Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202005721)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005721

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

29 September 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation (carpet beetles).

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

Tenant handbook:

This sets out that the tenant is responsible for pest control of ants, mice, rats or fleas, and the landlord is responsible for pest control in communal areas.

Pest Control Policy:

This sets out the landlord’s responsibility:
1. If it is apparent that an infestation is caused by disrepair or lack of action on the part of [the landlord] then we will take full responsibility for carrying out repairs and treating the infestation, regardless of the pest.
2. [the landlord] also deals with pests in any communal areas under its ownership, such as shared hallways and gardens.
The policy also sets out the tenant’s responsibility:
1. Tenants are expected to take all reasonable actions to remove and prevent pest infestations from their properties.

Repairs policy:

This sets out the types of repairs the landlord is responsible for and the timeframe for responding, which is dependent upon the severity of the problem:
1. Priority 1 is an emergency repair with a response within 24 hours.
2. Priority 2 is an urgent repair where the issue is a nuisance to you or other residents and is likely to lead to further damage if it isn’t fixed. This has a response timeframe of 5 working days.
3. Priority 3 is a routine repair which can wait a little longer to be carried out as it will not cause you serious discomfort or inconvenience and will not cause long-term damage to the property. This has a response timeframe of 20 working days.
Pest control is not listed as an emergency or urgent repair.

