Thanet District Council (202001554)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001554

Thanet District Council

24 February 2021

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:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of an infestation;
2. The landlord’s response to reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB), specifically in terms of the dumping of rubbish in communal areas and noise nuisance, and;
3. The landlord’s priority banding of the resident, in respect of an application for a housing transfer.

Jurisdiction

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.
One aspect of the resident’s complaint relates to the priority banding awarded to him by the landlord. In its investigation of the complaint, the landlord revisited the resident’s transfer application and in doing so, found that it had made a mistake.
In response it changed his priority banding from Band D to Band C and backdated this to the time that he made the application in order for him not to be disadvantaged by the landlord’s error. The resident remains dissatisfied, however, believing that he should be prioritised to move to a three bedroomed house, for reasons of overcrowding and unsatisfactory housing conditions, by way of rubbish in the communal areas and infestations, which he believes are linked.
Whilst the landlord acknowledged it made an error and took steps to put this right in its response to the complaint, the continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s assessment and priority banding award is not one that is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
This is because local housing authorities are required to give ‘reasonable preference’ to certain categories of people and make assessments on priority banding according to their allocation scheme. Reasonable preference criteria includes where the applicant is living in overcrowded conditions and/or is living in unsatisfactory housing conditions, both of which are factors relevant to this case, insofar as the landlord has acknowledged there is overcrowding at the property and the resident has argued he wishes to move based on unsatisfactory living conditions.
It is the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) that will consider complaints that concern direct applications for housing as well as applications to transfer for reasonable preference criteria.
Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. The appropriate other procedure in this instance, is the LGSCO.
Therefore, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the aspect of the complaint relating to priority banding is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and the resident should pursue the matter with the LGSCO if he wishes to take matters further.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, at the property, having commenced with a starter tenancy on 16 July 2015.
The management of the property was previously administered by a housing association, operating as an Arms-Length Management Organisation (ALMO). On 1 October 2020, the local authority (the landlord), took back ownership of its property management.
The resident had made complaints to the housing association about rubbish being left in communal areas, which he believed was causing a pest infestation, as well as some noise from his neighbours. The information provided to this Service shows that this commenced in 2018. The resident’s reports of the same and his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the issues continued after the landlord took back management of the property directly.
Both the housing association and the current landlord operated a two-stage formal complaints procedure with the housing association aiming to respond to complaints within a 10 working day timescale at both stages and the landlord to respond within 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two. Where responding within the articulated timescales is not possible, the landlord should contact the complainant to advise this.

