Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Your Housing Limited (202206025)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206025

Your Housing Limited

26 July 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:
    1. reports of a mice infestation in her home;
    2. reports of damage caused to her floor tiles when the landlord installed a patio door at her home;
    3. associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, this service cannot investigate issues concerning the resident’s reports of damage caused to her floor tiles when the landlord installed a patio door at her home. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. The resident may be able to raise this issue as a separate complaint with this service if it completes the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and she remains unhappy with the outcome.

 

 

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a property. The owner of the property is the resident’s local council; however the day-to-day management of the resident’s property is carried out by a management company. For clarity, the management company is referred to as ‘the landlord’ throughout this report. The resident lives in the property with her family and there are health conditions in the household.
  2. On 26 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint. She said the landlord refurbished her kitchen in October 2019 and had left a hole in the wall behind her kitchen cupboard. The hole was allowing mice to enter her home. She said the landlord’s contractors and the council’s pest control service had attended her home, but the problem remained unresolved. The resident explained that she has a visual impairment.
  3. The landlord had made previous reports to the environmental health department on 18 February 2021 and 21 July 2021. The landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s home in May 2021 and on 14 September 2021 and filled multiple holes that the resident pointed out.
  4. On 22 October 2021, the landlord advised that it had received the resident’s email about a complaint, but the text had been written in the subject line so it had been unable to understand the contents. The landlord had also advised the resident of this on 8 October 2021. The resident replied on 1 December 2021 to advise that she had returned to the UK from a period of time away and would now like to pursue her complaint. The landlord replied to the resident on 2 December 2021 to advise it would send her a complaint form.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 February 2022 to make a complaint. The landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s home on 21 March 2022 and 22 March 2022. Further holes were identified and filled in.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 25 April 2022. It had established that neighbouring properties had also needed treatment for similar infestations and it had therefore arranged for the entire block to be treated by the pest control service. The landlord said it could not find any evidence that it had failed to respond to the resident’s reports of pests. It said that there had been trouble contacting the resident but acknowledged that it should have tried other methods of doing so. The landlord apologised for its contractors expecting the resident to tell them where the holes were and stated that it had not known that the resident has a visual impairment. It offered £200 compensation as an apology. This included £100 for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and £100 for the delay in communication.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 8 July 2022. It confirmed most of the works identified in the survey conducted on 22 June 2022 had been completed on 30 June 2022. Two further visits were scheduled on 7 July 2022 and 15 July 2022 to complete works.
  8. On 18 August 2022, the resident escalated her complaint. The pest control service had confirmed that 2 separate treatment plans had been completed at the resident’s home that year and the bait had been removed on its last visit on 25 July 2022, with no evidence of new mice activity.
  9. The landlord closed the resident’s stage 2 complaint due to the resident approaching solicitors. On 20 December 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident following contact from this service. stated it had taken all reasonable steps needed to deal with the infestation. It included dates of appointments where the landlord’s contractors and the council’s pest control service had been unable to access the resident’s home as planned.
  10. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate. While the issues with the mice infestation have been resolved, the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord handled the infestation and her complaint. She would like this service to review the landlord’s offer of financial compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained to the landlord and this Service how these events have negatively affected her children’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about the impact of events on her children’s health. However, it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the household’s health. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident and her family may have experienced as a result of the issues raised in her complaint as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s health concerns.
  2. The resident’s complaint centres around a mice infestation at her home. It is the responsibility of the resident’s local council to treat existing rodent infestations and it is the landlord’s responsibility to carry out proofing works to prevent infestations, such as through the filling of holes that allow mice access into the property. It is within this service’s remit to investigate a council where its actions arise from its functions as a landlord. The council’s pest control service is not a landlord function because anyone living in the council area can access pest control services through the council. As this service is not just for council tenants it is not directly part of the council’s function as a social landlord and therefore this service is unable to investigate its actions as part of this complaint. If the resident wishes to make a formal complaint about the actions or inaction of the pest control service, she will be able to do so by directly approaching the council. If she remains dissatisfied once she has received the council’s final response to her complaint she may be able to approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman regarding this matter.
  3. In communications with this service, the resident has described incidents of what she feels was unprofessional or unsatisfactory conduct by members of the landlord’s staff and its contractors during visits to her home. The Ombudsman will be unable to assess these specific incidents as part of this investigation as they did not form part of the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord. The landlord has therefore been unable to respond to these specific issues through its internal complaints procedure. The rules which govern our service state that the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. The landlord should consider arranging for a senior member of its staff to meet with the resident so they can hear and understand her concerns and take action where necessary. If the resident remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her concerns, she may be able to refer to the complaint to the Housing ombudsman at that stage.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mice infestation in her home

