Walsall Housing Group Limited (202209749)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209749

Walsall Housing Group Limited

19 February 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:
    1. Handling of reports of a rodent infestation.
    2. Response to a request for temporary housing.
    3. Complaint handling.
    4. Record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a flat in a low-rise building.
  2. On 23 July 2022 the resident made a report of vermin to the landlord. A pest contractor attended on 1 August 2022. The landlord had advised that it only had one pest contractor. At the time of the report, they were on annual leave, and subsequently off work due to illness, which caused a delay in initially attending.
  3. The resident made a complaint. The landlord has noted the complaint was made on 10 August 2022. However, in an email from the resident’s mother on 31 July 2022, it was implied that the resident was already in a formal complaints process. The resident felt the landlord was not responding urgently enough. She advised this was having a significant impact on her physical and mental health. The resident requested temporary accommodation whilst the situation remained outstanding.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 26 August 2022. It advised that it had conducted a number of visits to inspect the property, and that it had begun works to manage the infestation. It identified several areas which could have been providing access to rodents. It confirmed what actions it had taken, and what it intended to do moving forward. The landlord stated that it had refused to provide temporary accommodation, as the situation was not prejudicial to health. It did, however, acknowledge that the situation was adversely affecting the resident’s mental health. It advised it would monitor the situation moving forward. The landlord did not uphold the complaint, as it felt it was taking the necessary actions to address the concerns.
  5. On 15 September 2022, the resident stated she wanted to continue with the complaint. She advised she had not had responses to her emails or a call back when promised. She stated that she had to chase up the works repeatedly. The resident advised that a loft inspection was outstanding. There was a cavity between the loft and the bathroom, which could be providing access to the rats. The resident advised she had been staying with her mother since August as she was too afraid to return home.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 3 November 2022. It considered that it was taking sufficient action to expedite the repairs. It also stated that most emails were being answered in a timely manner, although it identified an email in September that was delayed, due to a staff member being on leave. It advised the loft inspections were scheduled for between the 20 November 2022 and 6 January 2023. It advised this was the earliest the appointment could be done as crawl boards were needed to allow for a full investigation. It reiterated that the resident was not eligible for temporary housing. The complaint was not upheld.
  7. On 11 November 2022, the resident advised she was unhappy with the response. She requested escalation to the next stage and that someone more senior review the case. The resident felt the landlord had not fully addressed the complaint, and provided a number of details which she felt the landlord had not responded to appropriately. This included concerns that the landlord had not appropriately baited the property. The resident also stated that the situation had arisen due to a repair by the landlord. During this repair, a number of holes were left unsealed. The resident advised that she had to carry out a number of repairs herself in order to make her feel safe. She reiterated the significant impact the situation had on her mental health, including feeling suicidal at times. She felt that the landlord had not done enough and wanted a panel to hear her case.
  8. The resident received a panel response on 16 February 2023. It apologised to the resident and confirmed its service had fallen below what it expected. It addressed each point the resident raised in her escalation request. The landlord offered £800 for failings in relation to the repair. It offered £500 for the loss of enjoyment to her home and £300 for the materials and time for repairs carried out by the resident.
  9. The landlord revisited its offer on 5 March 2023 and added a further £300 for complaint handling failings, bringing the total compensation offer to £1,900. The resident has confirmed that there are no outstanding issues, however she remains unhappy with the landlord’s response and the compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of a rodent infestation.