Summary of events

Following notification of bugs being seen in the communal areas on 1 June 2020, on 4 June 2020 the housing association emailed the resident and said that it had previously responded to his reports of rubbish being left in communal areas and bugs being seen, by carrying out inspections, none of which had identified there being a problem. It added that it had spoken to neighbours, who did not corroborate what he was reporting and as such, there was nothing further it could do.
Correspondence continued and on 7 June 2020 the housing association reiterated what it had previously said and stated there was no need for him to call “three times a day” to report issues of rubbish. It explained that the block is inspected daily and that any issues with rubbish are therefore automatically noted and resolved and advised the resident not to pick rubbish up himself.
In terms of the issue of infestation, the housing association repeated that this had not been corroborated and that any dealings with pest controllers that he had, was his responsibility. It said the resident should make a formal complaint if he was dissatisfied with its response to his concerns.
Just a few days later, however, on 10 June 2020, the housing association emailed the resident advising that cockroaches had been identified as coming from specific properties in the building. It explained what while it was not responsible for infestation in individual properties, only communal, it would be intervening as a matter of urgency, in order for the issue to be resolved.
Reports of the same issues continued and on 14 June 2020 the landlord emailed the resident advising that following a report he had made of cardboard being dumped in the communal area, an inspection was carried out and nothing was found. In terms of the bugs he referred to, it stated that they were coming from his property, which it said he had admitted to one of its officers and that it was therefore his responsibility to resolve.
On 15 September 2020, the housing association responded to the formal complaint the resident had made about the issues, as well as historical noise from his neighbours, specifically, banging and shouting. It is unclear why, but it responded at stage two, rather than stage one, of its complaints procedure. The housing association did not uphold the complaint.
It noted that the resident had contacted it on 22 November 2019 to report issues with arguing in the communal area and in his communication, referred to previous incidents having taken place. Then on 30 November 2019, the resident reported a further issue. In response, the housing association had telephoned the resident to discuss his concerns but was unable to reach him and so on 13 December 2019 it wrote to him asking for him to contact it. It also asked him to complete diary incident sheets to document the disturbance he had reported and to provide these diary incident sheets within two weeks, adding that if nothing was received by 2 January 2020 the case would be closed.
Nothing was received and on 8 January 2020 the resident reported a further incident and was again asked to provide diary incident sheets, which he did not do. On 12 March 2020 the housing association contacted the resident and asked him to provide further details by 7 April 2020, which he again did not do.
In terms of the infestation and rubbish dumping issue, the housing association noted that the resident had contacted it on 1 June 2020 and it had responded advising that the block had inspected on three occasions and no issues had been found. It said that there was no evidence that rubbish being dumped was causing an issue with infestation. It explained that there are regular checks at the block and reiterated that it had contacted other residents about the issues but had received no reports.
The housing association noted that on 10 June 2020 it had explained to the resident that the issue with infestation was linked to a particular property and that this was being addressed. It apologised that the matter of the infestation was taking longer to resolve than preferable, but explained that this was due to the Covid-19 pandemic and a backlog of issues to resolve.
On 5 and 18 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord – which at this point had become the local authority – to express his continued dissatisfaction with the situation, referring to one particular neighbour throwing food all over the floor which he felt was contributing to infestation problems. He referred too, to the same neighbour banging and having arguments when they first moved in. The resident wished to be moved from the property.
In November 2020 the landlord has said that it commenced treatment throughout the whole block for a cockroach infestation, including the resident’s property and carried out proofing work to help prevent a re-infestation, although work carried out to the block or property has not been evidenced to this Service and the resident reports the issues as unresolved.
On 30 November 2020 and 8 December 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to let him know that it was looking at his complaint and the issues he had raised and would be in touch with a response.
During this time, on 1 December 2020 the landlord attended the property to carry out an inspection in respect of the cockroach infestation which had been treated; no cockroaches were found.
Also during this time, on 7 December 2020 the resident reported to the landlord a broken chute hopper in the building. In response, the landlord attended the following day to inspect and undertake any repairs and found the chute to be in full working order
On 14 December 2020 the landlord sent a further stage two response to the complaint, having reviewed earlier communications and the complaints response given by the housing association.
In terms of the infestation, the landlord found that it responded appropriately. It explained that ordinarily an infestation would be the responsibility of the resident but because the infestation was found to be more widespread, it took action to address this, namely, appointing a specialist contractor to treat the whole block. The landlord noted that it had done this and attended the resident’s property on three occasions, the latest on 1 December 2020 finding that there was no cockroach infestation. There was no mention of proofing work.
Regarding the dumping of rubbish, the landlord explained that it has officers in the building every day checking for rubbish and damage and that it had also recently installed CCTV and was arranging for images to be relayed back to its 24-hour control room, in order to identify perpetrators of this.
It noted that it had attended the building the day after having received a report from the resident that the chute was broken and found it to be in working order. It explained that it had written to all residents regarding their obligations in terms of rubbish both when it took back over in October 2020, as well as more recently and said that it would take any reports seriously and take action where appropriate.
The landlord also acknowledged that there had been reports of noise nuisance from the resident in respect of one of his neighbours and that consequently, mediation had been agreed by both parties. The landlord said it would continue to support the resident through the mediation and any further issues that arise. There is no further information as to whether the mediation went ahead or the outcome of this. The landlord added that it had recently set up a new ASB team which included dedicated officers to investigate more serious incidents of ASB.

Assessment and findings

Infestation

Infestations of rodents and bugs are ordinarily the responsibility of the individual tenants to resolve and not for the landlord. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord gave the resident this advice. However, the landlord missed opportunities to fully investigate the reports made early on. Although the landlord has said it carried out inspections and asked other resident’s if they had seen bugs, no evidence of this has been provided to this Service and so it is not known who was asked and when or any outcome or findings of enquiries and any inspections; any investigation and inspection for infestation should be carried out thoroughly and be documented. There is no indication that this was been done in this case.
While it may be the case that some neighbours had not seen the cockroaches, it is not sufficient to simply ask neighbours, where there is a report of infestation. Inspection and investigation of the issue should also be taken. The resident provided photographic evidence of the cockroaches he had seen and this should have been taken more seriously and investigated sooner.
It is not known who was asked about the cockroaches and whether those asked lived in the vicinity of where the cockroaches were found and whether inspections were undertaken in the properties themselves. What is clear is that it transpired that there was a significant infestation property, with flats having problems with cockroaches that required landlord intervention in order to be resolved, indicating the seriousness with which the matter was taken once the infestation was confirmed, given that it would not normally intervene.
Once identified in June 2020, the landlord appropriately hired a specialist contractor to resolve the issue, although no action was taken until November 2020 – 5 months after the matter had been identified. Notwithstanding the landlord’s acknowledgement of delay in its complaint response and its explanation that this was because of the backlog of work caused by Covid-19, it was inappropriate for the landlord to take this long to act. Waiting five months for a cockroach infestation to be addressed was unreasonable and unacceptable. This would be the case for general repair and/or works, however, the length of time was particularly poor given the potential health implications from living with a cockroach infestation. Further, the landlord has not evidenced this treatment to this Service, nor the proofing works it said would be carried out to the resident’s property.
The landlord’s communications around treatment for the infestation were confusing. The landlord initially stated that there was no evidence of infestation but did not sufficiently explain how it had arrived at this conclusion. It then stated that there was an infestation but that it did not have responsibility for infestation in individual properties but simultaneously that it would be taking action in this case to expedite matters, yet advised that it was the resident’s responsibility for infestation in his property. Following this it stated that the resident had admitted to cockroaches coming from his property. The language the landlord used lacked empathy and explanation and was unclear and contradictory in its assertions.
The landlord’s approach to notifications and the complaint did not demonstrate a resolution-focussed and customer service-focussed approach, instead, appearing combative and abrupt, which did not assist in resolving the issues or complaint or help to de-escalate the situation or rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship.

