Your Housing Limited (202311434)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311434

Your Housing Limited

23 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a fly infestation.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and the tenancy commenced on 17 June 2019. This is a one bed, first floor flat. The landlord is a housing association.
Information provided by the resident and landlord states that the resident has autism, obsessive compulsive disorder, post traumatic stress, anxiety and depression and Raynaud’s syndrome.
The resident initially emailed the landlord on 24 May 2022, requesting that it assist her to fit netting to the outside of her windows, as she noticed wasps getting into her property. She said she couldn’t access the outside of her windows as there were fittings for the block security gates either side of them.
The landlord responded to the resident on 25 May 2022, asking her if she had noticed an increase of wasps getting into her home and asked her if netting inside her home (windows) would help. The resident replied that she believed there may be a wasps’ nest somewhere. She said she had put her own nets up twice but they had blown off. She stated that she could not put conventional nets on the inside of her windows because her windows opened inwards so this would not work.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 June 2022, to let her know that it was looking into the issue with the wasps and how it could ‘help with access’ and that it would provide more information to her the following week.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 June 2022, to say that the external windows to her property could be accessed and that a colleague had checked the area to see if there were any obvious signs of wasps nesting in the area and that no activity could be observed. The landlord asked if it could avoid putting external netting on the area and if it could arrange for a contractor to inspect the site to understand the wasp activity. It asked the resident if she wanted this to be arranged.
The landlord sent another email to the resident on 4 July 2022, asking if she wanted a contractor to inspect her property to look at the wasp issue. The resident responded on the same day, saying she did not understand why the landlord could not fit netting to the outside of her windows to stop the wasps getting in, when other residents were allowed netting on balconies to stop pigeons getting into their properties. She told the landlord not to contact her until this Service had dealt with a previous unrelated complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 August 2022 to complain about flies entering her property. (This was logged as a stage 1 complaint on 1 September 2022). She stated that:
1. She had left her flat the previous day ,28 August 2022, and stayed in a hotel, due to flies entering her property. The hotel booking was for the 28, 29 and 30 August 2022 (3 nights).
2. She believed the flies were coming from the compost heap in the communal garden belonging to the block of flats.
3. She had reported the fly issue to the neighbourhood office on 26 August 2022 who ‘did nothing’ and also via the landlord’s out of hours repairs service on Saturday 27 August 2022, who also refused to help.
4. She had called out and paid for a plumber to clean the drains as she believed the flies were coming from there. She said this had not resolved the situation.
5. She had cleaned the flat several times and the fly problem persisted. She was concerned that this was a risk to her health and safety and requested that it be sorted first thing the next day (30 August 2022) or she would report the issue to the local authority environmental health office(EHO).
6. The landlord needed to arrange alternative accommodation for her and for the flat to be fumigated. She said that she would be sending the hotel bill to the landlord, as well as all other costs she had incurred as a result of the landlord’s service. She sent the landlord receipts for the hotel booking, parking, food, cleaning materials, the plumber’s visit, and DIY materials.
7. The situation had caused a massive impact on her mental health and she had also taken time off work to deal with the fly issue.
8. She would be contacting this Service for assistance.
The landlord responded to the resident’s email on 30 August 2022. It apologised to her and advised it had passed the details onto a manager to contact the resident that morning to review the issues raised, to see how it could best assist her.
The landlord’s service manager called the resident that morning and arranged a home visit.
At the home visit of 30 August 2022, the landlord and resident agreed an action plan, detailing the following:
1. Rubbish from the paladin would be removed.
2. The bin chute and bin store would be thoroughly cleaned.
3. The landlord would book and pay for the resident to stay another night at the hotel (the night of 31 August 2022).
4. The landlord would contact its asset team exploring if fine netting could be fitted to the outside of the resident’s windows.
The landlord noted that during its visit there were no fruit flies in or around the bin chute door, the resident had no fruit flies in the kitchen or living room, there were 2 fruit flies in the bedroom and there was a strong smell of cleaning products. It said it would research window netting solutions.
