Vivid Housing Limited (202301273)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301273

Vivid Housing Limited

24 July 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the communal bin store and pests in the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a larger block of flats.
  2. The resident has completed an internal management move away from the property since the conclusion of this complaint.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 September 2022 and 30 September 2022 to report she felt the condition of the bin shed was a health and safety hazard. She said the conditions of this had led to flies entering the property. She also believed that this was potentially attracting rats. The resident continued to report flies in the property throughout October, November, and December.
  4. On 15 December 2022, the resident e-mailed the landlord to say the number of flies in the property was getting worse and that she believed these were originating from a neighbour’s property. The landlord visited the block on 16 December 2022 and was unable to find evidence of flies in the communal areas. It said it generally would not get involved in dealing with fly infestations however it would speak to the neighbour.
  5. On 25 January 2023, the resident reported that she had seen bed bugs in the property that she believed had been brought in by the same neighbour. The landlord arranged for a contractor to visit the property the following day to began treatments to eradicate the bed bugs.
  6. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 3 February 2023. She said her reports about these issues has not been taken seriously, nor her calls for greater support for her neighbour. She said that this neighbour had been the cause of flies in the block as well as the bed bug infestation. She added that she was 11 weeks pregnant and suffering physically and mentally due to the infestation. She mentioned she had been forced to sleep in a hotel whilst the treatment was ongoing.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 February 2023. It provided her with £50 compensation for failing to let her know that she could report the problems to environmental health who may be able to assist her. It also apologised for the delay in providing its response. It said that the bed bug infestation was still being dealt with and monitored by its pest controllers. Prior to this, it had also inspected, cleared, and treated the bin sheds. It also said that it was working with her neighbour to try and rectify any concerns about her living conditions. It advised that, following earlier conversations, it had put her forward for a management move and that when she was 28 weeks pregnant, she would be eligible for a 2-bedroom property.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 22 February 2023. She remained unhappy with the amount of compensation and that she was still suffering from these issues and that the landlord had not involved environmental health at an earlier stage. She was dissatisfied that she was having to leave the property whilst it was fumigated, and about the potential harm from inhaling the fumes whilst she was pregnant. She added that neighbouring blocks had continued to dump rubbish in her bin store, causing ongoing issues.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 March 2023. It confirmed she had been put forward for a management move but it reiterated that to find a suitable properly could take between 6 and 18 months. It also said that it had reviewed the timeline of its actions and felt it had acted in a timely manner, believing that it had not breached its obligations as a landlord. It added that it was continuing to address the situation and eliminate the bedbug problem and that the earlier reports of flies in the resident’s property was not something that it would normally deal with.
  10. The resident e-mailed the Ombudsman on 31 March 2023 to ask for us to investigate her complaint. She said she continued to suffer from an infestation of flies and bed bugs due to the landlord’s failure to deal with the issues in her neighbour’s flat. She felt the landlord’s offer of compensation was not sufficient considering the money she had spent on trying to manage the infestation herself. She wanted the landlord to act against the neighbour who had caused the problem and to be moved into band 1 as a high priority for her move.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. When bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident mentioned she wished for increased re-housing priority banding on medical grounds. This is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme as this is a matter that relates to the local authority housing register. The resident is able to submit any complaints about this matter to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) for its consideration. This aspect of the resident’s complaint has not therefore been considered as part of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of reports of issues with a communal bin store and pests in the property

