London Borough of Hillingdon (202109303)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109303

London Borough of Hillingdon

15 December 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reporting of:
   1.  Several repairs issues.
   2. A rodent infestation.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs should be responded to within four hours, urgent repairs within one working day and routine repairs within 20 working days.

Background

3. The property is a one-bedroom upper floor flat. This is the resident’s first permanent tenancy that started on 29 March 2021, with the resident moving in on 5 April 2021. The resident was accepted onto the housing register in band C for medical, having provided medical information and proof of a personal independence payment (PIP) award.

Summary of events

4. On 8 April 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about the way she had been treated in the past week. She said she had been given certificates to show that everything in the property was working, however she raised three specific problems. Firstly, the plumbing was such that the toilet and washing machine kept blocking. She said that the contractor who came out to unblock it said that the problem would reoccur because limescale had reduced the diameter of the pipes and therefore descaling needed to be carried out and some of the pipes needed changing. However, the resident said that when she rang the landlord to find out about the follow up works, she was told that the report showed the job as being completed.
5. Secondly, the boiler was not working, and the resident was waiting for an appointment for a valve to be changed. Thirdly, upon running the shower, it had flooded the bathroom and leaked under the floorboards throughout the hallway, living room and into the kitchen cupboard. A contractor came out the next day but did not explain what the problem was or what would be done to remedy it. The shower flooded again the next day and the contractor who attended said that they would have to rip out the whole shower to change the pipes. The appointment for this was booked in for 26 April 2021. The resident said that she was disabled and was on the higher rates for mobility and care allowance and that she had not had a shower, hot water or heating for a week, which was causing her to feel very stressed. She says she had been reassured that there were no problems with the flat as she would not be able to deal with that due to her mental and physical health issues. The resident said she wanted compensation for the carpets that had been damaged.
6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 April 2021 saying that it aimed to respond by 27 April 2021. On 27 April 2021 it asked the resident for an extension until 11 May 2021. Then on 11 May 2021 it said that it would need until 25 May 2021 to provide a full response.
7. On 21 May 2021 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said that the resident had been given certificates relating to electrical safety, energy performance and asbestos information and that the property met the landlord’s minimal lettable standard at the time it was let to her. With regard to the plumbing, the resident had reported a blockage on 6 April 2021 and a drainage contractor had attended and cleared a blocked sink. The blockage was traced to the main sewerage line and cleared mechanically. The cause of the blockage had been fat and grease, which was cleared and tested to ensure the water was running clear.
8. The landlord further stated that the boiler had been serviced prior to the resident moving in and was then decommissioned to prevent any leaks, which was standard practice. When new tenants move in, they are advised to contact the gas safety contractor who carry out a service at that point. This is what happened in the resident’s case and the boiler was now fully operational (it was repaired on 19 April 2021). About the shower, the resident had reported it flooding to its out of hours service on 7 April 2021 when an operative attended and made it safe but who needed to make another appointment as parts were required. That part arrived and another operative attended on 9 April 2021 who then discovered that an electrical transformer had become defective and would require an electrician. A further appointment was arranged for 12 April 2021 when the shower pump was renewed and reconnected to the shower tray.
9. The landlord said that teething problems and snagging are normal when someone moves into a property but that it took the resident’s reports seriously and undertook the repairs. With regard to damaged carpets, it explained that the resident would need to make a claim to the landlord’s insurers and enclosed a leaflet explaining how to do so.
10. The resident had reported some rodent activity and a first visit was made by pest control on 2 June 2021. The operative reported that the resident had recently moved in and could hear rodents and did not want to be in the property. Mouse droppings and a hole were found under the kitchen units and old rat droppings were found in the loft. Bait was left in the kitchen, bedroom and loft which was to be monitored.
11. Also, on 2 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to say she had been told by the pest control team over the phone that there had been an ongoing rodent problem at the property before she moved in and that the pest controller who had attended told her that the flat was not habitable and that she should request a move. The resident said she needed a move as soon as possible.
12. On 7 June 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord’s complaint inbox, stated that she had had non-stop problems since moving in. She said the boiler had taken two weeks to fix but that it still needed work because there was a pipe hanging out of it that the plumber could not connect to the main pipes. She said the descaling of the pipes had never been done. The electrics had blown more than once, and that the electrician thought it was due to loose wires. The electrician had also put in a 100-amp fuse in spite of saying that it should be a 60-80 amp fuse. The resident said that the contractors had tested the shower so many times whilst fixing it that they left it flooded four or five times which had damaged a lot of her property.
13. The resident also stated that she had called pest control when she saw a rat in her kitchen, only to be told that a previous tenant had made a report in February 2021 of an infestation. The resident said she had thrown away bedding as it had been chewed and thrown away crockery due to rat dropping being everywhere. She said she could not sleep because she was scared a rodent was going to come out and that she was barely eating. She wanted to leave the property due to the impact on her mental and physical health. The landlord acknowledged the complaint, promising a response by 21 June 2021.
14. On 17 June 2021 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It stated that the boiler had been repaired on 19 April 2021 but that the condenser pipe could not be fitted because a kitchen cupboard needed to be temporarily moved to allow access to the space. The landlord apologised for the oversight in not communicating that to the maintenance service and that a maintenance service officer was now due to inspect the flat on 22 June 2021.
15. The landlord reiterated that the report of the blocked pipes repair that took place on 6 April 2021 recorded the blockage as being caused by fat and grease, not scale. However, the maintenance officer would also check that on his upcoming visit. With regard to the electrics, the electrician who attended reported that the tripping could be due to a loose cable but that he had not found any. No further tripping had been reported and if it reoccurred the resident should report it again, however she was advised to check her appliances first to ensure that none of them were responsible for the tripping. It stated that a 100-amp fuse was valid for the fuse box.