ASB and rubbish dumping

The resident was clearly upset by the amount of rubbish being dumped and he has evidenced with clear photographs large amounts of rubbish dumped in communal areas/corridors, as well as in close proximity to the outside and around the building. Although the landlord has said that it carries out daily inspections and has responded to some of the resident’s notifications of rubbish dumping, such as cardboard, it is not clear where this huge discrepancy between lots of rubbish being dumped and none being found lies.
The landlord has not evidenced to this Service the daily inspection logs or any evidence of inspection following the resident’s reports. Although the resident may have picked up some rubbish (it is unclear if he did or not), the amount and type of rubbish evidenced by photographs, could not be cleared and dealt with by the resident on each occasion.
The landlord has not evidenced that it did enough to reassure itself that rubbish was not being dumped and to investigate the issues. Although it has said that it has written to tenants about the issue, evidence of this has not been provided to this Service. It is appropriate that it is now taking steps to identify rubbish dumping, however, this is a long time after the reports were initially made; the landlord took too long to act.
Regarding ASB by way of noise, the landlord responded appropriately in asking the resident to complete diary incident sheets. This is because in reports of ASB and noise nuisance, evidence of the incidents must be obtained and diary incident sheets in one such way to do this. The landlord also telephoned the resident to discuss this, which was appropriate as in doing so, it could hear the resident’s concerns, manage expectations and set out an action plan as to next steps.
There was a reasonable expectation on the resident for him to engage in the process of obtaining evidence by completing and sending in diary incident sheets and by discussing his concerns in more detail to assist the landlord in assisting him. This was not done and more than one opportunity was given for him to do this. It is not known why he did not take this up; if he had done so then other actions, such as speaking to the perpetrators and putting in place a ‘good neighbour agreement’, for example, may have been possible.
However, the resident did accept the landlord’s offer of mediation, which was a suitable offer in this case, with the ASB reported being at the lower end of the scale and both parties accepting this is indicative that relations did not irretrievably break down and amicable resolution may be possible. There is no information as to whether the mediation went ahead or any information as to outcome and next steps, however. It is a positive step by the landlord in its restructure of its ASB team and ways in which it manages ASB, however, it has not been evidenced to this Service in what ways it has directly addressed the issues raised in this case, with this in mind.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint about infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint about ASB and rubbish dumping.

Reasons

There was service failure by the landlord in respect of the reports of infestation insofar as the landlord did not do enough to thoroughly investigate the reports, which was in the face of photographic evidence of the cockroaches and repeated concerns.
Although the resident would be responsible for any infestation in his property alone, he was reporting cockroaches in communal areas also and this did not need to be corroborated in order to warrant a thorough inspection and investigation of the issue.
The landlord’s messaging around responsibility was confusing and once an infestation had been identified, it took too long to act.
There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of ASB and rubbish dumping insofar as it did not thoroughly investigate the issue of rubbish dumping and/or take appropriate action. In not doing so, it was unable to provide sufficient reassurance to the resident that the matter had been resolved and indeed, it did not appear to have been, with continued reports and photographic evidence.
There is a mismatch between the resident’s evidence and reports and the landlord’s response that there was no issue with rubbish being dumped, which is further confused by the landlord’s decision to install CCTV – thereby indicating that it is aware there is a particular problem. Again, the messaging is confused and the landlord has not demonstrated that it did enough early enough to address this.
Similarly, the landlord has not demonstrated follow-through to the resolution of issues of ASB by way of noise nuisance, in its offer of mediation and support as it said it would do in its most recent stage two complaint response.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation, comprised of:
1. £50 for the service failures identified in its response to reports of infestation, and;
2. £50 for the service failures identified in its response to reports of ASB by way of noise nuisance and of rubbish dumping.
If not already done so, the landlord to carry out works to remove the infestation and to evidence to this Service that this has been done.
If not already done so, the landlord to carry out the proofing works to the resident’s property that it said it would do in its complaint response and to confirm to this Service that this has been done.
Following the above works, the landlord to carry out an inspection to satisfy itself that the infestation has been resolved and for it to evidence this to this Service.
The landlord to write to residents about their responsibilities as to rubbish, including the dumping of rubbish in communal areas and around the building and of use of the rubbish chute. The landlord to provide a copy of this letter to this Service.
The landlord to offer to discuss the resident’s issues with ASB by way of noise nuisance with him and to put together any action plan and/or to facilitate the mediation it referred to in its complaint response.