  1. The Ombudsman has not seen any specific policy which relates to the landlord’s response times for vermin infestations. However, its repairs policy states that where a repair may have an immediate impact on health, it will attend within 24 hours.
  2. The landlord did not attend for 9 days from when the issue was reported. This was an unreasonable response time. The landlord advised that the delay was due to the contractor only having one pest controller. The pest controller was on holiday and then off due to sickness. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to outsource for an alternative pest controller if the contractor could not provide availability. The landlord has acknowledged this and has subsequently taken action to ensure that it always has access to a pest controller.
  3. There was a visit on 1 August 2022. The Ombudsman was not provided with a record of this visit. However, the landlord did provide details of the visit in its stage 1 response. It stated that there were noises of rats from behind the toilet, however the landlord could not get access to bait there. It advised it needed to inspect a sewer pipe using a camera. It identified a pipe that would benefit from being cemented around. It also baited an outside drain.
  4. On 4 August 2022 a surveyor attended. They identified that there was litter on the estate which may be a source of food for the vermin. It also found that there were pipes which had openings to drainpipes below. It confirmed there was bait in the drain. The surveyor produced a schedule of works to be completed by the landlord. The surveyor took appropriate action at this time.
  5. The landlord removed boxing from around the toilet on 16 August 2022. The stage 1 response stated that the surveyor attended on 18 August 2022 to inspect the area. However, there are no records of this visit, and there are no details of the outcome of the inspection. The landlord should have ensured that it recorded all actions it took to tackle the pest problem and communicated this to the resident.
  6. The resident reported that there were rats in the plinths underneath her kitchen on 19 August 2022. The landlord stated that it would visit that day, but no one attended the appointment. The stage 1 response states that the appointment was rescheduled and carried out on 24 August 2022. There was an appointment on 24 August 2022, however there are no records of a kitchen inspection, or the outcome of this.
  7. The landlord conducted a site visit with a member of the neighbourhood services team and the housing officer on 22 August 2022. The resident advised there was evidence of rats in her kitchen, although she had since cleaned this. The landlord acknowledged there were gaps in the woodwork. The landlord acknowledged that it needed to get access to the neighbouring lofts. The resident felt that repairs were disjointed as different teams were involved. The landlord agreed to a single point of contact. The resident had advised she had an appointment for the 3 October 2022 but did not feel she could continue to live in her situation until this point. The landlord advised it would try to bring the appointment forward.
  8. A surveyor visited the property on 24 August 2022. It had inspected a neighbouring loft, but stated this was not a thorough inspection. It advised there was no evidence of rats in the loft but did identify several access points. A schedule of works was created following this visit. The landlord acted appropriately at this time.
  9. The resident discovered that her toilet was leaking on 26 August 2022. This was due to rats having chewed the waste pipe. The landlord attended the same day and replaced the pipe. It also identified other holes and blocked these. The resident stated that the outstanding issue concerned a bathroom vent pipe which may still be providing access to the rats. The landlord promptly dealt with the toilet repairs; however, it should have provided an update on the vent pipe.
  10. On 17 October 2022, the landlord attended the property to block several drains, which may have been providing access to the rats. The appointment had been brought forward from its original date. As the works were external and no access was required, the resident was not given notice of the revised appointment date. The landlord noted all works were completed at this time. However, the resident felt that 1 drain was not blocked, and had she been at the appointment, she could have advised the landlord of this. Though it is best practice to keep residents aware of any changes to appointment dates, as no access was required it was appropriate for the landlord to conduct the appointment at the earliest date. 
  11. A non-return toilet valve was identified as a repair that was needed to prevent access to rats entering the pipe work. The landlord’s records do not make clear when this was first requested. However, the resident advised that this was suggested the first time her toilet leaked, in October 2022. The landlord sent someone to install the valve on 15 December 2022. The landlord’s notes say this was completed. However, the resident contacted the landlord the same day to advise the plumber that attended did not know how to fit a non-return valve. Later correspondence between the landlord and the resident confirms the valve was not fitted that day. The Ombudsman notes that from 15 December 2022 the landlord was attempting to obtain quotes to get the valve installed. It is unclear why there was a delay prior to this time. The resident confirmed the valve was installed on 13 January 2023.
  12. Throughout the complaint, there were concerns that rats were accessing neighbour’s lofts. The resident had made the landlord aware that a stack pipe gave potential access from the lofts into her bathroom. The landlord looked at 1 neighbour’s loft on 24 August 2022. However, it acknowledged this was not a thorough investigation, as crawl boards were needed. It was later established that crawl boards were not needed, as the pest controller was trained to inspect the lofts without them. The resident advised that on subsequent appointments, there were some access issues from the neighbours, and the landlord also missed scheduled appointments. This caused friction between the neighbours, which was distressing for the resident.
  13. The resident informed the landlord that 1 full loft inspection took place, was found to be clear, but that the other had no access. The landlord’s records do not confirm either inspection, or the outcomes of these visits. A delay due to needing specialist equipment would be considered as reasonable. However, the landlord should have checked if there were alternative options to inspect the loft. In delaying the time significantly, the landlord lost engagement from the neighbours and caused further distress to the resident.
  14. The resident felt she needed to carry out works of her own to make herself feel safe. This included blocking the cavity between the loft and the bathroom, which was noted as a required repair since the early stages of the complaint. Although the landlord has provided a schedule of works, the details of repairs notes are limited. There is insufficient evidence to explain why works were delayed. It is understandable why the resident carried out her own repairs. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 3 response and provided the resident with £150 for the cost of materials and £150 for her time in conducting her own repairs. It was appropriate for the landlord to compensate the resident.
  15. The landlord should have inspected the infestation earlier. It also delayed works without reasonable explanation. The landlord failed to communicate with its resident at points throughout the complaint, adding to the resident’s distress. It did not keep appointments, or complete promised works on time. However, the resident has confirmed that all issues are now resolved. The landlord has acknowledged its failures in its stage 3 complaint. It has identified areas of improvement, including ensuring that a pest contractor is always available. It has also appointed a repairs team leader to manage schedules of works to address issues with internal communications. The landlord offered compensation for its handling of the infestation. This was £800 for service failings, £500 for loss of enjoyment of the home, and £300 for the repairs the resident needed to complete herself. The total compensation offered for the infestation was £1,600. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a reports of a rodent infestation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for temporary housing.

