One Vision Housing Limited (202015165)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015165

One Vision Housing Limited

24 February 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. A pest infestation following the death of her upstairs neighbour.
    2. The resident’s upstairs neighbour having pets in their property, violating the tenancy agreement.
    3. The resident’s upstairs neighbour damaging the resident’s lights in their garden.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of their upstairs neighbour having pets in their property in violation of the tenancy agreement.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of their upstairs neighbour damaging the resident’s lights in their garden.
  3. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme states that, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  4. The concerns raised around reports of pets being present in a neighbouring property and the potential of this violating the neighbour’s tenancy agreement, as well as the report of damage to lighting in the garden from resident neighbours, are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as these are separate issues to the complaint raised through the landlord’s internal complaints process. This is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these aspects before the Ombudsman becomes involved. The resident would need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get these matters resolved. If the resident is unhappy with the outcome of that investigation, then this complaint could be referred to this Service separately at that stage.

Background and Summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 30 August 2020, it was discovered that the resident’s upstairs neighbour sadly passed away in their property. The police attended that day and sealed off the neighbour’s property.
  3. The landlord was notified on 1 September 2020 that the tenant had passed away and was informed that the neighbour’s property was inaccessible due to an ongoing police investigation.
  4. On 2 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and said that she had thrown away rugs, teddies, curtains, bedding, a deep freezer and a couch due to a pest infestation in her property, which she suspected to have originated from her upstairs neighbour’s property. The resident requested that the landlord dispose of the items, but informed it that she would not be present at the property between 4 to 6 September 2020. The resident did not specify why she would be away from the property for this period.
  5. The landlord had a phone conversation with the resident on 4 September 2020 and confirmed that an appointment would be raised for the removal of her belongings. The landlord’s records show that the resident was informed that it could not access the neighbour’s property due to the police having the keys and because it had not yet been able to make contact with the neighbour’s next of kin to authorise entry to the property. Therefore, the cleaning of the neighbour’s property could not take place until these steps were resolved. On the same day, the landlord contacted the police to request for the keys to be returned so it could gain access to the neighbour’s property.
  6. The resident requested to be temporarily relocated on 7 September 2020 at the expense of the landlord, whilst the cleaning of her property took place by a company that the resident hired. The resident subsequently checked into a hotel on the same day at her own cost.
  7. On 7 September 2020 the landlord gained access to the neighbour’s property and arranged for it to be professionally cleaned.
  8. The resident paid for a pest control company to visit her property on 8 September 2020. Pest control invoiced the resident and attached advice that the resident should stay out of the property for four hours following the treatment. It also said that typically a follow–up appointment was not needed; but if the problem persisted, pest control would return and treat the property again.
  9. Between the dates of 12 to 14 September 2020 the neighbour’s property was cleaned by the landlord. A job was also raised to clean the resident’s property.
  10. On 17 September 2020 the resident submitted an insurance claim, on her personal home insurance, for the items that were disposed of due to the pest infestation; this claim was later declined by the insurance company, although the exact date when this occurred has not been included in the evidence provided to the Ombudsman.
