Adullam Homes Housing Association Limited (202007783)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007783

Adullam Homes Housing Association Limited

30 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 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 report of a pest infestation in her property and request for compensation for damages and rent reduction

b. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident was an assured shorthold tenant between 19 August 2019 and September 2020. The property is described as a two-bedroom terraced house.
  2. The tenancy agreement obliges the resident to report defects, to allow the landlord access at a reasonable time for the premises to be inspected and informs residents to take out their own personal contents insurance.
  3. The resident has informed this Service that her son has anxiety issues.
  4. The landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the premises in repair.
  5. The landlords tenant handbook signposts residents to the Council‘s Environmental Health Service to make reports of pest infestation. It advises that the maintenance team can be contacted if it is unable to offer assistance.

The Council’s website provides information to its residents on the management of pests. It advises that it delivers a free service for the treatment of rats and that charges apply for the eradication of mice.

  1. The landlord’s repairs are categorised: emergency to be completed within 24 hours; urgent repairs to be completed within 7 days and non-urgent repairs within 28 days.
  2. The landlord has a three stage complaints procedure. The first stage ‘putting it right’ are for issues easily resolved with no further action required. Complaints investigated at the second stage are concluded within 10 days and within 28 days at the final stage of the complaints procedure. The resident can refer the complaint to its complaint panel or direct to this Service.

Summary of events.