16. In relation to damage caused by shower repairs, three plumbers had attended on different dates and the landlord did not accept that they had caused multiple floods, however, the resident had been previously advised about how to claim for damage for possessions via the landlord’s insurers. Finally, in relation to the rodent activity, the previous tenants had reported rats in the loft, and it had been dealt with, with pest control removing the bait boxes once it was confirmed that no more was being eaten. The pest controller had only found recent evidence of mice in the flat, not rats. The pest controller has advised that the resident asked him to report the property as uninhabitable, but he had refused to do so as that was not his professional assessment. A re-visit had been booked and if it was found that more baiting was needed, a further appointment would also be booked.
17. On 24 June 2021 pest control visited to carry out some proofing works by filling in holes inside and outside the property with wire and foam. It was noted that there had been a full take of the loft bait and that there seemed to be rats in the loft and mice in the kitchen. More bait was left, and a return visit booked.
18. On 12 July 2021 pest control revisited. The report suggests that some snap traps should be installed as well. There was no take in the bait in the flat itself but there was a full take from the loft bait even though there were no obvious access points and the outside hole filled on the last visit was undisturbed. A further return visit was booked.
19. On 10 August 2021 pest control visited again and it was reported that there had again been a full bait take from the loft. It could now be seen that there were holes at both ends of the loft. However, as the roof sloped down considerably, they could not be reached via the loft and it required the removal of soffits, which could then also be blocked up.
20. On 25 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord saying she had video evidence of a rat running around her living room. She said she had been told by the landlord that if she got photographic evidence that there would be immediate action. She repeated that she was disabled and was traumatised by seeing the footage. Pest control had been out several times and nothing had improved and therefore she would like to be moved. On 26 August 2021 the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord asking that she be placed into emergency accommodation as the property was not habitable.
21. On 27 August 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to say that scaffolding was going to be erected on 31 August 2021 so that a further inspection could be undertaken and that the works would follow on as soon as possible after that. Two pest controllers would be attending on 2 September 2021 to carry out further baiting. The landlord noted that the resident had sent pest control a number of emails asking them to report the flat as uninhabitable, which it asked her to refrain from doing. It also said that it had received numerous emails and that, as its stage 2 response had also been provided, it had advised its staff not to respond any further regarding these issues.
22. The pest control visit on 2 September 2021 recorded that no bait had been taken from within the flat or the loft although extra baits were added to the loft.
23. On 8 September 2021 the resident’s solicitor reiterated the request for emergency accommodation and also requested that the resident be assisted with a management transfer application and that the property was not suitable for her medical needs. The landlord responded that the resident had already been informed of what action was being taken to address the situation and that she had the right to approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied. With regard to the suitability of the property, it was the landlord’s position that the resident had no housing or medical needs, however if her circumstances had changed, she needed to send in current medical documentation to support that. The solicitor was referred to the landlord’s social housing allocation policy on its website.
24. The landlord then made some internal enquiries about the resident’s request for a move. It was stated that the tenancy management team (TMT) would need to decide if temporary accommodation was required and then to make that request. The TMT clarified that a management transfer was something that was considered as a last resort where there was an imminent personal risk if the tenant remained in the property and that this normally required police corroboration, therefore it was not applicable in this situation. The TMT said it would be more appropriate to separate the rehousing issue into a) a decant – which was a repairs led decision. TMT said that if instructed it would of course request this through the lettings/resettlement team; and b) a permanent transfer which would be via the housing register with an application supported by medical evidence. The information about management transfers and applications to move were relayed back to the resident’s solicitor.
25. On 9 September 2021 the landlord contacted the resident’s solicitor again to advise that the latest visits by pest control showed that no bait had been taken but that further visits by pest control would still take place. It also said that the video provided by the resident showed that she had placed cheese slices on the floor and, however well intentioned, this would interfere with the baiting and at worst could encourage more rodents.
26. On 28 September 2021 the resident contacted this Service to say that the landlord had put up scaffolding to block all the access holes and that it had called her to say that the job had been completed. However, the resident said she could still hear rats in the loft and that a friend had seen a rodent in the kitchen. She also said that the landlord had not come back to fix the boiler and that the pipes were still blocked, causing issues with the toilet, washing machine and sink.
27. Pest control visited again on 30 September 2021 and reported a small take from the kitchen bait and that a further small hole had been found which was blocked. Looking in the loft, light could still be seen from one side and a camera set up. More bait was left in the loft and kitchen.
28. Pest control revisited on 5 October 2021. The report says another hole had appeared that had now been filled, but it is unclear whether this was in the loft or under the kitchen units. The camera did not show anything in the loft and new batteries were put in it. Mice had taken bait from the living room and the resident had reported seeing rodents in the garden of a neighbouring flat.
29. According to the landlord’s notes, pest control was due to carry out a return visit on 12 October 2021. The landlord has also informed this Service that further baiting was done, with the last visit made on 2 November 2021 and the feedback was that no bait had been taken. The landlord also said that it had asked its roofing contractor to do some roof level proofing works at the rear of the property and that further work was needed at the front, for which the contractor had been asked to liaise directly with the pest controller. The scaffolding was due to go up during the week commencing 22 November 2021 and the work was scheduled to be completed prior to the pest controllers next planned visit on 8 December 2021.

