Clarion Housing Association Limited (202102695)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102695

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a pest infestation in his property.
   2. The associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
3. Section 5.2 of the landlord’s tenancy management policy relates to pest control and states that “responsibility for preventing, reducing and eradicating pests is shared between [the landlord], our residents and the local authority. Where residents have responsibilities for preventing and eradicating pests we provide advice on the best action to take”.
4. In regard to a tenant’s responsibility for pest control, the policy in part states that “unless the law, the tenancy agreement or lease states otherwise, residents are responsible for taking all reasonable action to prevent, reduce or destroy pests and infestations, including: Keeping their home, garden and communal areas clean and tidy and free from rubbish; ensuring that all domestic waste is put in suitable secured bin bags and placed in any communal bins provided, or in suitable wheelie or other bins; and treating and/or paying for treatment of infestations in their own property, including rats, mice, bedbugs, wasps, cockroaches, fleas and ants.”
5. The landlord’s responsibilities for pest control are described by the policy as to “Identify and block any potential access points in the structure of our properties. Regularly inspect estates with known pest control problems and enter into a pest control contract for regular treatments for high–risk blocks or estates. Arrange for regular cleaning of communal areas including bin stores and paladin bins. Arrange for the eradication of pests in a residents home where the problem is clearly traced to an infestation in a communal area. Undertake or arrange treatment where a whole block or several flats are affected”.
6. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord will first attempt to resolve the complaint informally. If that is not possible it will provide a formal stage one complaint response. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage of the landlord’s process. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
7. The complaints policy states that the landlord aims to “put things right within reasonable timescales”. However, the policy does not provide specific timescales for responding to complaints. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) requires for complaint response timescales in landlords’ complaints procedure to be for the landlord to respond at the first stage of the complaint process within ten working days of receiving a complaint, and to respond at the second and final stage of the complaint process within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. If there are delays, the landlord should update the resident, explain the reason for any delays and agree a revised timescale for its complaint responses.
8. The landlord’s compensation policy defines compensation as “a payment of recompense for loss of service or out of pocket expense at a quantifiable rate or amount incurred by a resident as a direct result of [the landlord’s] actions or failure to act.”
9. The policy also states that the landlord will consider offering discretionary compensation in recognition of the impact or a particular adverse effect the matter has had on a complainant. When calculating the amount of compensation to offer, the policy states that it uses the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) and case studies as guidance.

Summary of events

10. The resident has experienced ongoing issues of a mice infestation in his property. The landlord’s records show that he first contacted it about the matter in May 2018.
11. On 14 September 2020 a representative on behalf of the resident called the landlord to report that there were mice in the property. The landlord’s note of the call state that it was informed that there were signs of mice in both the resident’s property and in communal areas of the building.
12. Following further correspondence, the landlord commissioned its pest control contractor to lay traps and undertake treatment to the building. The contractor informed the landlord that six traps would be laid and a three-part baiting program would commence from 15 February 2021.
13. On 6 April 2021 the resident called the landlord and stated that there was still an issue of mice from communal areas gaining access to his property.
14. On 5 May 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. He stated that he had been in contact with the landlord for several months reporting a mice infestation in his property, but the problem remained outstanding.
15. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 May 2021 and then the resident called the landlord to discuss the matter. The landlord wrote on 20 May 2021 and asked to arrange an appointment with the resident to visit his property
16. An appointment was arranged for 7 June 2021. The landlord’s notes of the visit stated that the staff member found no evidence of mice in the communal areas and that it was difficult to inspect the resident’s property as the kitchen cupboards, where the resident had said the mice were entering from, were full of items and it was not possible to identify any access holes. The landlord was also provided with photographs from the visit.
17. The resident called the landlord on 14 June 2021 and requested an update. The landlord explained its findings from the visit to his property. The landlord’s notes of the call stated that it informed the resident that as there was no evidence of pests in communal areas that it would his responsibility to resolve. This was disputed by the resident who noted that another property in the building also had problems with mice.
18. The resident called this Service on 14 June 2021 to state his dissatisfaction with how the landlord had progress his complaint. This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord and the landlord called the resident on 18 June 2021 to confirm that a formal complaint had been opened.
19. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 25 June 2021. The landlord informed the resident that he had advised him previously that pest control was the responsibility of the tenant and that once he had arranged for the pests to be removed, the landlord would attend to block up any access holes.
20. The resident called this Service on 29 June 2021 and stated that he was dissatisfied with the stage one response. He described his outstanding issue as that he believed it was the landlord’s responsibility to remove the pests and that it had done no work to block the access holes in his property.
21. This Service wrote to the landlord on 29 June 2021 to request an escalation of the complaint and passed on the resident’s outstanding issues. The landlord replied on 1 July 2021 and confirmed that the complaint had been escalated. It then called the resident on 22 July 2021 to discuss the complaint.
22. The resident contacted this Service on 30 July 2021 and informed us that he had yet to receive a complaint response. This Service wrote to the landlord which explained that there has been a delay in progressing the complaint and that it aimed to provide a response by 12 August 2021.
23. The stage two response was sent to the resident on 19 August 2021. The landlord informed him that:
    1. In line with its tenancy management policy, the resident was responsible for taking reasonable action to prevent or reduce pest infestations.
    2. During its visit to his property on 7 July 2021, the landlord had noted “less than ideal conditions in terms of cleanliness and was unable to detect any holes that the mice might be using to enter your home because the cupboards were so cluttered”.
    3. It advised the resident to arrange for the infestation to be treated and the cupboards to be cleared and that it would then attend to block up any access holes.
    4. It confirmed that it had a regular pest control treated programme. Its contractor last attended on 5 July 2021 and observed a low level of rodent activity. It then stated that it would continue to treat communal areas for as long as activity was detected.
    5. None of the other residents in the building had made any reports of mice in their properties.
    6. It was satisfied that it had correctly followed its procedures and that there was no evidence of service failure.
    7. It apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint and offered the resident £25 compensation in view of this.
24. During a telephone call with this Service on 8 October 2021, the resident described his outstanding issues to the complaint as that he did not think the condition of the property should be a factor in blocking up the access holes, and that he did not believe the staff member who visited on 7 July 2021 was suitably qualified and wanted a surveyor to inspect his property.
25. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord increase its compensation offer to recognise the impact that living with a mice infestation had caused to him.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a pest infestation into the property

