Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202011600)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011600

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

15 March 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 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 a flea infestation inside her property and in the surrounding communal areas.

Background and summary of events

Tenancy agreement, policies and procedures

  1. Although the landlord’s policies do not specifically refer to flea infestations, the tenancy agreement confirms that the resident would be responsible for the inside of the property, and the landlord would be responsible for the outside of the property. The landlord is also responsible for issues arising from repairs to the property’s structure and for communal areas.
  2. The tenancy agreement between the resident and the landlord confirms that the resident is not entitled to withhold rent because of a dispute over any matter.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord at the property.

Summary of events

  1. The resident has reported that she had raised her concerns of a flea infestation at the property to the landlord on 19, 26 and 28 September 2020. The landlord has failed to provide information to this Service on these communications, despite being requested to do so, although there was also no contemporary evidence of these reports from the resident.
  2. On 13 November 2020, the resident submitted her stage one complaint to the landlord, as she had not received any communication from the landlord in respect of her above reports of a flea infestation in the property and in the communal area there. She felt that the landlord was responsible for ensuring that the property was fit for habitation, for which she had been quoted £849.99 plus VAT to ensure by an independent pest control contractor, and she requested that it reply to her about this as soon as possible or she would begin to take legal action against it after 14 days.
  3. The landlord’s records showed that, as well as replying to enquiries from the resident’s local councillor from 17 November 2020 onwards, it responded to her stage one complaint by liaising between her and its own pest control contractor from 18 to 26 November 2020 to arrange for the latter to treat the property for a flea infestation.
  4. On 27 November 2020, the landlord’s records confirmed that its pest control contractor was due to visit the resident on that day after contact with her on 26 November 2020. It had explained to the resident that she vacuum the property before the appointment, that the pest control treatment would be carried out in her absence for approximately two hours, and that a follow-up appointment may also be necessary in around two weeks. As the pest control visits had commenced, the landlord closed the resident’s stage one complaint.
  5. On 14 December 2020, the resident confirmed that the pest control contractor re-attended her property, but that she was dissatisfied with their pest control treatment for the flea infestation there. Her local councillor then informed the landlord on 12 January 2021 that she had told the contractor during their last attendance that their treatment did not work, as she was still getting bitten by and seeing fleas, for which they had agreed to attend the property again but had not yet done so.
  6. The landlord recorded that it subsequently made internal enquiries about this on 13 January 2021, when it noted that there had been three attendances by its pest control contractor to treat the resident’s property and communal areas, but that there had been no evidence of fleas in the property during their last attendance. Its records also showed that the contractor had described asking her in advance on each occasion to move furniture enable them to carry out pest treatment behind these, and to vacuum her property before they arrived, but that this had not occurred. Although the landlord recorded that its pest control contractor was satisfied that they had carried out all necessary works for this, and that no fleas were present in the property.
  7. On 15 January 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that it spoken with the resident, who had informed it that she was not living in the property, and that she was not willing to continue paying it rent for this until she knew what was happening regarding her report of a flea infestation there. It then noted on 18 January 2021 that it was waiting for a further appointment to be confirmed with its pest control contractor, for which it had requested a date for them to attend her property.
  8. On 28 January 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the pest control contractor would be arranging to visit her property again, if they had not done so already.
  9. On 1 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to confirm that she still did not consider the flea infestation issues at the property to have been resolved, for which it made internal enquiries for an update on 11 February 2021.