Assessment and findings

30. Following a detailed review of the evidence submitted by both parties, the Ombudsman’s investigation considers the action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reporting of repairs issues and rodent infestation and whether it followed its own policies and procedures, kept to the law and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.

Repairs Issues

31. It is common for repairs issues to become apparent once a tenancy begins, as was the case here. However, this does not necessarily mean that the landlord has made a mistake in making the property available in the first instance. When repairs issues are identified at the start of a tenancy, these should be handled in line with the landlord’s repair service standards.
32. Based on the available evidence, in relation to the resident’s reporting of problems with blocked pipes, the boiler, the shower and the electrics, the landlord responded within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. Unfortunately, new parts were needed for the boiler and shower which delayed their repair, and it is reasonable that such repairs should take longer to complete. The contractor provided the resident with an electric heater whilst the boiler was not working. Whilst the situation was not ideal and would have been incredibly inconvenient to the resident, overall, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response to these repair issues was reasonable and proportionate.
33. Although the resident told this Service in September 2021 that there were still issues with blocked pipes, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident has reported any further blockages to the landlord since her initial report on 6 April 2021. The resident says she was led to believe that the pipes needed descaling. However, if the work to clear the fat and grease cleared the blockage, it is unnecessary for the landlord to carry out any further work.
34. There is disagreement between the resident and the landlord about whether the shower caused flooding. However, the resident’s main issue in relation to this is that the alleged flooding damaged some of her personal possessions. In such instances a tenant would need to make an insurance claim, supported by appropriate evidence. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to its insurers as part of its stage 1 complaint response and enclosed a leaflet about the process.