  1. The landlord visited the resident’s home to carry out a health and safety visit on 18 February 2020. During the visit, the resident did not raise any concerns about pests within the property.
  2. On 2 March 2020, following a report of rats within the property by the resident, the landlord raised a work order for pest control to check for mice or rats. The contractors attended the property on 4 March 2020 to install bait and traps.
  3.  The resident contacted the landlord on 12 March 2021 reporting a further sighting of mice and that she was staying with her mother. An urgent works order was raised and it is recorded that the order was cancelled and issued to a new contractor.
  4. The resident’s Member of Parliament contacted the landlord on 9 June 2020 to advise of a rat infestation at the property, that it was not fit for habitation and that the resident was staying with her mother. The MP requested temporary accommodation for the resident until the infestation was resolved. The MP chased the response on 22 June 2020 and on 30 June 2020.
  5. The landlord’s’ Asset Manager emailed the resident on 23 June 2020 to agree an appropriate time to visit the property on 25 June 2020.
  6. The resident responded the same day (23 June 2020) advising that the infestation had been ongoing since March 2020. She explained that she had a phobia about rats so she could not remain in the property. Furthermore, she had found mice droppings, the skirting board and a rug had been chewed, sighted a rat on her kitchen table, in her living room and on the stairs.
  7. In addition, she had been made homeless as she had to stay with friends and relatives, the landlord had not supported her and requested a transfer. She advised that due to her phobia and anxiety she would be unable to attend the inspection but would make the keys available.
  8. The landlord inspected the property on 25 June 2020 and raised an urgent works order the following day to fill any holes in the property and to bait for vermin. It is recorded that this was completed on 28 June 2020.
  9. On 29 June 2020, the landlord updated the resident and advised that it would monitor the situation and keep her informed. It confirmed that her request for a transfer had been forwarded to the appropriate team.
  10. A further update was provided to the resident on 30 June 2020 that internal holes had been filled, that new bait boxes had been laid and that a further visit would take place the following week. The resident advised on 3 July 2020 that her preference was to obtain a transfer from the property.
  11. The resident chased her transfer request on 8 July 2020.  In response, the landlord advised on the following day (9 July 2020), that it would chase up the transfer on her behalf and that there were no further signs of mice in the property.
  12. The resident informed the landlord on 9 August 2020 that she intended to terminate the tenancy as she had returned to the property and found mice droppings in her and her children’s belongings. She further advised that she had to consider the mental health of her and her children and though work had been carried out to the property, she didn’t feel safe living at the tenancy.
  13. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 August 2020 to request a rent reduction as she had not been resident at the property between March – June 2020 and that it was not habitable due to the infestation. 
  14. The resident returned the keys to the tenancy on 11 September 2020 and on 21 September 2020 she advised the landlord that her property had been damaged by the infestation; that the removal company had refused to remove her cooker as it was infested and requested compensation for the furniture and possessions that were damaged.
  15. The resident contacted this Service on 26 October 2020 advising she had been unable to receive a response to her concerns about the infestation in the property and her request for compensation for the damage to her furniture. This Service contacted the landlord on 27 October 2020 and 16 December 2020 regarding its complaint response.
  16. The landlord’s internal records note that on 3 December 2020, the investigating manager requested that a survey was carried out at the visit in June 2020 and on 8 December 2020 requested for the colour of the cooker that was provided when the property was let to the resident.
  17. On the same day (8 December 2020) the resident supplied pictures of the infestation to the landlord in support of her complaint. In addition, she advised that her children’s personal items had been ruined by the infestation and that the  school’s pastoral and designated safeguarding lead had contacted the landlord but had not received a response.
  18. This Service contacted the landlord on 16 December 2020 requesting a copy of its final response. The landlord responded to the resident on 17 December 2020 at the initial stage of the complaint procedure. It apologised for the delay in responding and concluded that:
    1. it had received the first report of mice in the property in March 2020 and it arranged for pest control treatment to attend 
  19. the pest control appointment did not take place on 12 March 2020 due to the pandemic, hence treatment was not completed within its normal timescales
  20. the request for a rent reduction was declined as it had reviewed the pictures, she had provided depicting damage to her kitchen and it could not conclude that the images were the same as those it had taken in June 2020
  21. it would offer a good will gesture of £80 which would be used to offset the arrears.
  22. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 December 2020 to escalate her complaint.
  23. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 January 2021. In response, the resident emailed the landlord on 11 January 2021 to provide further information regarding her complaint. She advised that the review of the images implied that she was lying about the condition of the property, that she had to terminate her tenancy as the property was not fit for human habitation, consequently she had to ‘sofa surf with her children’. She highlighted the impact of the infestation on her children advising that the school were concerned about their welfare.
  24. In addition, she advised that she believed that there was an infestation before she moved in, that the landlord did not take the appropriate action to remedy it and that the offer of compensation did not cover the damage to her furniture and the impact to her family.
  25. On 19 Jan 2021 the landlord emailed the resident regarding the escalated complaint, informing her of its interim findings. It concluded that there had been an error in the review of the images of the resident’s kitchen and apologised for the mistake, the confusion and for the frustration that the resident experienced. It noted that the resident had declined its good will gesture of £80 and requested that the resident provide information on what she considered a satisfactory resolution.
  26. The resident responded on 27 January 2021 advising that her preferred outcome was compensation for the damaged items, the removal of the rent arrears and consideration of the impact on her children. She included an itemised list of the damaged furniture and belongings that had been either chewed, soiled or covered with mice droppings which totalled £4,660 and provided a cumulative total of £6800 which included the cost of storing items that could be saved.
  27. The landlord emailed the resident on 3 March 2021 to inform her that it had concluded the final stage complaint investigation and it couldn’t agree to her compensation request.
  28. This Service emailed the landlord on 20 March 2021 requesting its final complaint response. The landlord responded on 22 March 2021 and on 7 April 2021, providing its email correspondence with the resident and confirmed that the complaint had exhausted its complaints procedure. However, it would contact the resident with a revised compensation offer.
  29. The landlord contacted the resident that same day (7 April 2021) and increased its gesture of good will to £500.00 and advised that this would be offset against any arrears owed. The resident responded on 12 April 2021, dissatisfied with the revised offer explaining that it did not provide adequate compensation for her loss or for the experience for herself and her son.
  30. The resident approached this Service on 16 April 2021 to complain that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her request for a rent refund and for the damages to her belongings due to the rat infestation. She confirmed that she sought as an outcome a rent reduction and increased compensation.
  31. On 10 March 2021, the landlord informed this Service that it had revised its compensation offer to £500 and to write off her final arrears of £784.00. The landlord advised this Service on 14 March 2021 that it considered that during the resident’s tenancy, the property was habitable, that the pest treatment would not have had any impact on the resident’s health. In addition, that as the property was empty from March 2020, this may be a contributory factor to the extent of the infestation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. Throughout her communication with the landlord, the resident has advised of her phobia to rats and how the infestation has affected her and her children. This Service understands the resident’s concerns about the impact of the infestation on her and her family’s health. However, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to establish a causal link between the health issues experienced by the resident and the actions of her landlord. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a pest infestation in her property and request for compensation.