  10. On 12 February 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that the pest control contractor had re-attended the property on 11 February 2021, and that they had confirmed that no fleas had been found, either in the resident’s property or the communal areas. This was despite them visiting on three occasions, and carrying out spay treatment to all floor areas in each room of the property and to the communal area. This led the contractor to suggest that any fleas might have been introduced into the resident’s property from another source.
  11. On 18 February 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that it had emailed the resident to confirm that it had found no evidence of fleas following the visits from the pest control contractor.
  12. On 10 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to explain that she considered her concerns over a flea infestation to have been resolved as of its pest control contractor’s above attendance of 11 February 2021. However, she remained dissatisfied with its handling of her concerns prior to this date, and she felt that her concerns were dismissed by the landlord. As she felt that her property was uninhabitable for her and her daughter prior to 11 February 2021, she wanted her liability for the payment of the rent for this before that date to be removed, and for the landlord to pay her compensation for the distress and inconvenience that this had caused her.
  13. The landlord then recorded that it made further internal enquiries from 10 to 24 March 2021 in response to the resident’s latest correspondence, and that these confirmed that its pest control contractor had found no evidence of fleas at her property.
  14. On 16 April 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that the resident had informed it that she now considered her pest problems to be ongoing again , and therefore that the property was uninhabitable, as these were “still very much active”.
  15. On 19 May 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that it wrote to the resident. It explained that it had found no evidence of fleas in both her property and the communal areas of this and the surrounding flats during all of its previous pest control visits since November 2020. It would, nevertheless, be further attending the property for additional pest control on 14 June 2021, for which it made further enquiries on 10 to 11 June 2021.
  16. On 17 June 2021, the resident submitted her final stage complaint to the landlord. She did not feel that her concerns of a flea infestation in her property were resolved, as its pest control contractor had continued to visit the building without having their visits reviewed or ending the infestation, although they did not attend again by 14 June 2021 as expected. The resident further felt that her property was in an “unliveable” condition, and that this was the landlord’s responsibility for which she would seek to take legal action that it made internal enquiries about from 17 to 23 June 2021.
  17. On 24 June 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that it had spoken with the pest control contractor, who confirmed that they had returned to the resident’s property and that they had found no fleas there on their last two visits.
  18. On 3 July 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident. It closed her complaint, as there was no evidence of fleas following the pest control visits by its contractor either before or after treating the property for these, who had attended on a number of occasions with the same result.
  19. The resident subsequently referred her complaint to this Service. She remained dissatisfied, as she felt that her property was unfit for habitation for her and her daughter, and additionally she did not feel that the landlord had completed the pest control work satisfactorily, carried out any follow-up inspections, or attend the inspection scheduled in June 2021.
  20. As a result of the flea infestation, the resident reported that she had experienced “physical scars…and mental strains”, in addition to having lost earnings from having to take time off work. She wanted compensation for the months she had been “left homeless”, as a consequence of being unable to live at the property and for the landlord to find a solution to her problem.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has previously raised concerns over the effect of the flea infestation on her physical and mental health, wellbeing and lost earnings, and withheld her rent from the landlord. The Ombudsman does not dispute her comments regarding her health and earnings, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health, wellbeing and earnings and the non-payment of rent or to award damages for these. This is because we do not have the authority to do so in the way that a court, tribunal or insurer might. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused her as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a flea infestation inside her property and in the surrounding communal areas