  1. The landlord’s pest management responsibility document says that, in most circumstances, dealing with a pest infestation is the resident’s responsibility. The guidance says that it will deal with flies only in communal areas, and not inside individual flats. As for bed bugs, the landlord says this falls under its responsibility where they are found in communal areas and inside flats. The landlord’s policy does not specify the timescales for reacting to, or resolving, pest infestations.
  2. The landlord responded pro-actively to the resident’s reports of bed bugs in February 2023, following up on these within 24 hours. The resident’s property was inspected multiple times and fumigated on at least 4 occasions in the month following the first reports. This work was completed with specialist contractors and the landlord was pro-active in overseeing this. It was also good practice for the landlord to put the resident up in a hotel whilst some of this work was ongoing given her concerns for her physical and mental health.
  3. When bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident mentioned she was unhappy that the infestation was still ongoing. The nature of bedbug infestations means they can take some time to be resolved. However, as noted above, the landlord acted reasonably and in a good time in appointing specialist contractors and closely monitoring the situation.
  4. The resident said that she believed the cause of the bed bug infestation to be her neighbour whom she made reports to the landlord about. As early as 15 December 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that she had concerns about her neighbour and believed she was causing the fly infestation, as well as the later bed bug problem.
  5. The landlord has not provided records to the Ombudsman of exactly how it has handled these reports about the neighbour. It is noted that environmental health was involved, that the landlord attempted to visit the neighbour on multiple occasions, and that this neighbour had additional visits from the pest control contractors in relation to the bed bugs. Whilst the landlord should have provided the information about the steps it was taking to support this neighbour, the evidence suggests nonetheless that it has taken actions towards providing them with additional support in light of the reports.
  6. The landlord stated in its complaint responses that it would not have acted about reports of flies in the resident’s property. This is in line with the pest management responsibility document. It did inspect once flies had been reported in the communal areas and outlined its obligations following a visit to inspect the property on 15 December 2022.However, the resident had been reporting this for several months prior. The landlord should have explained its responsibilities and policy on the matter to the resident in writing at an earlier date. Its failure to do so led to the resident continuing to make reports to the landlord despite it having no intention to take action about flies in her property.
  7. The landlord also has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence regarding how it dealt with the resident’s complaints about the communal bins. It has said in its complaint responses that it undertook visits and performed a clearance and clean of this space in December 2022. However, it also noted that the resident had first reported this issue to it on 1 September 2022. The landlord’s failure to act on this until several months later again represented a failure in service. The landlord also, as part of its response to this, should have outlined to the resident how it intended to stop future incorrect usage and disposal of waste by neighbouring blocks.
  8. As discussed above, the landlord’s communication with the resident about the flies and bin area could have been swifter and more efficient. Its failure to respond undoubtedly caused distress and inconvenience for the resident. However, when dealing with the bed bugs, the landlord did communicate reasonably with the resident. It was in regular contact and answered her communications swiftly. This represented good management of the situation from the landlord.
  9. The resident requested a management move due to the impact the bedbugs were having on her. The landlord’s management move policy says it has a process to urgently move residents where there is an evidenced medical need. As part of its arrangement with the local council, the council has 100% nomination rights for properties.
  10. The landlord followed up on the resident’s request to be considered for a management move, speaking with the local authority regarding this. Following this, the landlord was given permission to re-house her within its own housing stock. The landlord confirmed this to the resident and provided her with information on the realistic timeframes such a move could take. These were fair actions for the landlord to take.
  11. There was a small delay in providing the local authority with some information regarding this, however it is not clear if this was caused by any failure from the landlord or if this was from the local authority. Overall, however the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move was fair and the resident was successfully re-housed within a few months of the move request.
  12. The landlord’s complaint policy has 2 stages. At stage 1 of the complaints process, it says it will perform a full investigation and provide its findings within 10 working days of the complaint being received. At stage 2 of the complaints process, it says it will acknowledge any request for a stage 2 escalation within 5 working days. It then says it will provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of this.
  13. The landlord took 10 working days at stage 1 to provide a response, in line with the timescales outlined in its complaints policy. At stage 2, the landlord was delayed in providing the resident with an acknowledgment and also took 24 working days to provide its response. Both of these actions were outside of the timescales given in the landlord’s complaint responses. Given these delays, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to either offer the resident an apology or offer a small amount of compensation. The failure to acknowledge this delay represented a failure in service from the landlord.
  14. Overall, the landlord’s response to the communal bin issues and reports of pests represented service failure. There were minor failures from the landlord in its communications about these issues with some delays in providing accurate information and in responding within reasonable timeframes. For these failures, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £100 compensation on top of the £50 offered in its stage 1 complaint response. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends amounts in this region for minor failures in service by a landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with a communal bin store and pests in the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord
    1. Provide the resident with £150 compensation, inclusive of its previous offer of £50, for its failures in service when dealing with the reports of issues with the communal bin store and pests in the resident’s property.
    2. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    3. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that is has done so.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider providing written guidance to all residents on how to report problems about communal bin stores and exactly what actions it is able to take to deal with any issues which may arise.