  1. The resident made several requests for temporary housing throughout the complaint. This was due to the impact the infestation was having on her mental health. The resident also advised that the stress resulted in physical health issues, and that she had to attend hospital due to this. The Ombudsman has also seen a letter from the resident’s social worker which advised that the resident had to move in with her mother and this was having an impact on all family members.
  2. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the resident’s request for temporary accommodation. The landlord stated that as it had not seen evidence of rats in the living area of the property, it did not consider the infestation to be prejudicial to health. The landlord did acknowledge that there were impacts on the resident’s mental health, however it was satisfied it could complete the repairs with the resident in situ. The Ombudsman recognises the significant distress the resident felt during the complaint. We also recognise that the resident felt she could not stay in the property while the situation remained outstanding. However, the landlord is responsible for managing its limited resources to ensure it can provide a fair service for all residents. As it did consider the request, the Ombudsman considers there to be no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for temporary housing,

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage process, with an optional third stage. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code recommends that landlords use a 2-stage process, to prevent the complaint process being unduly long. From the complaint being made, until the landlord completed its complaints process was 190 working days. This was an excessive amount of time. However, the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has since changed its policy, and now operates a 2-stage complaints process.
  2. It is noted that there was confusion by staff members at times, regarding what stage the complaint was at. For example, on 22 August 2022 the landlord told the resident that the complaint was at stage 2. However, a stage 1 response had not been issued. It was important for the landlord to be clear on the stages of the complaints, to ensure the resident had the correct information.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy stated it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord took 12 working days. Stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days. The landlord took 35 working days. Stage 3 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days. The landlord took 66 working days from the time the resident first requested the complaint be escalated to stage 3. The landlord failed to meet any of the timescales as per its complaints handling policy.
  4. The landlord did not uphold the complaint at stage 1 or stage 2. In its stage 3 response it confirmed that it should have partially upheld the complaint at stage 2, due to works delays. It is positive that the landlord reviewed its response and identified where it had got things wrong.
  5. The landlord’s stage 3 response addressed all issues raised by the resident. It provided detailed responses and acknowledged where it had failed. The landlord also awarded compensation for its failings. However, it did not offer compensation for the complaints handling, which would have been appropriate given the significant delay.
  6. On the same day the complaint was referred to the Ombudsman, the landlord revised its compensation offer to include £300 for complaint handling failures. The landlord should reflect on this element of its complaint handling in this case. When a compensation offer is revisited after the landlord’s complaint process is exhausted it is harder for the landlord to demonstrate it will act fairly and consistently in all cases. However, the compensation offered is reasonable and as such there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping.

  1. The Ombudsman requested further information from the landlord regarding records of completed works. The landlord provided further records, however the details within these were limited. The records typically showed what work was ordered but did not refer to what specifically happened at the appointments. In some situations, the records were also incorrect. For example, the record for the toilet valve installation in December 2022, stated the job was completed. Subsequent correspondence confirmed this was not the case.
  2. Most of the evidence confirming what actions the landlord took has been through correspondence with the resident and the landlord. The resident has had several concerns that the landlord has not correctly communicated what actions it has or has not taken. Although the resident has confirmed there are no outstanding issues, she has raised concerns regarding actions that the landlord did not complete. It is understandable that the resident has these concerns, given the information is not readily available. There was also a recognition from the landlord that there had been confusion in internal communications, and it is likely that the poor record keeping contributed to this.
  3. The landlord should have robust records in place and works details should be updated to confirm what happened at each appointment. As this was not the case, the Ombudsman considers there to be maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of reports of a rodent infestation.
    2. Complaints handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for temporary accommodation.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay £100 in respect of its record keeping failures.
  2. The landlord is ordered to review its record keeping in this case. It should consider the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with an action plan on how it will address record keeping for repair works moving forward. If it has already taken action to address its record keeping, evidence should be provided to the Ombudsman.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, within 4 weeks of this report being issued.

 

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the compensation of £1,900 to the resident.