On 30 August 2022, the landlord booked and paid for another night’s hotel stay and parking for the resident for the night of 31 August 2022.
On 30 August 2022, the landlord inspected the bag of soil in the communal garden and the brick water house below the resident’s window. Both of these were clear of flies.
The landlord inspected the bin area on 30 August 2022 and sent photographs of the area to its service manager. It washed out the bin store and swapped the bins over. It noted that the communal bins had been emptied and that the bins and bin store was wet from cleaning. It said that the area was now much better but there were still many small fruit flies present. A colleague had also thrown buckets of bleach down the bin chute area, in case the fly problem arose from there. He had also used bleach to clean around the area and down the steps as well as on the bin doors. He said he would repeat the process the following day.
On 30 August 2022, the landlord also contacted the local authority who advised its refuse contractors would be out the next day (31 August 2022) to empty the 4 remaining bins from the estate. The landlord stated that the bins in place had been skimmed in the meantime, so that residents could dispose of their waste. The communal bin at the resident’s block has been completely emptied and disinfected. The next scheduled bin collection would be on 2 September 2022, when all the emptied bins would be washed out and disinfected.
The landlord cleaned the area again on 31 August 2022 and hand delivered a letter to all residents in the block, advising them of the correct use of the bin chute, including food waste to avoid the bin chute from getting blocked.
On 31 August 2022 it also asked some of the resident’s neighbours if they had problems with flies and they did not. The landlord acknowledged that these flats were further away from the communal bins.
The records show that the landlord also researched external screen (netting) solutions on 31 August 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 31 August 2022, to say that she wanted to be reimbursed for her hotel stay, hotel parking and the plumber she had paid for. She said she would send receipts for all other costs she had incurred within the next day. She told the landlord that the bin chute and surrounding areas had not been cleaned. She felt she had not been taken seriously and would be reporting the matter to environmental health. She said she would not pay any service charges until the service improved.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement to the resident on 1 September 2022. It advised her it had been sent to a manager to review and the resident would receive a stage 1 response by 15 September 2022, in line with its policy.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 1 September 2022, saying she did not understand why the cleaning had not been done the previous day. She said she wanted ‘an alternative to be put in place’ until everything was clean and dry and that she would be contacting this Service.
The landlord visited the site again on 1 September 2022. It noted that there were no flies in or around the bin chute area but that there were still lots of fruit flies in the communal bin. It scraped out the bins, cleaned them, jet washed them and disinfected them. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day to advise of these actions.
On 2 September 2022, the landlord emailed the senior pest control officer at environmental health to ask for urgent assistance. It said there were, what it believed to be fruit flies (‘little red things’) in the bin store and bin chute area of one block of flats. It said it had cleaned the area 3 times that week with bleach, including spraying the bins with supermarket fly spray, but that there were still lots of flies and these were getting into the resident’s flat, which looked over the area. It told environmental health that this was having a serious effect on the resident’s mental health to the extent she felt uncomfortable in her flat. It asked environmental health what else it could do to eradicate the flies to prevent them from multiplying. It asked for any treatment recommendations and offered to pay for any treatment.
Environmental health responded the same day. It said that there is no chemical treatment worth putting in place as a fruit fly infestation is usually controlled by a deep clean and good housekeeping. It advised that fruit flies thrive around rotten, ripe or decayed fruit and produce. It continued to say that fruit flies may also breed and develop in drains, waste disposals, dustbins and mop buckets so these areas needed to be cleaned thoroughly. It also recommended removing any bags or items that may attract the fruit flies. It said that the flies’ breeding site could be from spillage at the bottom of the bins so these should not be ignored during clean up. It continued to say that it was confident that removing any rotting matter and a thorough clean up would resolve the issue but to contact it the following week to explore alternatives if these actions failed to resolve the issue.