  1. As the resident is a secure tenant, the landlord has a legal and contractual responsibility to carry out most repairs in most circumstances at the resident’s home. Relevant legislation states that repairs should be carried out within a “reasonable” timeframe. In line with industry best practice, the Ombudsman would expect routine repairs to be completed within 1 month, although some repairs may take longer if they are complex. Rodent infestations can be complex issues to resolve because there can be multiple entry points into the property that can be difficult to locate. The landlord would be expected to attend within 1 month to assess the property and block up any points of entry for rodents which it could find. However, further visits may be needed to block up more holes if the infestation continued.
  2. It took a significant amount of time for the pest control service to successfully treat the mice infestation and for the landlord to complete the proofing works necessary to prevent re-infestation. The evidence shows that there was minimal unnecessary delay with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of infestation issues. There is evidence that the landlord referred the resident’s infestation to the council’s pest control service multiple times from as early as February 2021. By September 2021, the resident’s home had been treated 5 times by the service, with an additional 2 treatments taking place by July 2022. There is evidence of an adequate level of joint working between the landlord and the pest control service to resolve the ongoing infestation. The evidence shows that when the resident contacted the landlord to report seeing mice, the landlord’s contractors would attend the resident’s home within a reasonable timeframe to complete proofing works. When appointments did not go ahead successfully, there is evidence that the landlord responded appropriately by rescheduling the appointment for as soon as possible. It is acknowledged that the infestation went on for a significant period of time and this would have been distressing and inconvenient for the resident. However, this service has not identified any concerns with significant avoidable delay to the landlord’s response to the infestation.
  3. The landlord had explained that gaining access to the resident’s home at agreed appointment times had not always been possible. In its stage 2 complaint response, it listed 9 dates between 5 May 2022 and 29 September 2022 where appointments had not gone ahead for this reason. It explained that there were also 5 occasions where the pest control service had also unsuccessfully attempted to access the resident’s home at agreed appointment times. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident had advised it that she was out of the country between September 2021 and February 2022. The resident had emailed the landlord on 1 December 2021 to inform it that she had returned to the UK, so it is not clear how long the resident was away for. The resident has told this service that she denied access on occasion as she had no confidence that the visit would be effective. This service understands that there will be times where it is not possible or convenient for the resident to allow access to her home for works to take place. However, this would have resulted in delays to the landlord and the pest control service carrying out the works required to resolve and prevent infestations. Delays for this reason are not considered to be within the landlord’s control.
  4. The landlord completed a full survey on 22 June 2022 to identify all possible mice entry points. It was reasonable to complete a full survey but this should have been done sooner in response to the resident’s reports of mice entering through holes in the building. Once this survey had been done, the landlord completed most of the necessary proofing works within a few days, on 30 June 2022. The landlord stated that it initially had no reason to suspect that the mice were entering the property from anywhere other than the kitchen. The resident had told the landlord that holes left in the kitchen when it was refurbished had caused the infestation. The contractors had been guided by the resident pointing out the holes to them. It was reasonable for the landlord to initially concentrate its efforts based on the resident’s reports of the mice entry locations. However, as the infestation persisted despite multiple holes being filled, the landlord should have taken responsibility for establishing how the infestation was happening and if there were any other entry points which needed to be blocked.
  5. The landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response that it had not been aware that the resident had a visual impairment. The resident had informed the landlord of this fact in her email of 26 July 2021. The landlord should have recorded this information and ensured that any necessary adjustments were in place. This did not happen and it had negatively affected the service the resident had received. Contractors had asked the resident to empty cupboards and point out holes to them, which was inappropriate in the circumstances. The landlord should apologise to the resident for failing to record relevant information about her health and for the impact this failing had on her. It should work with the resident to ensure that it has accurate information about any adjustments the resident requires going forward.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to reimburse her with £160 for the cost of a private pest control company that she had instructed in September 2021. She also asked the landlord to reimburse her with £600 for the cost of replacing her bed base, which had been chewed by mice. The landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response that it had asked the resident to put her reimbursement requests into writing and had not received this. The resident has told this service that she did not progress with this request. The resident was entitled to instruct a private pest control company if she wished to do so but the landlord would not necessarily be expected to cover the cost of this. There is no evidence that the resident approached the landlord in advance to discuss if it would be in agreement with this course of action. If she had consulted the landlord in advance it could have looked at other options such as working with the local authority’s pest control department or using its own contractors which may have been cheaper. The resident went ahead with the private pest control in the knowledge that she may need to pay for it herself with no assurance that the landlord would pay for it.
  7. The resident could discuss with the landlord any options available to her to make a claim against its liability insurance if she believes the landlord is responsible for damage incurred to her possessions caused by the infestation. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the outcome of insurance claims and therefore we cannot comment further on any liability claim the resident may make.
  8. This service has not identified any service failure in the landlord’s handling of the infestation that would be appropriately remedied with an offer of compensation. Therefore, we will not order the landlord to make any additional compensation payment as remedy for the infestation issues.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure sets out how the landlord handles complaints from residents and its target timescales for each stage. The landlord aims to acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and provide a written response at stage 1 within 10 working days. Complaints that are handled at stage 2 of the complaints procedure should be responded to in writing by the landlord within 15 working days. This is in line with the principles set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling.
