Orbit Housing Association Limited (202116059)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116059

Orbit 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of an ant infestation at the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property, a 2-bedroom flat, under an assured non-shorthold tenancy agreement with the landlord. The resident pays a weekly service charge in addition to her rent.
  2. The resident reports that she received a letter from the landlord informing her of an infestation of ants within the building. Following discussions with the landlord, she identified that ants were present within her property. The landlord began the process of consulting residents, as required by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as the costs of the eradication works would total approximately £300 per property, recoverable via the service charge.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the delay in addressing the infestation. She stated that other residents had first reported ants within the building 2 years previously. The resident objected to paying the cost of eradication works, as the landlord had failed to take action when it first became aware of the issue. The resident noted that she had 3 children and described the impact of the infestation on their living conditions.
  4. As she had received no response, the resident escalated her concerns to her MP. The landlord provided a response to the MP’s enquiry, stating that the section 20 process had concluded but the order to the contractor required sign off before works could commence. The landlord noted that it was obliged to carry out the correct procedures and await the necessary approvals before commencing works. It found no service failure but offered £100 compensation as a gesture of goodwill, in recognition of the time it was taking to arrange the works and the inconvenience caused to the resident. At stage 2, the landlord increased its offer by £140 to better reflect the impact on the resident, as she had requested compensation to replace 10 boxes of spoiled baby milk. The landlord confirmed that the works had now been booked in and that its original response had reached the correct outcome.
  5. Following the final complaint response, the resident continued to report the presence of ants and expressed her frustration that pest control treatments had so far been ineffective. The landlord subsequently reported to this Service that it had confirmed with the resident that the ants were no longer present in the property following conclusion of the treatment programme.

Assessment and findings

Tenancy agreement, policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement explains that the resident will pay a service charge in addition to her rent and refers to a ‘service charge schedule’ at page 3. A copy of this document has not been provided for this investigation.
  2. The landlord has confirmed that at the time of the complaint it did not have a pest control policy or procedure in place. It has provided a draft version of a pest control procedure that was in development on 30 June 2021. This explains the need to conduct a section 20 consultation where the costs of pest control works will total more than £250 per property. It also provides that the landlord may apply for dispensation from the section 20 process if the works are so urgent that it does not have time to consult. If the works are approved, a works order will be raised within 2 working days and the works started within 5 working days of the contractor receiving the instruction.
  3. Under the landlord’s Complaints Policy it operates a 2 stage formal complaints handling process. Complaints will be acknowledged within 3 working days. A stage 1 complaint should be responded to within 10 working days and ‘where there are future actions needed to resolve a complaint [the landlord] will agree this with customers’. The landlord will accept complaints from customers or their representatives, including from MPs and Councillors who raise the complaint on a resident’s behalf.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that residents are expected to take out home contents insurance to cover damage to their personal belongings. In exceptional circumstances the landlord may award compensation for damage to a resident’s personal belongings where liability is accepted, and the resident provides proof of the loss.

