LiveWest Homes Limited (202012144)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012144

LiveWest Homes Limited

7 June 2021

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 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 response to the resident’s report of rats and squirrels in her loft.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

The landlord does not have a specific policy relating to pest control. It has a simplified service offer, which commits it to the following:
1. It would discuss a reported repair with the resident, and confirm who would be paying for the work. If the repair was the landlord’s responsibility, it would arrange an appointment with the resident for it to do the work, appointing appropriately skilled or trained staff or contractors to undertake the work.
2. It would attend “as soon as possible”, when health and safety may be at risk, or where there was likely to be “extensive damage” to the property, with emergency cases being given a priority.
The resident’s tenancy agreement obliged the landlord to keep her property’s structure and exterior in good repair, as well as to carry out emergency repairs there within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 7 calendar days, routine repairs within 31 calendar days, and cyclical repairs as programmed.
As per the landlord’s compensation guidance, it might choose to make compensation payments of £200 to £500 as a goodwill gesture to say sorry, and in recognition of service failures that had a high level impact.
Also as per the landlord’s compensation guidance, “any claims for loss or personal injury due to our negligence from customers or members of the public must be referred to [its relevant team] for assessment” under its liability insurance.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a three-bedroom house.

Summary of events

On 13 August 2020, the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to complete a pest control inspection. They were unable to carry out the inspection due to personal items being stored in the loft, preventing access to this. The contractor could see gaps by the soil stack pipe, but no holes were visible externally. They also spoke to a neighbour who had suggested that there might also be noises of rodent activity in their loft. The resident was asked to tidy her loft for the contractor to carry out the inspection again. In the meantime, they laid bait, and confirmed that they would monitor the situation for seven days.
The landlord’s records confirm that the resident made a stage one complaint to it via telephone on 18 August 2020, which is summarised below:
1. The resident had suffered with rats and squirrels in her attic annually for some time, and the landlord’s visits had not eradicated the issues.
2. She had requested a repair “three weeks ago”, and despite expecting three weekly contractor’s visits to inspect her property, they had only visited once.
3. As a result of these issues, her autistic child was not able to sleep, and the resident was close to returning the keys and giving up the property, due to the lack of progress of the work.
The landlord’s records confirm that it spoke to the resident on 19 August 2020, which is summarised below:
1. The resident had experienced ongoing issues with rats in the property’s loft, with the most recent instance being “just before [the corona virus pandemic]”.
2. The resident felt that the squirrels had returned through the same access point, this being a broken pipe which the landlord had previously addressed.
3. The resident could hear scratching and banging in the loft that was “torture” for her and her family.
4. Pest control were due to visit again on the following day, and they would inspect the pipe underneath the kitchen sink, which was believed to have been fixed.
The landlord’s records confirm that it had emailed the resident on 19 August 2020, to acknowledge her stage one complaint. It confirmed that it would follow the recommendations of its pest control contractor, who were due to visit on the following day, and review whether it had followed its policies and procedures when dealing with the resident’s reports of pests. In respect to compensation relating to health concerns, it referred the resident to its insurance company, and provided the contact details for this.
On 20 August 2020, the landlord’s contractor inspected the resident’s loft and found that all of the bait had been taken. They informed the resident that they had laid tracking dust, as well as more bait, and would monitor the situation for a further seven days to see where the dust led. The contractor further recommended a drain survey in the area. They also confirmed that they had advised the neighbouring resident to report this to the landlord for them to be able to gain access to inspect this.
On 8 September 2020, the landlord’s drainage contractor provided their report to the landlord, with work required to install lining to the rest-bend and gully to eliminate any further problems.
On 8 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord, stating the following:
1. The landlord’s pest control contractor had not turned up as expected on 27 August or 3 September 2020. She had called the landlord to get an update, but she did not receive a call back as promised.
2. The ongoing issues were having an impact on her and her family’s sleep, work, mental health and wellbeing.
On 23 September 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that its drainage contractor had completed the required work to the drains, as reported on 8 September 2020.
On 24 September 2020, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. It confirmed that it would be exploring ways to resolve the resident’s ongoing issues with rats in her property, such as visiting neighbouring properties. The landlord did highlight that “when it comes to pest control we can never guarantee that they will not return.”
2. It explained that it did not have “any detailed reports [regarding] the previous visits by pest control companies.” As a result, the landlord could only rely upon the reports from its most recent contractor. It apologised for this and offered £20 compensation for this service failure.
3. It also apologised for not calling the resident back, as it had committed to doing so. The landlord confirmed that it would review any additional training requirements for this and offered £10 compensation for this service failure.
4. In respect to the missed appointment, it apologised and offered £25 compensation for this service failure.
5. It was unable to compensate the resident for damage to items that she had stored in the loft, as it was against the landlord’s policy to do so.
6. In addition to the £55 compensation for the service failures detailed above, it offered a further goodwill gesture to increase the total compensation to £100.
On 24 September 2020, the resident requested the escalation of her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure, stating the following:
1. The resident did not accept that the £20 compensation offered was sufficient for the “loss of important and personal information”. This was with respect to the landlord being unable to provide the details of inspections by previous pest control companies in 2017 to 2019.
2. She also asked that the landlord reconsider its compensation amount for missed appointments. The resident provided examples of 27 August and 3, 11 and 24 September 2020, with a possibility of more. She also requested that the landlord consider that it took six weeks, from 6 July 2020 when the resident first raised the issues, to inspect the property.
3. She highlighted that, although pest control had attended the property, they were “outside contractors”, and the landlord had not inspected the property itself. The resident highlighted that no action plan or timescale had been discussed and she requested information on the next steps to be taken, as the contractor had not turned up on that day as planned.
4. She also highlighted that the landlord had requested that the loft be cleared by 5 October 2020 to allow for an inspection to take place. The resident gave permission for the pest control company to remove the items due to the risk of encountering rats or squirrels to her and her husband’s medical conditions, and also questioned whether they would need to be disinfected first.
5. She requested a copy of the signed tenancy agreement, as she was not aware that she was unable to store items in the loft.
On 13 October 2020, the landlord provided its final stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. It accepted that it could have communicated better with its contractor to help them resolve the resident’s concerns quicker. The landlord had identified areas for improvement, and it held monthly meetings with its contractor to improve its service in terms of visits and detail on reports. It also actively monitored open cases weekly to regularly chase any missing reports, or remedial work to fill access points, to reduce delays in overall pest treatment.
2. It apologised to the resident for her and her family’s frustration and stress and offered a goodwill gesture of £250 compensation that it had arranged to be paid directly to her bank account, as discussed with her on 9 October 2020.
3. It explained that it would arrange for its housing and maintenance officers to inspect the state of the property to identify any areas of concern that might be contributing to the issues reported by the resident. The landlord also highlighted that “neighbouring properties…may also need inspecting/treating.”