Summary of events

On 28 May 2020 the resident reported a carpet beetles infestation to the landlord. This was acknowledged by the landlord and the resident was told it would be passed to a Housing Officer to look into.
As the resident was not contacted by the Housing Officer, she sent a chaser email on 1 June 2020. At this stage the landlord informed the resident that pest infestations within the property were the residents’ responsibility. However, the landlord accepted the resident’s assertion that she had already tried to deal with the infestation but it was still present. The landlord then agreed to send a pest contractor to inspect. Based upon the pest contractor’s findings that the infestation may be present in the communal area, the landlord agreed to do some treatment to the resident’s flat and also the next door flat.
The pest contractor contacted the resident on 3 June 2020 to confirm the treatment appointments as follows:
1. 1st visit – Friday 5 June between 9:30am and 2:30pm
2. 2nd visit – Friday 19 June between 9:30am and 2:30pm
3. 3rd visit – Friday 3 July between 9:30am ad 2:30pm
On 5 June 2020 the pest contractor attended and carried out the first stage of the treatment. The pest contractor’s report confirmed:
1. I have today carried out an initial treatment of the premises and treated all the areas detailed below against textile pests. I have applied a residual insecticide to the affected areas as required. We will carry out a follow up visit which has been arranged with our office.
2. I have treated the loft but not found any bird nest. I have checked for bedbugs in the bedroom and no evidence like skin shed, faeces or alive ones were found. I have sprayed the new and old carpets.
On 8 June 2020 the resident contacted the landlord as she was unhappy with the actions taken by the pest contractor. The resident chased this up on 9 June 2020.
The landlord responded on 10 June 2020 and said that it had agreed for the pest contractor to attend and complete a 3-stage treatment process.
On 19 June 2020 the pest contractor attended for the second course of the treatment, but this could not be completed. The records show that the neighbour refused the treatment and the resident said she was not ready to leave the flat so the treatment could not be carried out at this time.
The pest contractor then rearranged the remaining appointments:
1. 2nd visit – Thursday 25th June between 9.30am to 2.30pm
2. 3rd visit – Thursday 9th July between 11am to 3pm
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 June 2020 as she was unhappy with the pest contractor and questioned his expertise and knowledge. She was unhappy that he had not inspected the kitchen and the bathroom. The resident also sent the landlord medical evidence to show how the infestation was impacting her.
The landlord responded on 26 June 2020 and said that the pest contractor had agreed to attend on a weekend to complete the treatment if this would be more convenient for the resident. The landlord had considered the medical evidence and concluded that a move to temporary accommodation was not necessary. The landlord also agreed that it can appoint a different contractor to give a second opinion.
The records show that a formal complaint was then logged on 2 July 2020.
This was acknowledged on 7 July 2020 and the landlord wrote to the resident on 10 July 2020 offering to arrange for a different contractor to attend and give a second opinion on the infestation treatment. The resident agreed to this on 14 July 2020.
On 27 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident separately about her communication with the landlord. It said that the resident’s refusal to speak to the landlord had hampered its attempts to resolve the infestation problem. The extent and tone of her written communications with the landlord was referenced against its unreasonable behaviour policy. It said that the correspondence from the resident had at times been vexatious and unreasonable. It asked that the resident only use one designated email address to correspond with rather sending multiple emails to different people about the same issues.
A second pest contractor was then appointed on 29 July 2020 and they attended on 3 August 2020 to do a survey.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 11 August 2020:
1. It apologised for the initial delay in responding to the original report.
2. Although infestations inside a property are the tenant’s responsibility, the landlord agreed to appoint its pest contractor. The pest contractor carried out an initial treatment but the course was not completed.
3. It had considered the resident’s request to be moved into temporary accommodation to facilitate the infestation treatment, and it also reviewed the medical evidence provided by the resident. It was satisfied that the resident did not have to be moved out of the property for the treatment to be done.
4. The landlord had agreed for a different contractor to inspect the property.
5. It was satisfied that it had taken the appropriate steps to resolve the resident’s concerns. However, it accepted that there had been some avoidable delays due to communication issues with its contractors, and a delay in replying to the complaint. Therefore, it offered £25 compensation for this service failure.
On 13 August 2020 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated. She said that the landlord had not properly assessed her medical evidence and she reiterated that she wanted to be moved into temporary accommodation whilst the treatment was being done.
The resident chased the landlord on 18 and 24 August 2020 as she had not received an acknowledgement of her escalation request. The landlord responded on 24 August 2020 saying that it was reviewing the escalation request.
The landlord’s internal email on 26 August 2020 confirmed that the escalation request had been declined. It noted that the Stage 1 complaint response did not put forward any resolution. Whilst pest control was the resident’s responsibility, as the landlord had agreed to deal with this for the resident, it needed to see this through to a resolution, as such escalating the complaint was not appropriate. Instead, it was proposed that the landlord contact the resident and arrange for the infestation treatment to be completed.
The landlord then contacted the resident to confirm that the escalation request had been declined and that the matter had now been passed to a senior member of staff to finalise the infestation treatment.
There followed further email exchanges between the resident and the landlord, and the resident was warned that her correspondence may trigger its unacceptable behaviour policy. It reiterated that it was in the process of arranging the completion of the infestation treatment.
On 28 August 2020 the landlord confirmed that a second pest contractor had been appointed to carry out the infestation treatment. The pest contractor contacted the resident the same day to arrange an appointment. It was agreed that the treatment would commence on 4 September 2020. As part of the treatment procedures the pest contractor confirmed that the resident would have to move all furniture away from the walls in preparation for the treatment.
On 1 September 2020 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord asking for an update on the case.
On 2 September 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to say that she could not move the furniture and she asked that the landlord arrange this. The landlord responded and said that it did not have a for moving furniture and the resident will need to do this herself. The resident reiterated that she cannot move the furniture by herself. The landlord explained that it was the resident’s responsibility to comply with the preparations necessary for the treatment. The resident continued to email the landlord and asked for the matter to be referred to a manager.
On 3 September 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s MP and explained why it had declined the escalation request and that it had taken action to move matters forward by arranging for a second pest contractor to do the treatment.
The treatment that had been arranged for 4 September 2020 did not take place as the resident did not agree to move the furniture. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day explaining that it did not have a service available to assist tenants with moving furniture. It also said that the contractor would not be able to move the furniture due to health and safety and insurance issues in case any damage is caused to the furniture. It agreed to reschedule the appointment to give the resident more time to move the furniture.
The resident responded and said that she was a young woman living on her own and she was estranged from her family. As such, she felt the landlord was being unreasonable.
The landlord reiterated its decision on 7 September 2020. The resident then contacted this Service on 14 September 2020. Both the resident and the landlord were advised by this Service to complete the landlord’s complaints process.
On 5 January 2021 the landlord confirmed that its complaints process had been exhausted as the decision not to escalate the complaint to Stage 2 remained appropriate. The landlord said that it had advised the resident that it was prepared to do the treatment but it could not move the furniture for her, and nor could it pay for someone to move the furniture. It said it had signposted her to an organisation who could potentially assist and it was waiting for confirmation from the resident before rearranging the treatment.
