Wandle Housing Association Limited (202205088)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205088

Wandle Housing Association Limited

1 February 2023


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 the resident’s request to pave her back garden to prevent pests from burrowing.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house with a private back garden.
  2. The resident has advised that she reported a pest infestation in her back garden at some point in 2022. She asked that the landlord repair the paved area in her back garden to prevent pests from burrowing into her garden. The landlord’s contractor attended her property at some point thereafter and measured the paved area (a date for the visit was not provided and this Service has not seen a copy of the contractor’s report). 
  3. The resident raised a complaint in April 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to complete paving works in her back garden. She stated that the landlord had agreed to undertake the works to prevent pests burrowing through, and had also sent a contractor to measure the paved area in her back garden. The resident explained that pests were still present in her back garden despite its pest control contractor’s numerous attempts to resolve the issue (its pest control contractor placed bait in the resident’s back garden in May 2022). The resident stated that she was unsure why or how the landlord had made its decision not to complete the works to paved her garden.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that, in regards to the uneven paving in her back garden, it was unable to find a job raised for a repair despite its contractor attending to measure the area. The landlord stated that it had liaised with its specialist works manager, who advised that it would only repair the paving if it was a trip hazard and not due to a pest infestation. It acknowledged that that was not made clear during the contractor’s visit to her home, and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It advised that it would learn from the situation and work to improve its service. The landlord confirmed that the back garden was the resident’s responsibility.
  5. The resident brought her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied that pests were still present in her back garden and the landlord’s decision not to pave her back garden. The resident asked that the landlord resolve the pest infestation fully and pave her back garden.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, states that the resident would be responsible for the paved and non-paved areas in their private garden.
  2. The landlord’s pest infestation guidance states that the resident is generally responsible for the handling of pests in their own property including vermin. The landlord could intervene where: a pest infestation is due to a defect in the property allowing entry, providing an environment which causes them to spread or thrive, where it is part of a wider infestation affecting multiple properties, or where it has clearly spread from the communal area.
  3. The resident asked that the landlord carry out works to the paved area in her back garden in an attempt to prevent pest from burrowing into her garden. In view of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, its decision not to carry out works to the paving was fair and in line with its policies and procedures, given the resident’s responsibilities with regards to her back garden.
  4. The landlord also relied on the findings of its its appropriately qualified staff. The landlord appropriately liaised with its specialist works manager, who concluded that it would only repair the paved area if it was a trip hazard and not due to a pest infestation. A landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff, and accordingly its decision to not carry out the works to the paved area in her back garden was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. Given the resident’s remark about uneven back garden ground, best practice would have been for the landlord to determine whether or not the paved area posed a trip hazard. Nonetheless, because the resident had not raised the repair as safety issue or trip hazard, and rather in an attempt to prevent pest from burrowing into her back garden; it was reasonable for the landlord to remind her of her responsibilities in line with its repairs policy.
  6. When a resident raises concern about the landlord’s refusal to carry out works, the landlord would be expected to effectively manage the resident’s expectations by clearly explaining its position and reasons behind its decision.  It is clear that there was some miscommunication from the landlord, for example the measuring of the paved area set the resident’s expectations that it would be repaired. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its lack of clarity regarding the works and to apologise to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord appropriately informed the resident that it would not be carrying out the work to the paved area in its complaint response. It was also reasonable for the landlord to refer to its repair policy to explain the reason behind its decision not to carry out works to the paved area in her back garden.
  7. Throughout this case there are details regarding a pest infestation in the resident’s back garden, and it is apparent that the landlord has attempted to resolve the pest issues. While the resident does not appear to have raised specific concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of her reports of pests (we have not seen the resident’s original complaint at stage one), she has raised concern with this Service that the pest issue remains unresolved.
  8. Given the resident specifically asked for paving to be completed to prevent pests burrowing, best practice would have been for the landlord to confirm its position about the pests as part of its complaint response. It would also have been helpful for the landlord to explain what actions it had or had not taken with regards to the pest issue. This would have enabled this Service to look at other evidence provided to further assess whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable given its decision not to complete works to the paving.
  9. It is noted that limited information was received from the landlord, which did not include the resident’s original complaint, reports or dates of the inspections to the resident’s property. Although this Service was still able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. It is therefore recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which provides details of specifically when inspections or visits were made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to pave her back garden to prevent pests from burrowing.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Carries out a further inspection of the paved area in the resident’s back garden to determine whether or not it is unsafe or poses a trip hazard.
    2. Updates the resident regarding its position and actions about the pests.
    3. Conducts a review of its record keeping processes, to ensure that it records details such as when inspections or visits were conducted, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.