26. In its complaint responses the landlord set out the responsibilities for removal of pests and stated that as it could find no evidence that the infestation had originated from communal areas, it would therefore be the resident’s responsibility to arrange for their removal. The landlord also stated that it would seal any access points in the property once the areas had been cleared by the resident.
27. The landlord based its decision on the pest control inspection reports it had received from its contactor, that no other residents in the building has reported issues with mice, and the result of the visit undertaken on 7 July 2021 which included photographs taken of the resident’s property.
28. The landlord has provided this Service with copies of the photographs taken during the 7 July 2021visit and the pest control inspection reports. The reports showed “no concerns” from 17 February 2021 up to 5 July 2021, where the landlord was informed of “low level rodent (mice) activity.
29. Overall, the landlord has acted appropriately in this case. When first informed by the resident of problems with mice, it followed its pest control procedures as stated in its tenancy management policy by arranging traps to be laid in the communal areas and inspecting the building and resident’s property to determine the source of the infestation.
30. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on evidence supplied by appropriately qualified operatives when concluding that the source of the mice infestation was not from a communal area, which was supported as no other resident in the building had at that point complained to the landlord about mice other than the resident.
31. Based on the photographs taken during the 7 July 2021 visit, it was appropriate for the landlord to remind the resident of his responsibilities under the tenancy management policy to keep “their home, garden and communal areas clean and tidy and free from rubbish”.
32. It should be noted that following the conclusion of its internal complaint process, the landlord received further reports from other residents of a mice infestation. This resulted in the landlord raising a work order for its pest control contractor to undertake a three-part block treatment to all properties in the building, including the resident’s. This was due to go ahead on 29 November 2021, 13 December 2021 and 4 January 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to review its response in light of new evidence that the pest issue was affecting multiple properties. This would not mean that the landlord’s initial response was inappropriate as it’s response was reasonable based on the information available at the time.
33. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord. It responded to the resident’s reports by organising inspections, explained in its complaint responses why it was the responsibility of the resident to resolve the pest issue, and when it received further reports from other residents it then arranged for its contractor to undertake work in all properties in the building in line with the tenancy management policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

34. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in escalating the complaint and offered £25 compensation.
35. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an acknowledgment of its error, an apology, and a compensation payment of £25) put things right and resolved this element of the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
36. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it follows the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance when calculating compensation and gestures of goodwill. This guidance suggests a payment of £50 to £250 in cases of service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. As an example, when this level of redress should be considered, the guidance suggests “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”.
37. Therefore, there has been service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling as the level of redress it offered did not properly recognise the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident and was below the level of the Ombudsman’s guidance which the landlord’s compensation policy states it follows.
38. Moreover, the landlord’s compensation offer did not take into account the delays in the complaint process at stage one of its internal process. Following the complaint being raised and acknowledged on 4 May 2021, it was not until the intervention of this Service that a stage one complaint response was provided on 25 June 2021.
39. It is appropriate to award compensation within the range of £50 to £250 as while the was clearly delays in the complaint process, it did not change the outcome of the complaint as the landlord’s response to the pest control situation was reasonable based on the information available at the time.
40. It is therefore ordered that the landlord pay an additional £75 compensation in recognition of the delays experienced by the resident at stage one and stage two of its internal complaints process.

Determination (decision)

41. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in his property. 
42. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. 

Reasons

43. The landlord followed its tenancy management policy by undertaking inspections of the building and the resident’s property to determine who was responsible for arranging the removal of the mice. It was reasonable, based on the evidence it had received at the time, for the landlord to conclude that it was the responsibility of the resident to resolve the pest issue.
44. When further reports from other residents were received, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for its pest control contractor to undertake work to remove pests from all properties in the building in line with the tenancy management policy.
45. The level of compensation for delays in sending the stage two complaint response did not properly recognise the stress and inconvenience that this caused to the resident. The landlord also did not take into account the delays during stage one of its internal complaint process. The landlord should pay additional compensation as detailed below, in view of these errors.

Orders

46. For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident a further £75.
47. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report and the landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.
48. The compensation award is in addition to the compensation already awarded by the landlord in its complaint process.