Rodent Infestation

35. There is no evidence that the landlord suspected that the property had an active rat and mice infestation at the tenancy start date. Although its records show that the previous tenant had reported a problem, it also shows that the issue appeared to have been successfully treated prior to the resident moving in.
36. The issue of the rat and mice infestation is a serious one. From the point of the resident first reporting it, the problem quickly escalated into a major infestation that the landlord struggled to bring under control using conventional methods of baiting and proofing.
37. The Ombudsman has no criticism of how the landlord has managed the infestation. It identified the problem and has tried to treat it accordingly, increasing the steps it is taking to try and combat the issue as the level of the infestation became apparent. This was not a problem that was going to be resolved overnight.
38. However, such an infestation would be a challenge to live with and distressing for any tenant to have to endure. This was the resident’s first permanent tenancy she is also disabled, which makes her more vulnerable. She was clearly struggling with having to live in the property whilst the infestation endured. She also stated that it was having a detrimental effect on her physical and mental health. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any expert evidence that this was the case.
39. The resident was asking to be moved from the beginning of June 2021. This was soon after she had reported a problem and the level of rodent activity was yet to be established, therefore it would have been premature for the landlord to consider moving the resident at that point. However, by the end of July 2021 it was apparent that it was a serious infestation. At the end of August 2021, the resident’s solicitor enquired about emergency accommodation rather than a permanent move.
40. There is evidence of basic internal enquiries being made on 8 September 2021 about whether a temporary move would be possible. The TMT indicated that the need for a decant was a repairs led decision and that it would put that request to the lettings team if instructed to do so. However, the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that the works to prevent further infestation of the property was assessed as requiring for the resident to be decanted. No medical evidence was also provided to indicate that a permanent move should be considered.
41. Alternative accommodation is usually offered if repairs cannot be carried out with the tenants in situ or if the work would be too disruptive to the tenants. In this case, any decision to move the resident would have had to be based on an appropriate medical or health and safety assessment document. The Ombudsman does not know what the outcome of any assessment of that nature might have been and whether or not it would have resulted in a decision to temporarily decant the resident. The landlord should have considered advising the resident to obtain an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment and/or contact the local authority’s Environmental Health team. These are experts who could have provided a report based on their assessment of her health situation and the issue of the infestation.
42. However, the Ombudsman does not consider it a failing on the part of the landlord that these particular avenues discussed above were not explored, as no reliable evidence has been provided that the issue did impact on the resident’s physical and mental health. She may, however, consider seeking legal advice about this aspect of her complaint as a personal injury claim may be the more relevant option of pursuing the matter.
43. The information provided more recently suggests that the infestation has been bought under control, with no bait takes noted at the beginning of November 2021. Hopefully the further proofing works to the roof will stop the problem from reoccurring. Therefore, it is likely that the time for considering a temporary move for the resident has passed.

Determination (decision)

44. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with respect to:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs issues.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a rodent infestation.

Reasons

45. The property had been assessed as lettable prior to the start of the resident’s tenancy and the repairs issue that came to light once the tenancy started were taken seriously by the landlord, who responded in accordance with its repairs policy. The landlord has apologised for not liaising with its maintenance team about the need to move a kitchen cupboard in order to complete the boiler repairs.
46. The landlord has taken all reasonable steps to resolve the rodent infestation. Whilst the landlord could have considered a temporary decant of the resident, it had not been presented with any evidence to suggest that a move was necessary.

Orders and recommendations

47. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord undertakes as follows:
    1. Advise the resident about the process of obtaining an OT assessment regarding her assertions that she is unable to remain in the property, as she states that the pest infestation is still occurring.
    2. If it has not already done so, arrange for its maintenance team to move the kitchen cupboard to allow the condenser pipe to be fitted to the boiler.