  11. On 21 September 2020, the landlord provided a cleaning service to the resident’s property to remove any pests in the property. This job was completed and no recommendations were provided to the landlord for the prevention of further infestations.
  12. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 13 October 2020 stating that she was unhappy she had to pay for pest control and temporary accommodation whilst her property was cleaned due to a pest infestation which she suspected to be a result of her upstairs neighbour dying in their property. The resident explained that she had to take time off from work and university due to the stress of the situation and had to seek help from family members to pay for pest control, hotel accommodation and the replacement of goods that were thrown away due to the infestation. She said that she had to seek temporary accommodation due to the cleaning chemicals she had used, which had worsened her medical condition affecting her breathing. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. The resident also stated that she had damp appearing in her property on the ceiling and this had gone unresolved.
  13. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 27 October 2020 in which it concluded that there was no service failure on its part. The landlord explained that it had acted promptly when made aware of the death of the neighbour. It also appreciated that the resident experienced distress, inconvenience and upset as a result of this incident and the subsequent pest issue involving her property. The landlord offered for its own pest control to attend the property and eradicate any further pest control concerns as well as a deep clean of the property. It offered £100 compensation as a gesture of goodwill to cover any potential shortfall from her insurance excess. It advised that an operative would be in touch to book an appointment to resolve her complaint of damp in her property.
  14. On 11 November 2020 the landlord issued a stage one follow-up complaint response, in response to the resident’s queries. The landlord went into further details about the timeline of how it dealt with the pest infestation by including the dates when it was provided the keys to the neighbour’s property and the dates the neighbour’s and the resident’s properties were cleaned. The landlord concluded that the offer of £100 to cover the shortfall of any insurance claim was still appropriate and that no service failures had occurred.
  15. The resident requested for the landlord to escalate her complaint on 26 January 2021. The resident asked the landlord to reimburs £1,600 for the costs incurred due to the pest infestation. The landlord acknowledged this escalation on 28 January 2021
  16. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 10 February 2021. The landlord stated that it had responded to all of the resident’s requests in a timely manner and the resident was provided with a timeline of the events that occurred. It also stated that it would not reimburse for the cost of the hotel as it was the resident’s decision to leave the property; it said that it did not advise that the property was uninhabitable at any point due to the pest issue. It also stated that no reimbursement would be made for the furniture and belongings that the resident disposed of as it was done solely by the resident and without any dialogue with the landlord. It maintained its earlier offer of £100 compensation as a goodwill gesture.
  17. The resident has referred this matter to the Ombudsman as she is seeking £1,600 in payment from the landlord for the pest infestation that occurred. The resident felt that the infestation was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve and that she should not have to pay for any charges as a result of the infestation.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is not responsible for pest infestations, including rodents and insects, unless the infestation is due to a failure by the landlord to comply with its repair obligations. Examples of the landlord’s repair obligations are to repair and maintain the structure and outside of the property such as roofs, drains and skirting boards.
  2. It is the Ombudsman’s established approach and industry best practice that landlords would also be responsible for resolving pest infestations involving communal areas and/or multiple properties for example several flats within a block.