The landlord contacted a specialist cleaning company the same day (2 September 2022). It asked it to empty, thoroughly wash, clean and disinfect the bins. It also asked it to wipe down and disinfect the bin chute at the top of the stairs, which fed the bins. It further asked it to fumigate the area with a fly pesticide. The landlord asked the cleaning company to carry out these works on 3 and 4 September 2022 and 10 and 11 September 2022. It provided access details and said once the company accepted the job, that it would meet them on the first site visit.
It is unclear from the evidence if the cleaning contractor attended or not. However, the evidence shows that the areas were cleaned, either by the landlord staff or by the cleaning contractor.
On 3 September 2022, the landlord swept the bin enclosure, emptied both bins, washed out both bins with disinfectant, wiped the bin chute hopper and advised it would return the following day to repeat the process.
On 7 September 2022, the resident sent the landlord additional receipts for her expenses in respect of her complaint. She sent receipts for; hotel parking, food, cleaning products, a fan and DIY products. This totalled £99.20. She had also bought her own netting and materials which cost her £11.80 and she had paid a contractor £130 to install this.
She also supplied receipts for a cooler and miscellaneous receipts for £31.96. She supplied her original receipt for the hotel stay which totalled £238.91 and a receipt for parking, which came to £5.00. Additionally, she supplied a receipt for the plumber’s call out charge and clean, which came to £175.00.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 8 September 2022. It noted the complaint definition and the outcome the resident was seeking. The resident was seeking to be reimbursed for money she had paid from 26 August 2022 to 2 September 2022.
In its complaint response, the landlord advised of the following:
1. It apologised to the resident for the impact on her and the fact that she had needed to leave her home because the landlord had not dealt with the problem at the time of the resident’s report of flies entering her home.
2. It had checked the bins and bin chute on 30 August 2022. It had identified the problem as coming from these areas.
3. It had also checked the bag of soil in the communal garden and the brick water house below the resident’s window. Both of these areas were clear of flies.
4. It had contacted the resident’s neighbours, living above her and they had experienced no problems with excessive flies entering their property. The flies were impacting the resident due to her windows’ proximity to the external bin chute.
5. To resolve the issue, it had carried out cleaning each day from 30 August 2022 to 5 September 2022. This included clearing the bin chute of rubbish, disinfecting the chute, bin and bin store, emptying the bin, washing and disinfecting the bins.
6. It acknowledged it should have been cleaning the bin store and bin chute regularly during the warm weather and the daily cleaning would continue until the warm weather had ended.
7. It had hand delivered a letter to all residents in the block, advising of the correct use of the bin chute, including food waste to avoid the bin chute from getting blocked.
8. It had contacted pest control at the local authority on 1 September 2022 who reassured the landlord that they were completing the correct actions to reduce the flies and maintain good housekeeping.
9. It was exploring the resident’s request to put netting on the outside of her three windows, as they opened inwards. It stated that as the operatives would be working at height, it would take time to explore this option. The resident and landlord had agreed on an interim solution and on 31 August 2022, an operative had attended the resident’s home and had fitted voiles that the resident had purchased to the inside of the resident’s living room window.
10. As a gesture of goodwill, it had reimbursed the resident for her hotel costs, hotel parking and food, totalling £270.75.
11. It had booked and paid for an additional night’s stay at the hotel for 31 August 2022.
12. It had a practical fine net solution it would be able to install in 3 windows and it asked the resident to contact it to arrange for this to be carried out.
13. It apologised for the inconvenience experienced by the resident and stated it had learned from the complaint and had improved services – it now maintained good housekeeping at the bin chute and bin store.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 September 2022. This was logged as a stage 2 complaint on 15 September 2022. She said that:
1. She felt ‘insulted’ with the level of compensation offered. She wanted the money the landlord owed her, plus interest.
2. She wanted the landlord to pay for the 3 days unpaid leave she had taken from work.
3. She had contacted this Service and the landlord should add any further information to this Service.
4. She wanted the repairs team to email (and not call) her about fitting the nets to the bedroom and kitchen window only as she wanted to make sure they worked before removing the ones she had paid for and had installed (in the living room).