Assessment and findings

It is noted that the resident has advised that the stress and inconvenience of her case has had a negative impact on her and her family’s health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her family’s health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court or insurer might. However, while this aspect of her complaint is outside of the scope of this investigation, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused her.
As per the landlord’s service offer, as detailed in paragraph 2 above, it was obliged to discuss the repair with the resident, including who would pay for the repair, and appoint appropriately skilled contractors to undertake the work.
The resident has stated that this latest recurrence of rats and squirrels in her loft was first reported to the landlord on 6 July 2020. This Service has not been provided with any details around this report or evidence of the report’s submission to it. It is noted that the landlord’s contractor completed an initial inspection of the property on 13 August 2020, as detailed in paragraph 7 above, which confirms that the landlord was aware of the issue prior to the formal complaint about this being made on 18 August 2020. No information has been provided by the landlord to explain the reasons for it taking up to more than five weeks to arrange a visit for this contrary to the resident’s tenancy agreement’s 24-hour to 31-calendar day repair timescales, above at paragraph 3, which was therefore inappropriate.
When the landlord reviewed the history of the resident’s complaints, it had identified that it did not have the technical reports from its previous pest control contractor’s visits to her property in 2017 to 2019. It informed her of this in its stage one complaint response of 24 September 2020; however, it did not offer any explanation as to why it did not have the reports. This was not fair under the circumstances, and the resident should have been given more detail on this by the landlord. As a result, she raised concerns over the loss of information, and so it was suitable that it told her in its final stage complaint response of 13 October 2020 that it held monthly meetings with its contractor to improve detail on reports and actively monitored open cases weekly to regularly chase any missing reports.
Following the attendance of the landlord’s pest control contractor on 20 August 2020, as detailed above in paragraph 11, they suggested that a drain survey be carried out in the area and the neighbouring property to be inspected. The landlord’s drainage contractor then carried out the required work on 23 September 2020, following their drain survey report of 8 September 2020, as detailed in paragraphs 12 and 14 of this report. It was appropriate for the landlord to follow the expert advice of its contractors to address the issue of rats at the property in this way.
However, the landlord did not carry out the inspection of the neighbouring property at the time, as advised by its pest control contractor on 20 August 2020, nor did it provide the resident with any specific detail regarding its plan to address her concerns. It is not uncommon for landlords to issue complaint responses prior to the completion of all repairs; however, in such cases, it is reasonable for the landlord to detail any outstanding work and the likely timescale for these. Although it was reasonable for it to explain to the resident in its stage one and final stage complaint responses that it would explore ways to resolve her ongoing issues with rats, such as by visiting and treating neighbouring properties and inspecting the state of her property.
The landlord has taken the opportunity via its complaints process to offer the resident £250 in compensation in its final stage complaint response and to pay this to her. This offer is in line with its compensation guidance above at paragraph 4, which recommends awards of £200 to £500 in recognition of service failures that had a high level impact. This also accords with this Service’s remedies guidance, which considers awards of up to £250 where the landlord’s service failures have impacted the resident, though may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complaint. The impact experienced by the resident could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved.
In summary, the landlord responded reasonably by arranging for specialist pest control and drainage contractors to carry out work to try to address the issues experienced by the resident. However, it did not communicate with both its contractors and the resident, resulting in delays in getting the matter resolved. This was recognised within the landlord’s final stage complaint response, where it offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.
It has been noted that the resident subsequently raised a further complaint to the landlord about its handling of her further reports of pests and her formal complaints to it. As its subsequent complaint response and associated compensation offers focused on the events that occurred after the issuing of the landlord’s final stage complaint response detailed in this report, these have not been considered further here as they took place after the events covered by that response and have not been part of a duly made complaint to this Service.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports of rats and squirrels in her loft satisfactorily.

Reasons

Following the reports of rats and squirrels in the resident’s loft, the landlord instructed its specialist pest control and drainage contractors to investigate this, including by arranging a separate drain survey and remedial works.
The landlord could have communicated better to speed up the resolution of the complaint. It did not carry out the inspection of the neighbouring property at the time of issuing its final stage complaint response or explain what it was going to do or when in detail. The landlord also failed to hold information regarding the resident having raised the initial pest report in July 2020, call the resident back when promised, attend during an agreed appointment, or provide the resident with information on the background of the issues with rats at the property,
Although there were a number of failures by the landlord above, these did not significantly impact the outcome of the complaint overall, as the landlord arranged the remedial works recommended by its contractors and introduced regular meetings and monitoring to improve its service. Furthermore, it evidenced that it investigated the resident’s concerns, and that it offered reasonable compensation for its failures.