  2. The Ombudsman encourages the landlord to respond effectively to residents’ concerns informally where this is appropriate. However, the landlord should also identify when it is appropriate to handle a complaint within its formal complaint procedure. On 26 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord making it clear that she wanted to complain. The email included the word “complaint” in the subject title and within the email itself. The landlord could not have reasonably mistaken the email for a service request rather than a complaint. This is because the resident confirmed that the landlord’s contractors had already visited her home to try and address the infestation and yet she had concerns she wanted the landlord to address. The landlord has provided this service with a copy of this email, but there is no evidence that it acknowledged the email at the time or handled it appropriately. There is also no evidence that the landlord decided to handle the complaint informally instead. The first record of action taken by the landlord following the email was more than 6 weeks later on 9 September 2021.
  3. There is evidence that the landlord knew the resident wanted to complain from October 2021 and it offered to send her a complaint form on 2 December 2021. However, it was not until 14 April 2022 that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and started its formal complaints procedure. This service has seen evidence of 4 separate attempts by the resident to make a complaint before that date. According to the landlord’s complaints procedure, the resident should have received a written response at stage 1 within 10 working days of submitting her complaint on 26 July 2021. She instead received a response more than 8 months later on 25 April 2022. The resident had therefore experienced a significant and unreasonable delay in receiving a formal written response to her complaint from the landlord. The delay to the landlord’s complaint handling had not significantly affected the outcome of the issues raised in the resident’s complaint, and the landlord had otherwise responded reasonably to the resident’s requests. However, the landlord should review this case to identify why the resident had been unable to formally complain for a significant amount of time. It is appropriate that the landlord offered financial compensation to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response as remedy for this delay to its complaint handling.
  4. The complaint response was detailed and addressed the concerns thoroughly. It accepted that the delay to its complaint response had been unreasonable and offered financial compensation as an apology. It accepted that it should have done more to communicate effectively with the resident. The landlord handled the resident’s complaint at stage 1 appropriately.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £200 in compensation, which was later increased to £300. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published online) suggests awards of this amount may appropriately remedy instances of considerable service failure or maladministration by the landlord where the impact on the resident has not been permanent. Examples of this include residents having to spend an unnecessary amount of time chasing responses from the landlord. The compensation offer at stage 1 of the complaints procedure was appropriate and adequately remedied the complaint handling failures that the resident had experienced at that stage.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request on the same day it received it but did not action it. It continued to respond to the infestation and communicate with the resident, but it did not carry out a stage 2 complaint investigation as required by its complaints procedure. On 16 November 2022, the landlord informed this service that it had closed the resident’s stage 2 complaint because she had approached a solicitor. The Ombudsman sent 2 letters to the landlord over the following month, one of which issued a final deadline for the landlord to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 December 2022. It should have issued its response within 15 working days of receiving the resident’s escalation request on 18 August 2022, in line with its complaints procedure. It should not have closed the resident’s complaint because she had approached a solicitor for assistance. It may be appropriate to close down a complaint where legal proceedings have been formally issued, which had not happened in this case. Residents are entitled to employ solicitors to assist them with complaints and this in itself is not a reason to close a complaint. This was another significant delay to responding formally to the resident’s complaint. It should not have required multiple interventions from the Ombudsman for the landlord to appropriately handle the resident’s complaint.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay to handling the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of the procedure. It should have referred to this complaint handling failure in the response and tried to put things right for the resident, especially within the context of the delay to the landlord’s response at stage 1. A further offer of financial compensation to the resident to remedy this second delay is appropriate.
  8. The landlord should pay an additional compensation award of £200 to the resident to remedy its failures at stage 2 of the complaints procedure. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an award of this amount may redress instances of service failure, such as failure to follow complaint procedure or escalate a resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaint handling failure had not affected its response to the resident’s infestation and had therefore not impacted the overall outcome of the resident’s complaint. However, it would be reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge and remedy the delay and the inappropriate closure of the resident’s complaint.
  9. This service acknowledges that the landlord has since reviewed and updated its complaints policy to bring it more in line with the Ombudsman’s Code. This is a positive move, and the landlord should also look to identify any areas for improvement in its application of the policy. In this case, the landlord has not always acted in accordance with its policy, and it should ensure that it does so in future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mice infestation in her home.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 in financial compensation in recognition of the failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The payment should be made within 28 days of the date of this determination.
  2. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failures in responding to the resident’s complaint within appropriate timescales at each stage of its complaint procedure. It should also apologise to the resident for failing to record relevant information she had provided about her health and acknowledge the impact this had on her. The apology should be issued in writing within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its complaint handling in this case to identify the reasons for delays in responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages of its procedure. Where areas are identified for improvement, it should make an action plan to implement learning. The landlord should ensure it is processing and escalating complaints from residents appropriately going forward.