. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 4 October 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 October 2022. This was good practice and in line with its complaint handling policy and the Code timescales of 20 working days.
53. Overall, the landlord failed to recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of his reported concerns. It should have asked the resident if he wanted to log a formal complaint on 25 March 2022. It also provided its stage 1 response approximately 6 weeks late. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint was service failure.

Determination (decision)

54. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a rat infestation which contaminated his property and water supply.
55. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of gas safety.
56. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

57. The landlord did not log a complaint for the resident when he expressed dissatisfaction with its handling of the reported issues. It also provided a delayed stage 1 response.

Orders

58. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failings identified in this report.

b.     Pay the resident a total of £100 in compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failure.

c.      The landlord provides evidence of compliance with the above orders.