Torus62 Limited (202401070)

Background

1. The property is a semi detached house. The resident experienced damage to her carpet due to rats in the property in November 2023 and subsequently raised a complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of pests and damage to her carpet.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of pests and damage to her carpet.
   2. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. There is a lack of evidence to support that the landlord was on notice of the floorboard repair, or pests in the property, in the year prior to the resident’s reports in November 2023. The landlord acted within reasonable timescales to address her reports of pests, complete follow-up inspections and actions, and gave suitable advice regarding contents insurance.
5. The landlord’s responses were delayed at each stage of its complaints process. While it attempted to keep the resident up to date as to when she would receive a response, this communication was delayed, and it did not address its failure to log her complaint at stage 2, or the combined impact its delays had on her.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. In her complaint, the resident said she was happy with the landlord’s works following her reports of rats entering her property, but felt that if it had repaired the floorboard around 2017 as expected, rats would not have entered or damaged her carpet. She wanted the landlord to replace her carpet, and compensate her for the emotional distress caused to her and her family due to the presence of rats.
7. While we do not doubt the resident’s comments, we have not seen any specific repairs related to the flooring in the property in 2017. The resident has advised that the property was not owned and managed by the current landlord at the time. The landlord’s repair records indicate that it raised some flooring related repairs in August 2019 as part of a bathroom replacement. However, we have not seen any other evidence to support that she communicated with it about any ongoing flooring related repairs in the years prior to her report in November 2023.
8. In addition, our investigations generally focus on the events in the 12 months before a complaint. While the resident had raised concerns about pest activity related to the removal of a tree and roots in October 2022, we have not seen evidence that she raised any other concerns about pests until her report in November 2023. In view of the above, the landlord was not on notice of the problems and could not have acted sooner.
9. Following the resident’s initial report that the vents in her kitchen and bathroom needed sealing on 23 November 2023, as it looked like pests were entering, the landlord reported completing this work on 30 November 2023. This was within 7 days and in line with its 20 working day routine repair timescales.
10. Following her reports of rats in the property on 27 November 2023, the landlord acted appropriately by securing a floorboard on 19 December 2023. This was done within its routine repair timescales. It also arranged for its pest control contractor to attend.
11. We note that the resident was also in communication with the council’s pest team who had already attended and laid bait at the time of the landlord’s pest contractor initial visit on 1 December 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord’s pest control contractor did not take steps to treat the property given that the council had already done so. The landlord acted reasonably by arranging follow up appointments on 2 January 2024 and 10 January 2024, following the resident’s further reports. There was minimal evidence of activity that would require further action by the landlord.
12. The resident has raised concern about the length of time it took the landlord to complete repairs to access points in her loft. The landlord’s repair records show that a work order was raised on 30 November 2023 following reports of damaged or missing felt in the loft. This was prior to the first visit by the pest control contractor. The landlord requested scaffolding on 8 December 2023. It then reported completing work on 1 February 2024. The landlord’s repair policy states that where structural work is required, which needs additional planning, it aims to complete work within 60 days. It completed the work within 63 days. While slightly outside of its repair timescales, the delay was not significant or unreasonable in view of the holiday period, and it competed follow-up visits in the interim period.
13. The landlord acted reasonably by arranging a further follow up appointment after the resident’s reports of increased activity on 23 January 2024. Following a visit around 6 February 2024, the pest control contractor noted that there were no holes in the loft space, but that there could be access via neighbouring properties. They reported that the only other potential access point would be via gaps in the flag stones at the side of the house near a manhole. They recommended work to complete a drain survey and the landlord acted appropriately by arranging this for 14 March 2024. This was done within a reasonable timeframe. The survey ultimately found no problems with the drains. It acted reasonably by arranging further follow-up visits on 20 February and 5 March 2024 which found no evidence of ongoing activity.
14. It was reasonable for the landlord to complete the drain survey before being doing work to the paving slabs given the potential need to repeat the work should further drain investigation or excavation had been required. It completed work to remove and relay the paving slabs on 19 April 2024 which was within a reasonable timeframe following the completion of the drain survey.
15. While it is evident that the presence of rats would be distressing for the resident and her family, we have not seen evidence that the distress experienced was the result of any failings by the landlord, or that it unreasonably delayed taking action once aware of her reports of pests. It can take time to eradicate pests due to the need to carry out follow up treatments and monitor activity over a period of time. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s reports of rats in the property, arranged follow-up monitoring visits, and completed recommended work within a reasonable timeframe.
16. There is no evidence to support that the damage to the carpet was due to any failure by the landlord to act on the resident’s reports. It was therefore reasonable for it to refer the resident to make a contents insurance claim in the first instance as she is responsible for internal decorations and obtaining contents insurance for personal items in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. We note that the resident did not have contents insurance, and it was reasonable for the landlord to provide advice on how she could apply for this within its complaint responses.
17. We have found that there was no service failure on the part of the landlord.

18. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint stated that it had a 2 stage complaint process. At stage 1, it aimed to contact the resident within 2 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request. If it needed additional time to investigate, it would contact the resident to explain the reasons why, and provide a new response date, which should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code at the time of the complaint.
19. Following the resident’s complaint on 5 January 2024, the landlord responded at stage 1 on 2 February 2024 – a period of 20 working days. The landlord initially said that it aimed to respond to her complaint by 19 January 2024. However, we have not seen evidence to show that it contacted her about the status of the complaint until 25 January 2024, when it said it would respond by 2 February 2024. This was almost a week after it said it would respond. It did not explain the reasons for the delay or recognise the impact of the delay on the resident within its response.
20. The resident initially said she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response on 7 February 2024. However, its records show that it did not log this until 29 February 2024, and did not acknowledge the escalation request formally until 1 March 2024. It then responded on 20 March 2024, 31 days following her escalation request. While its call records from 1 March 2024 show that the resident agreed to a 10 working day extension, we have not seen evidence to show that it explained the reasons for the delay, addressed its delay in logging her escalation request, or recognised the impact on her.
21. While it can be reasonable for the a landlord to extend a complaint timeframe, it would be expected to communicate this in advance, and explain its reasons. It should also recognise where it has needed to extend timeframes due to failings in how it handled the complaint. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and ordered it to pay the resident £50 for the inconvenience caused.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping), and communication.

22. We did not find any problems with the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord should ensure that it communicates any likely delays in its handling of complaints to the resident in advance of its expected response date so it can adequately manage their expectations.