5. She asked for the landlord’s staff to attend on either, Mondays, Wednesdays or Thursdays to fit the nets. She reiterated that she did not want any nets fitted to the living room window. She said if the landlord ignored this and if this resulted in more flies entering her property, she would take the matter further.
6. She did not want to speak with anyone, apart from those directly involved in fitting the nets.
7. She wanted an image of the nets the landlord intended to use as if these were not suitable, she would not want them fitted.
8. She did not want to hear from the landlord again as the situation had caused her high levels of stress and anxiety.
The landlord internal communication of 15 and 16 January 2022 shows that the landlord researched a fine net solution to be installed on the inside of the resident’s windows for windows that open inwards.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 September 2022. It apologised that a large number of flies had entered her property. It said it now had the window screens for her property (bedroom and kitchen) and a named contractor would be able to install them. It asked the resident for her preferred date and time to have these installed. It told her that once she had provided this information, the landlord could then instruct the contractors to start the work. It sent her a link to the screens so she could view this before works commenced. It also asked if it could be present when the contractor attended to do the works.
The resident responded to the landlord’s email on the same day, stating that the contractor could fit the nets either on a Wednesday or Thursday (the closest being 21 September 2022 or the 22 September 2022). She said she did not want any landlord staff inside her property and that there was no need to enter the flat as she believed the nets were being fitted on the outside of her windows.
The landlord responded to the resident’s email on 20 September 2022. It told the resident that the window screens that it currently had, could only be installed inside of the resident’s property. It said that an external solution was still being explored and it could not give a timeframe at that point. It asked if the resident would like the window screens fitted to the inside of her property until it had external window screens.
The resident replied to the landlord’s email on 20 September 2022. She questioned how the nets would work inside. She said she had previously had internal netting screens and they came off when she opened the windows. She asked the landlord to stop ‘stressing her out’ and ‘wasting her time’ and not to contact her until it had external window netting.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 10 October 2022. It reiterated its stage 1 complaint response. In addition, it said the following:
1. It had asked the resident to return to her home on 1 September 2022, as it had taken all appropriate and reasonable action to resolve the issue.
2. To try to alleviate any future issues, it had offered to install a practical fine net solution to the inside of the resident’s windows. These were not an external solution.
3. It sent a link of the product to the resident, including how it would be installed and how the windows could still be opened if the resident wanted to reconsider the offer.
4. It was continuing to explore options further to the resident’s request for the landlord to install external netting outside of 3 windows which open inwards.
5. It was arranging for a building inspector to complete an inspection of the block to see what options were possible from a fire and building regulations perspective. Once the inspection was complete, it would advise the resident of the outcome and what possibilities there were to install external netting.
6. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord had increased the frequency of cleaning to the bin chute and bin store areas adjacent to her home, particularly in warmer weather. Further, it would continue to regularly write to residents in the block, reminding them of the importance of using the bin chutes correctly.
7. It believed it had attended to the resident’s reports of flies entering her property on the next working day by identifying the source of the issue and attending to the cleaning, so it had acted within its service standard.
8. The resident had provided receipts for costs incurred between 26 August 2022 and 2 September 2022 , which totalled £746.64. It believed its original offer of redress was sufficient.
9. It closed the complaint and advised the resident to contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Post Internal Complaints Procedure

The landlord’s internal emails of 19 October 2022 to 4 November 2022 show that the landlord explored other options of internal fly screen netting.
On 4 November 2022, the landlord emailed the resident with a link to an internally fitted tilt and turn fly screen for her to look at and asked her to contact it if she was happy to have this installed.
The resident contacted this Service on 29 June 2023. She was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation.
The resident no longer lives at the property. She moved out in June 2023 and lives in a different property, managed by the landlord.
This Service contacted the resident by telephone on 10 April 2024. The resident states that external netting was never fitted. As an outcome to her complaint, she would like the landlord to implement a pest control policy and to review its repairs policies so that it acts within its published timescales. She would also like to be reimbursed for her costs and compensation for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble. She would also like to ensure that no other residents experience the same level of service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has stated that she would like the landlord to compensate her for her loss of earnings. Although this Service understands the resident’s frustration, we are unable to determine if a landlord is liable for loss of earnings as this would be a matter for insurers or the courts. This means that this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a fly infestation and its remedy offered.