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that the resident has stated that the use of cleaning chemicals she purchased to control the pest infestation had an impact on her medical condition. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation involving her property caused the resident. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and therefore we cannot comment on this matter further. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which 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.
  2. The resident completed an insurance claim for her personal possessions which had been damaged due to a pest infestation; however, this claim was declined by the insurer. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord.

Assessment

  1. The resident was unhappy with the time taken to gain access to the deceased’s property and clean it. Whilst the police were investigating the circumstances surrounding the neighbour’s death and the landlord had restricted access to the property, the landlord could not force entry or clear the property. The landlord also contacted the neighbour’s next of kin before entering and clearing the property. Whilst the landlord needed to gain access as soon as possible to resolve the pest issue, it was reasonable for the landlord to give the neighbour’s family the opportunity to retrieve any important personal items before the landlord’s staff entered the property. The landlord’s actions in regard to seeking approval from the next of kin and the clearing of the property were in line with what is reasonably expected in the circumstances. The landlord cleaned the property of the deceased within five working days of gaining access, this is a reasonable timeframe due to the exceptional circumstances in this case.
  2. The landlord acted at its earliest opportunity to access the neighbour’s property and arranged it to be cleaned. It was reasonable for the landlord to conduct the cleaning process in this manner because it needed to carry out pest control in both properties at more or less the same time to ensure that the pests were fully eradicated and could not spread from an untreated property to other properties which had been treated. If the landlord had carried out pest control in the resident’s property immediately, before it was able to treat the neighbour’s property, there is a risk that the pests would have spread from the neighbour’s property again, meaning the treatment would not have been successful and would have needed to have been redone. Therefore, the landlord did not delay the cleaning process unreasonably and acted as would be expected to when dealing with a pest infestation in multiple properties.
  3. This Service understands that the pest infestation would have been very distressing for the resident and we are not questioning her decision to dispose of items which had been affected by the pests. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was responsible for causing the pest infestation and the available evidence suggests that the landlord took reasonable action to resolve the issue once it became aware of it, by offering to carry out pest control treatment and professional cleaning in the resident’s property and the property above. This can take the form of the landlord employing its own pest control and offering a deep clean treatment, both of which was offered to the resident on several occasions. The landlord has no obligation to pay for any items that were disposed of before a cleaning service was offered. This is because the landlord did not have the opportunity to consider other options, such as looking at whether some items could be cleaned rather than being thrown away.
  4. The landlord’s records show it advised the resident on 7 September that it would not pay for temporary accommodation for the resident because the property was habitable, although it had a pest infestation. A property would not automatically be considered to be uninhabitable because of a pest infestation. For the property to be considered to be uninhabitable, there would need to be evidence to confirm it was not safe to live in. The resident has said she had to leave the property due to her medical conditions. However, it is not clear from the evidence provided that the resident made the landlord aware of this at the time, although she later mentioned it in her complaint. Before agreeing a temporary move for medical reasons, the landlord would be entitled to ask for evidence such as a letter from a GP or consultant confirming that the resident needed to be moved. In the absence of such evidence, the landlord was not obliged to offer to temporarily move the resident until the pests were eradicated. Therefore, the landlord is not obliged to pay the resident’s hotel costs.
  5. As part of her complaint, the resident has provided photographs which appear to show evidence of pests in the property. It is not disputed that there were pests in her property but as above, this would not in itself mean that the property was uninhabitable. It is not possible to tell from the photographs whether the infestation posed an immediate and significant risk to health and safety which meant that the resident had to leave the property.
  6. The resident requested that the landlord replace the skirting boards in her property as the pest control company that she hired to clean her property stated this was how the infestation was continuing and entering the property. The landlord advised that the skirting boards have gaps in because it allows for ventilation around the property and is a key way to combat damp. There has been no report submitted as evidence to this Service to suggest that the skirting boards needed to be replaced and filled to stop the pest’s entering the property. Therefore, the landlord was reasonable in declining this request as it is relying upon advice from its qualified staff and contractors that this is a method to prevent damp in the property. If the resident has a report to evidence that the skirting boards need to be replaced to avoid any further pest infestations, this should be provided to the landlord and the landlord should then take this into account and explain its decision to the resident based on this information.
  7. The resident also raised that she had contacted other neighbours to discuss her pest control issues and was advised that another neighbour received replacement carpets as a resolution to their complaint. This service does not know about other resident’s circumstances and there may be various reasons why they were given new carpets which may or may not be related to pest control. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer to clean the resident’s carpet and as explained above it was not required to replace items which could be cleaned following the pest infestation.
  8. The resident also stated it took three weeks for the damp issue in her property to be resolved. Whilst the landlord’s repairs policy states that it should be repaired within ten working days, it is reasonable to allow the landlord 28 days to complete the repair. The landlord did not adhere to its policy but it did not unreasonably delay the treatment of the damp and requested an operative attend the property to treat the damp promptly when made aware of the issue. The landlord therefore acted reasonably in its response to the damp concerns.
  9. It is noted that the resident requested to be moved into a different property as she no longer feels comfortable in the property in view of what has happened. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing, such as people facing homelessness or fleeing domestic violence. It is recommended that the landlord should continue to support the resident with her request to transfer from her current property and discuss her options with her, if it has not done so already.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation following the death of her upstairs neighbour.

Reasons

  1. The resident did not discuss the disposal of the household items with the landlord and did not seek prior permission to move to a hotel while her property was undergoing cleaning. There is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord was at fault for the resident needing to dispose of her personal items and there is insufficient evidence to show the property was uninhabitable due to the infestation. The landlord acted reasonably to clean both properties at a similar time to avoid the pest infestation spreading into any other property. Therefore, the landlord is not obliged to cover the cost of the resident’s damaged items or hotel stay.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord discuss the resident’s options for moving to another property, if the landlord has not already done so.