  1. The resident’s handbook directs residents to the council as it has responsibility for the management of pests and then to its’ maintenance team if the situation remains unresolved. The pest infestation was first reported in March 2020 and the landlord used its discretion to arrange for pest control to check for mice or rats. This was dealt with appropriately as this enabled it to assess the type and severity of the infestation within the resident’s home as each pest infestation requires a different response. Following, the contractor’s visit, the landlord assessed it as a mice infestation.
  2. Following a further reported sighting of mice, the landlord has acknowledged that the second appointment that it arranged on 12 March 2020 did not take place due to the Covid 19 pandemic. It is noted that the country was experiencing lock down restrictions between March – June 2020 and this Service accepts that this was a difficult period for most organisations. However, this is a short coming as the resident was not occupying the property so the landlord could have considered whether to arrange with the resident for the inspection to take place.
  3. There is no record of the resident raising further concerns about the infestation with the landlord until she contacted her MP in June 2020. However, the landlord has advised that it cannot confirm whether any other pest control treatment was carried out between March 2020 and June 2020 as its staff are no longer with the organisation. Landlords are expected to keep adequate records of works it has carried out to cover situations such as this, so that it can evidence whether works were required at a property. Whilst there is no evidence of further reports being received from the resident, there was an outstanding second appointment which the landlord has not demonstrated it followed up on, to ensure continued pest control measures were being carried out. Following the landlord’s visit in June 2020, it raised further orders to bait and fill any entry points.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident to arrange a joint inspection at her home following contact from the MP. During the communication, it was empathetic as it listened to her concerns about her unwillingness to attend the joint inspection due to her phobia about the reported pests and agreed to carry out the property inspection alone and provide her with an update which it did. In addition, once she expressed her reluctance to return to the property, it offered to chase up the transfer request. This was more than reasonable considering the distress and reasons that the resident had given for not wanting to return to the property.
  5. Despite the acknowledged failures to carry out and ensure that the pest control treatment resolved the problem, the landlord endeavoured to put matters right by acting promptly to engage pest control to investigate and treat the rodent issues, fill the entry points, monitored progress and kept the resident updated.
  6. The resident provided the landlord with an itemised list of the property and belongings that were damaged due to the infestation. The landlord investigated the concerns by comparing the images provided by the resident against its own records and when it did not conclude that the images were the same, it declined the resident’s request for a rent refund for the period she was not occupying the property. This was a failing as its error gave the impression that the resident had supplied false information in order to make a compensation claim. The landlord corrected its position following its review of the images at the final stage of the complaints procedure.
  7. The resident requested compensation for the damaged furniture and her family’s belongings and provided a detailed breakdown to the landlord who considered and declined the compensation request as excessive. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine the cause or liability for the infestation and any related damage but we can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure and behaved reasonably, considering all the circumstances of the case. The landlord determined that the amount claimed was too high and did not agree to reimbursement. The landlord did not clearly explain what it had taken into account when reaching its decision to refuse the compensation claim at this stage, for example whether it was denying any responsibility for the damage.
  8. The landlord agreed to refund the outstanding rent of £784.04 and to pay £500.00 as a gesture of good will. The landlord has not provided its compensation procedure, so we have been unable to consider this offer in line with its own policies. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman Remedies Guidance recommends a range of compensation levels that can be awarded dependent on the circumstances and considers that awards of that amount are reasonable where there has been a failure of a considerable period of time to act to address repairs.
  9. The Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps taken to address any shortcomings and any redress offered. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord has taken appropriate steps by apologising for the service failures identified and offered to write off the arears in the amount of £784.04 and a good will gesture of £500.00 which are considered proportionate given the circumstances of the case.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint procedure state that the landlord will respond within 10 working days to a complaint. It is not clear when the resident made her complaint to the landlord, however even after this Service’s intervention, it took over seven weeks for the landlord to respond. This is an unreasonable delay and not appropriate as the landlord is expected to comply with its own procedure to ensure that its residents receive a response to their concerns. 
  2. The initial response contained errors as it did not address the resident’s request for a rent refund but provided information about a different process – the rent review period. In addition, when it undertook a review of the images, it did not correctly identify the resident’s kitchen and made an initial offer of a good will gesture without explaining the reason for its award. This was inappropriate as the inaccuracies in the response, meant that the resident felt that the landlord did not believe her account of the events and the award did not provide the resident with any clarity about what elements the offer was intended to address.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the complaint procedure. While the investigation sought the resident’s view on her preferred outcome, it set out its position on the issues that the resident raised – whether the property was considered habitable during her occupancy and on her request for a rent reduction. However, it did not clarify how this response reflected it formal complaints procedure.
  4. Whilst the response did consider her request for compensation for her damaged items and advised that it was declined. It failed to give reasons why it declined the request other than advising that the amount claimed was too high neither did it set out whether it considered whether the complaint about the damage to the resident’s possession could have been caused by the infestation nor did it comment or supply advice to the resident on the appropriateness of making a liability claim to its insurers. However, the landlord increased its goodwill gesture that it offered in its initial response from £80.00 to £500.00.
  5. The final complaint response did not provide the resident with the correct information that would enable her to escalate her complaint to this Service and has not identified any learning that it has obtained from the complaint. Notwithstanding, the complaint handling failures, the landlord’s overall good will gestures of £1248.00 for its service failures is considered sufficient redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the service failures identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a pest infestation in her property and request for compensation for damages and rent reduction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the service failures identified in the landlord’s response to the related complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord demonstrated that it investigated reports of pest infestation and arranged for pest control treatment to be carried out and monitored the activity. In addition, the landlord’s total good will gestures of £ £1248.00 is considered reasonable.
  2. The landlord failed to follow its own procedures, unreasonably delayed in providing its responses to her complaints and it did not provide a final complaint response. However, the total of its good will gestures is considered sufficient redress.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the £500 goodwill gesture and to credit the residents’ former tenant account with £748.00 as agreed in its email.
  2. The landlord to ensure its residents are provided with complaint responses that conform to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code .
  3. The landlord when making offers of compensation or good will gestures to set out the reason for the award and the amount awarded for each failure to ensure consistency of approach.
  4. The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.