The resident has said that the landlord discriminated against her and did not make reasonable adjustments. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on whether or not disability discrimination occurred. This is outside of our jurisdiction and a matter for the courts. However, consideration has been given to the way the landlord handled the resident’s request for the fly screen to be fitted and if it has acted within its ‘vulnerable residents policy’.
The resident has also advised that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in her health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlord obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy was updated in February 2023. For the purposes of this investigation, this Service will refer to the policy active at the time of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is compliant with all relevant statutory and regulatory obligations. This includes the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It states that it meets all applicable statutory requirements that provide for the health and safety of occupants in their homes.
The landlord’s policy goes on to say that it aims to complete the repair ‘right first time’ where this is technically feasible to ensure minimal inconvenience to its customers. Where this is not possible, it aims to ensure works are completed in as few visits as possible and will keep residents informed through all steps of the process.
It states that a pre-inspection may be required before a repair appointment can be arranged, which will be undertaken within 14 calendar days. This will include circumstances where the scope of the repair is either unknown or cannot be diagnosed with the information provided by the resident.
The landlord operates the following timescales for repairs:
1. Emergency Repairs (where there is a serious risk to residents or their homes) will be completed as soon as possible and within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs (repairs that pose no immediate risk and can be booked via a mutually agreed appointment ) will be undertaken and completed within 21 calendar days.
3. Major and planned works – An assessment will be undertaken within 21 calendar days and any necessary temporary repairs will be carried out, with the full repair completed within 63 calendar days.
The policy states that in the case of communal responsive repairs, appointments will still be scheduled, however with a lesser priority than repairs to residents’ homes.
The policy goes on to say that residents are required to provide access for repairs at the appointed time. It states that where the landlord has failed to gain access and if the repair is described as a health and safety issue, it will contact the resident to arrange another appointment.
It continues to say that it recognises vulnerable residents and that some residents may require additional assistance. It says that where required it may adjust response times and increase its service offering to accommodate this, on a case-by-case basis.
The landlord does not have a pest control policy. This Services’ pest guidance advises the following:
1. After a resident has reported the issue, a landlord should undertake timely inspections of homes/impacted areas.
2. Linking to this, there should then be timely repairs which links to the organisation’s repairs policy and depending on the severity of the issue.
3. All reports of pest infestation should be taken seriously and not be dismissed.
4. The Ombudsman understands that it can sometimes take multiple attempts but it is key to keep the resident updated during this time and be clear with communication and timescales to manage expectations.
5. A landlord must ‘join the dots’ between pests and disrepair as well as multiple reports of pests in the block or locality.
The landlord operates a discretionary compensation policy where it will pay from £5 per day onwards for repair failures/delays. For other service failures, it will pay a maximum of £100 as a gesture of goodwill for distress and inconvenience. In instances where compensation payments are not related to repair delays or associated service failures, it offers compensation where any sums of over £500 would need to be approved by a head of service or director.
The landlord’s compensation policy does not offer compensation for loss of earnings, personal injury or when a complainant has been advised of extra works required and has been kept informed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a fly infestation

The resident initially requested the landlord’s assistance to install netting to the outside of her windows for an unrelated issue on 24 May 2022. Although this was not linked to the current complaint, there is no evidence to show that the landlord explored any options to this service request. The landlord’s email of 17 June 2022 suggested that it would prefer to avoid fitting any external netting, although it did not give the reasoning for this. This was inappropriate and caused the resident frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue. Although this Service would not expect the landlord to automatically provide this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the request and give the resident reasons for its decision.
In respect of this complaint regarding a fly infestation, it was not appropriate that the landlord refused to log the resident’s service request when she visited the neighbourhood office on 26 August 2022 to report this. Although, this may not have been considered an emergency repair, it would still have been appropriate for the landlord to log this repair and arrange to have it completed within the next working day. This caused the resident frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue as she had to report it again on 29 August 2022.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to act within its vulnerable residents policy and understand the level of distress the fly infestation was causing the resident. The landlord’s omission to log the report caused the resident additional adverse effect.
However, the landlord acted appropriately when the resident emailed it on 29 August 2022 to inform it of the fly infestation. It responded the next day on 30 August 2022 and arranged a home visit and inspections of the area. This was an appropriate and reasonable response. It provided an action plan, which it abided by and kept the resident updated.
Further, it carried out a thorough inspection of the areas, cleared the bin chutes, carried out a deep clean of all the affected areas and also bleached, disinfected and sprayed all affected areas.
Additionally, it contacted the local authority, to confirm refuse collection dates to ensure that the issue could be addressed in a timely manner.
It was further appropriate that the landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbours to understand the extent of the fly infestation. It was also appropriate that the landlord hand- delivered a letter to all residents in the block to advise them of the correct usage of the bin chute to avoid it getting blocked in the future.
Further, it was appropriate that the landlord contacted pest control at the local authority environmental health office to ask for its advice and offered to pay for any treatment that may be needed. This shows the landlord demonstrated an inquisitorial approach and did all it could to attempt to remedy the issue.
Additionally, it was appropriate that the landlord contacted a specialist cleaning company to ensure that the issue was fully addressed and did not recur. It was further reasonable that it carried out daily deep cleaning of the area whilst the warm weather persisted.
The landlord further acted reasonably in agreeing to reimburse the resident for her hotel and food costs. It went further by booking and paying for an additional night’s hotel stay and this was an appropriate response. This showed that the landlord attempted to minimise the adverse effect on the resident by arranging alternative accommodation whilst the issue was further investigated.
It was also appropriate that it offered the resident an interim solution to the netting issue, in fitting the resident’s voiles to the inside of her window, and offering short term solutions for internal netting, pending its research into external netting solutions. This was also in line with its policy.
However, it was not reasonable that the landlord told the resident that it was researching external netting solutions on 30 August 2022 and in its stage 1 complaint response of 8 September 2022 and stage 2 complaint response of 10 October 2022. There is limited evidence of this on file, apart from one entry of 31 August 2022.
Although there is evidence that the landlord researched internal netting options, this Service has found no evidence that any external netting solutions were thoroughly explored. Furthermore, although the landlord had told the resident that it would contact its asset team to explore external fine netting solutions, there is no evidence that it did so. This lack of action caused the resident distress and inconvenience as well as impacting on the enjoyment of her home. The resident was concerned that if the problem recurred, she would not be able to keep the flies from entering her home.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 10 October 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it was arranging for a building inspector to complete an inspection of the block to ascertain if external netting would be appropriate and in line with health and safety and building regulations. Although it is appropriate that the landlord would need to carry out an inspection, it is not reasonable that it waited until its stage 2 complaint response to arrange this, when it had already told the resident it had previously been exploring these options.
Additionally, there is no evidence that this inspection occurred and the resident heard nothing else from the landlord in respect of permission/refusal of external netting as at June 2023 when she moved properties. This caused her additional distress and anxiety. It also impacted on the landlord/tenant relationship.
Overall, although the landlord acted within its repairs policy and in line with this Service’s pest control guidance in addressing the cause of the fly infestation in a timely and appropriate manner, it did not appropriately consider the adverse effect on the resident. It failed to explore the external netting issues as it had promised to do and did not keep the resident informed of this. As such, a finding of service failure is made, along with orders for redress.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a fly infestation.

Orders

Within four weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the £270.75 (for hotel costs, parking and food) it offered if it has not already done so.
3. Pay the resident £141.80 in recognition of her quantifiable financial loss. (This is £11.80 for the netting and materials she purchased and £130 for the resident’s contractors fee to fit the netting).
4. Provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord has indicated to this Service that it is working on a pest control policy. It should consider publishing and implementing this in a timely manner.