As part of the referral to this Service, the landlord and the resident agreed to consider a medicated resolution. On 8 April 2021 the landlord said that it was still willing to complete the infestation treatment. It said that the resident had no known vulnerabilities to indicate why she needed assistance with moving her furniture away from the wall and she had not provided evidence to show she will have difficulty moving her furniture away from the walls. The landlord offered a further £50 compensation for failure to communicate effectively with the resident after she had contacted her MP. It said that following this case it had reviewed its complaint handling processes.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s handling of the infestation was in accordance with its policies, procedures, and any agreements it has with the resident, and whether it acted reasonably, taking into account what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Ombudsman will not only consider the landlord’s response to the substantive issues, but also the actions it took within its complaints process and this Service’s mediation process.
The Ombudsman understands that while the landlord has a pest control policy, this does not set out any specific procedure detailing how it handles infestations as seen in this case. In the absence of the landlord’s defined policy on how to handle such infestations, the Ombudsman has considered the matter in light of the landlord’s pest control and repairs policies, and in accordance with the landlord’s general legal obligations to ensure a safe and habitable environment and what the Ombudsman considers to be reasonable in the circumstances.
The initial advice to the resident was in accordance with its policy in that, as the infestation was inside the property, it was the resident’s responsibility to resolve. However, there are circumstances where a landlord has responsibilities in relation to pest infestations. For example, if pests are entering the property through a hole in the structure for which the landlord is responsible to repair; or if the infestation is coming from communal areas or neighbouring properties let by the landlord. In this case, the resident reported an infestation of carpet beetles inside her flat. There is no evidence to show where or how the infestation started and there is nothing to show that it was caused by any failing or inaction on the part of the landlord.
The landlord acted reasonably by agreeing to appoint a pest contractor to deal with the infestation. It has said that this was agreed as a goodwill gesture, but it is noted within its records that it also acknowledged that there may be an issue in the communal area and in another flat.
Irrespective of whether the decision was made as a goodwill gesture or not, once the landlord accepted responsibility for dealing with the infestation it was reasonable to expect it to have properly investigated the matter and carry out any necessary treatment within a reasonable time.
The available records show that there have been delays in completing the necessary treatment. Some of these delays have been due to the landlord and some of it rests with the resident.
The landlord failed to act upon the initial report made by the resident on 28 May 2020 and it has apologised for this slight delay. Thereafter it responded appropriately by promptly arranging for a pest contractor to attend and start the treatment within a few days.
The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the resident’s concerns about the pest contractor and it took steps to assist her by, for example, agreeing that the contractor could attend outside its normal working hours. It also offered to appoint a different pest contractor for a second opinion, which was reasonable.
However, following these initial steps it has not been able to demonstrate that it continued to act proactively or in a timely manner in its ongoing handling of the infestation and the resident’s concerns. There was a delay of several weeks in arranging the second contractor. The initial treatment was done on 5 June 2020 and the second contractor was not appointed until late August 2020, by which time no treatment had been done for around 11 weeks.
Once the second contractor had been appointed, the treatment was delayed further due to the question of who should move the furniture. The advice from the pest contractor was that all furniture needed to be moved away from the walls. The Ombudsman understands that this is standard procedure and the need to move furniture is not particularly unusual and it is usually for the tenant to move the furniture and ensure that the room(s) is ready for the work.
Whilst the resident has said that she cannot be expected to move the furniture away from the walls, she has not given the landlord any evidence or reasonable explanation as to why she cannot move the furniture away from the walls. The landlord has said that it is not aware of any medical or vulnerability issues that would prevent the resident from moving the furniture, and nor has she provided any medical evidence to show why she cannot do this.
As the moving of the furniture is a pre-requisite of the treatment and is based upon the advice of the pest contractor, the landlord is not being unreasonable in asking the resident to comply with the pre-conditions of the treatment.
The resident has said that she cannot afford to pay someone to come in and move her furniture away from the walls. That may well be the case, but this does not necessarily mean that the landlord is obliged to arrange this or pay to arrange this – especially given that there is no evidence of any medical or other such issues that would prevent the resident from moving the furniture.
The resident has said that the infestation was not her fault or of her making so it is unreasonable to expect her to spend money to sort this out. There is no suggestion that the resident is in any way at fault for the infestation but similarly, there is also no evidence to show that it was due to anything the landlord is responsible for. As such, the landlord’s explanation, and reasoning for not moving the furniture is not unreasonable.
As part of its complaints process the landlord has apologised for service failures in its communication and has offered the resident a total of £75 compensation (£25 on 11 August 2020 and a further £50 on 8 April 2021). The landlord has not provided a copy of its compensation policy that was in force at the time of the complaint. However, the Ombudsman itself has discretion to determine the most appropriate remedy given the circumstances of a complaint. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s failures noted above, and whilst the landlord’s offer is a positive step, it is not, in itself, sufficient redress for the failures and it does not fully take into account the distress and anxiety caused to the resident.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation for the service failures the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It also considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord and the impact on the resident. In this case there were acknowledged failures in communication and also avoidable delays in completing the treatment.
The Ombudsman has also taken into account that this case has been somewhat challenging for the landlord in terms of the level of communication from the resident, which has at times, led to discussions about excessive and/or vexatious correspondence. But nevertheless, the fact remains that the treatment was started on 5 June 2020 and up until 4 September 2020 it remained incomplete. The delays after 5 September 2020 were due to the resident’s decision not to move the furniture, which the landlord is not responsible for.
Finally, the resident has mentioned her health having been impacted by the infestation. It should be noted that the Ombudsman cannot make any formal determination on the possible health consequences of being exposed to an infestation. If the resident believes that her health may have been adversely affected by the infestation, she will need to seek her own legal advice in this regard in relation to any possible negligence and/or personal injury claim against the landlord.
Overall, in light of the service failures identified above, and taking into account the impact on the resident, the Ombudsman considers that a further award of £100 compensation would be appropriate in this case (in addition to the £75 previously offered by the landlord).

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation inside her home.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged the resident’s concerns and has accepted that there were service failures in its handling of this matter. It has apologised for the identified service failures and it has accepted responsibility for this. It has offered a compensation. The Ombudsman considers that, in light of the facts of the case, the compensation offered is not propionate to the service failure and it does not properly reflect the impact on the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident a total of £175 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by the service failures identified in its handling of the infestation in the resident’s home. This amount includes the previously offered sum of £75 (if this has already been paid, then the landlord need only make a further payment of £100).
Evidence of the payment of compensation to be provided to this Service within four weeks.