Handling of the infestation

  1. It is not known when the landlord first became aware of the presence of ants in the building. The resident refers to a previous report of ‘bugs’ in her property following a leak, although there is no documentary evidence of her report, or initial reports from other residents. The evidence refers to a pest control contractor report from 29 October 2020. The outcome of this report is unknown, and a copy has not been provided to this investigation.
  2. In the absence of documentary evidence of when the issue was first reported or identified, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord taking initial action. The landlord has explained that it had a statutory obligation to consult residents and at the time of the resident’s formal complaint the section 20 process was underway.
  3. As part of the process, the landlord must wait for the expiration of the statutory consultation period before a contractor can be instructed. It is not known on what date this period ended, however, the landlord’s internal emails indicate that this was some time before 13 July 2021, as a purchase order for the works was raised on that date. The resident received an email update from the landlord via her MP on 16 July 2021, stating that the works were awaiting action by the procurement team and would then need final approval.
  4. The works order was not, however, sent to the contractor until 21 July 2021, due to internal delays. It is clear from the landlord’s emails that staff were working to progress the works through the approvals process but the delay, although not significant, was unreasonable given the nature of the works, the timeframe of 2 days set out in the draft guidance and the concerns raised by residents.
  5. The works did not commence within 5 working days of instruction, but this was outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord explained that the delay was due to the contractor needing to obtain the necessary chemicals. The landlord failed to address the resident’s query as to why the chemicals had not been ordered in advance in its stage 2 complaint response, although the Ombudsman considers that it is not unreasonable that a contractor would wait until a works order was received to obtain the necessary materials. 
  6. Although the draft Pest and Vermin Control Procedure was not in use at the time of the resident’s complaint, this provides a good indication of the landlord’s processes and the timeframes it considers reasonable for arranging pest control works. The Ombudsman welcomes the adoption of the procedure, which will ensure clarity and consistency of approach in the future.
  7. The Ombudsman acknowledges the significant inconvenience and distress that living with a pest infection can cause to residents. The Ombudsman considers that there was a short delay in the instruction of the works following conclusion of the section 20 process, which should have been avoided. The landlord has, however, offered the resident a reasonable amount of compensation in its complaint response, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, provides satisfactory redress for its failings.
  8. Following the conclusion of the formal complaints process the resident continued to report the presence of ants and she sought to raise a second complaint. Although consideration of the landlord’s actions after the date of the final response does not form part of this investigation, the landlord is reminded that all requests to raise a complaint should be logged and responded to.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord failed to log the resident’s formal complaint of 21 June 2021, or to provide an acknowledgment. There was also a considerable delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s MP’s enquiry of 28 June 2021. It took the landlord 18 days to acknowledge the complaint, which was unreasonable and in excess of the 3–day timescale set out in its Complaints Policy. This resulted in a significant delay in the substantive complaint response being provided.
  2. The landlord’s complaint responses focussed on delays arising from the section 20 process and did not address several of the matters raised in the resident’s formal complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code requires a landlord to address all aspects of a complaint in its responses.
  3. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s query about when it had first received reports of ants in the building and why it had not taken action sooner. This has meant that the Ombudsman has been unable to assess and comment on whether the landlord took appropriate action, within a reasonable time, to address the infestation.
  4. The landlord also failed to explain the basis for the resident’s liability for costs. The resident disputed that she should have to pay for the works because she alleged that the delay in the landlord taking action had exacerbated the problem and increased the cost of the eradication works. The landlord did not address this and so the Ombudsman is unable to investigate this aspect of the complaint.
  5. The landlord did express sympathy for the resident’s circumstances, and it also agreed to reimburse her for the cost of spoiled baby milk, which it was not required to do under the terms of its policy as it did not accept liability for the damage. The landlord could also have provided advice to the resident about how she could manage the infestation within her property whilst awaiting the eradication works, as this may have helped her to feel more supported.
  6. The landlord failed to follow its complaints procedure and it did not address all aspects of the complaint, which has limited the Ombudsman’s investigation of some of the issues raised. The Ombudsman therefore considers that an additional award of compensation is appropriate, to reflect the maladministration identified in the landlord’s complaints handling, and the impact on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has provided sufficient redress to the resident’s that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the ant infestation in her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report it is ordered that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident an additional £50 compensation, in recognition of the failings identified in its complaints handling.
    2. Write to the resident providing a response to the aspects of the complaint that were not addressed in the complaint responses, detailing when it first became aware of the infestation, whether it considers there was an unreasonable delay in taking action and explaining why it believes the resident is liable for the cost of the works.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should also:
    1. Review its complaints handling processes to ensure that complaints are logged, acknowledged, and responded to in a timely manner, in line with the timescales set out in the landlord’s policies and procedures.
    2. Provide training to complaints handling staff to ensure that complaint responses address all issues raised and, where appropriate, offer additional support and guidance.