  1. Although the landlord’s policies do not specifically refer to flea infestations, the tenancy agreement confirms that the resident would be responsible for the inside of the property, and the landlord responsible for the outside of the property, as well as for the property’s structure and communal areas. Nevertheless, a landlord would be expected to investigate and establish the source of an infestation. If it agreed to carry out work to address a reported infestation as a result of its above responsibilities, it would be expected to provide the resident with timescales for the completion of the work, and evidence of its continued monitoring of the matter.
  2. The resident had explained that she had reported her concerns of an infestation to the landlord on 19, 26 and 28 September 2020. The landlord has not provided a record of these communications, despite being asked to do so, of which there was also no contemporary evidence from the resident. As she stated that she had not received an update on this from the landlord, she raised her stage one complaint on 13 November 2020, as she was concerned over the habitability of the property for her and her daughter.
  3. Despite the landlord having commenced its pest control programme on 26 November 2020, and finding no fleas present at the property, the resident’s concerns over the habitability of her property resulted in her moving out of the property and withholding her rent payments to it for this. Although her tenancy agreement did not permit her to do so.
  4. There was also no written confirmation that the landlord agreed that there a pest infestation that meant that the resident’s property was not habitable,  or a report of an inspection of the property by its or another pest control contractor finding this. Although she reported on 13 November 2021 that an independent contractor had quoted her £849.99 plus VAT to ensure that the property was habitable, there was no evidence of this.
  5. Instead, the landlord’s pest control contractor had carried out treatments and inspections at the resident’s property and communal areas on 27 November and 14 December 2020 and 11 February 2021, which found no evidence of a flea infestation. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the property was in a habitable condition, as the pest control contractor had failed to find any evidence to contradict this this during their visits to her property and communal areas.
  6. The landlord has only provided limited evidence in support of its pest control visits. However, its records do confirm that, on 12 February 2021, the pest control contractor confirmed that they had found no fleas present, in either the resident’s property or the communal areas, following their three visits. The resident has raised concerns that the landlord had not carried out the pest control work satisfactorily, and that it had additionally not carried out any follow up inspections, additionally raising concerns that it had missed its subsequent pest control contractor’s appointment on 14 June 2021.
  7. Ultimately, the landlord has relied on the findings of its trained pest control contractor, who had failed to find evidence of fleas at the resident’s property. A landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary, and accordingly the decision to close the case due to the absence of evidence to support a flea infestation was reasonable in the circumstances.
  8. Although the resident had reported her concerns over a flea infestation to have been resolved as of 11 February 2021, she raised a further report to the landlord of an infestation in her property on 16 April 2021. While the landlord had committed to arranging for a further pest control visit on 14 June 2021,  this did not take place. It is unclear why this visit did not take place and there is no evidence that this had been subsequently rescheduled, which was inappropriate as its final stage complaint response of 3 July 2021 relied on the findings of its latest inspection almost five months earlier in February 2021 to reiterate that there was no evidence of an infestation, despite the resident’s later reports of this.
  9. This was a failing on the landlord’s part, and therefore it is ordered below that the landlord contact the resident within four weeks to confirm the outcome of any subsequent visits to her property and communal areas from the pest control contractor, and if no such visits occurred, to arrange another visit. It has also been ordered below to pay her proportionate compensation in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failure to attend or rearrange the latest pest control appointment that it had scheduled with her. This is at the rate recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance for failures by the landlord to meet service standards resulting in some impact on the resident.
  10. The landlord has additionally been ordered below to provide the resident with details to enable her to submit a liability insurance claim to it or its insurers for the damages that she reported to her physical and mental health, lost earnings and non-payment of rent, as these items require such a determination as outlined above.
  11. In summary, the landlord has evidenced that it had arranged for pest control visits to the resident’s property, and the communal areas, which had found no fleas to be present. As a result, it was reasonable to conclude that the property was in a habitable condition up to her subsequent report about this in April 2021. Furthermore, as no fleas were found in the communal areas, it was fair for the landlord to consider it to have offered the necessary support to the resident in addressing her concerns up to the above date. It was additionally fair for it to consider it to have carried out its obligations, and no failings were identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of a flea infestation in her property until April 2021, after which it inappropriately failed to re-attend the property.
  12. As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. No additional information was received, however, which meant that significant items were missing, such as the contractor’s reports following its visits to the resident’s property, a record of the resident’s initial reports of a flea infestation in her property, and confirmation of when it had issued her its stage one complaint response.
  13. In this case, the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information provided. However, the omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord, in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to review its record keeping practices as a result of this complaint, as well as its processes for ensuring that appointments are attended or rearranged when necessary by its pest control contractors.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a flea infestation inside her property and in the surrounding communal areas.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s pest control contractor had found no evidence of fleas in the resident’s property or in the communal areas, in each of its three visits in response to her reports of an infestation, but its contractor missed the appointment that it made for her subsequent report of this, and there is no evidence that this was rearranged. It also failed to demonstrate that it had kept appropriately detailed and comprehensive records of her pest control case when asked to provide these by this Service.

Orders and Recommendation

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Contact the resident within four weeks to confirm the outcome of any subsequent visits to her property and communal areas by its pest control contractor since July 2021 and, if no such visits have occurred, to arrange another visit.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation within four weeks in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failure to attend or rearrange the latest pest control appointment that it had scheduled with her.
    3. Contact the resident within four weeks to provide her with details to enable her to submit a liability insurance claim to it or its insurers for the damages that she reported to her physical and mental health, lost earnings and non-payment of rent.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its record keeping and appointment processes for pest control reports and complaints, including for the retention of contact between it and its contractors. This is to ensure that there is a clear audit trail for these, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said, what the agreed next steps, timescales and expectations were, and what actions subsequently took place, as well as that its contractors’ appointments are attended or rearranged when necessary.
  3. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendation.