Clarion Housing Association Limited (202012087)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012087

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a rat infestation.
2. Repairs including damp and mould.
3. Requests for a rent refund and to be rehoused.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a single storey bedsit flat in a terraced block.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy advises that it attends to emergency repairs within 24 hours, while other repairs are classified as non-emergency repairs, for which appointments are arranged at a “resident’s convenience” and offered within 28 days.
The landlord’s tenancy management policy advises that responsibility for preventing, reducing, and eradicating pests is shared between the landlord, the resident and the local authority.
The resident’s responsibilities are to:
1. report issues to the landlord such as holes, potential access points or infestations so it can assess the cause, try to prevent access and treat any problems in communal areas.
2. ensure action is taken quickly to prevent spread of the problem.
3. treat and/or pay for treatment of infestations in the property, including rodents.
The landlord’s responsibilities are to identify and block access points in the structure of its properties; repair any damage to the structure of its buildings and pipe work; eradicate any infestations in communal areas or those caused by lack of action such as disrepair; arrange for eradication in a property where the problem is traced to an infestation in a communal area; and arrange treatment where a whole block or several flats are affected.
The landlord’s decant policy and website confirms that where unplanned repair work is required, temporary accommodation can be arranged including a hotel. Tenants who leave their home temporarily are eligible for discretionary payments to reimburse reasonable costs incurred, such as food costs.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure, responding at stage one within 10 working days and at stage two within 20 working days. The landlord does not investigate liability or personal injury claims under its complaints procedure.
The landlord’s compensation policy confirms it compensates for its actions or failure to act, and considers the length of time to resolve problems; difficulties making a complaint; and costs incurred due to a service failure. The policy advises that discretionary compensation can be considered for issues such as time taken to resolve a complaint, inconvenience, and failure to follow process; and that £100 per year should be awarded for each identified failure. The policy also advises that the landlord paid £10 plus £2 per day repairs are not carried out within agreed time limits, up to a maximum of £50.

Summary of events

This investigation understands that in September 2020, pest contractors attended a property at the block managed by a separate social landlord, where it was identified rats had accessed the neighbouring property through a break in a sewer. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord to report a rat infestation at the block, as rats were accessing roof spaces, there were rat holes in the garden, and she had been informed there were 1,500 rats under her house foundations. The resident decided to vacate the property and the landlord authorised a temporary decant and paid for the resident to stay in hotel.
The landlord’s surveyor carried out inspections at the block on 17 and 23 September 2020, and their report noted that there was a broken drain at the front of the property; collapsed paving in the rear garden that the resident reported she had tripped over; and a large hole in the paving that could be used as a rat access point. The report noted no rats in the property but noted there were two dead cockroaches. The report concluded that repairs would be arranged along with a CCTV survey to investigate if there were any drain defects, and it was recommended to decant the resident for three weeks to allow for works. The surveyor noted on their second visit that the neighbour’s landlord were carrying out works to the defective drains at the property. The landlord subsequently noted that while works were not completed, the resident could return to the property as it was habitable. It noted a lack of evidence of rats during inspection, a lack of previous pest control attendance, and a lack of prior reports about the drain and paving.
The resident made a formal complaint on 30 September 2020, after being informed she could return to the property. This did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure. She felt she had been led to understand the property was not habitable until remedial works were done, and detailed that issues noted by the surveyor at an inspection were a broken drain; mould; a leaking overflow pipe; cockroaches; unfilled voids that allowed pest access; uneven paving and a hole in the paving there had been an accident on; rat holes in the communal area; a kitchen in disrepair; and ‘inoperable’ window ventilation that promoted mould growth.
In October 2020, this investigation understands that the resident arranged for attendance on at least two occasions from the local authority’s pest control, whose report noted that rats were coming from the sewer and going under the property, and that the front and back garden were baited. The report also noted that there was a sewage smell in the resident’s property and that there may be some drain defects. The landlord’s records note the pest control queried what works were being carried out for the rats beneath the property, and the resident requested assurance the property foundations were sound and were not disrupted by rats nesting beneath it. This investigation understands the landlord considered no action necessary for rats under the property, as there was no evidence of rat droppings within its two properties at the block and rats had only been reportedly seen in the front garden of one of its properties.
In addition to the CCTV drain survey, the landlord raised repairs to renew a back box; fill holes in the kitchen and bathroom; refix or renew kitchen unit plinths; ease and adjust kitchen drawer runners; reseal a window frame; renew a defective fence post; repair a meter cupboard door; carry out paving/groundworks; renew a broken drain haunching; and repair bathroom and living room vents which did not open. The CCTV drain survey was completed on 1 October 2020 and found nothing structurally wrong with the drains, but it was noted that rats were living under the properties. The landlord’s contractor attended on 7 October 2020 for a repair for collapsed paving and a hole in the paving that could be used as a rat access point, and it was noted that the resident did not want the works to proceed until the rat issue was resolved.
The landlord issued a stage one response to the complaint on 15 October 2020:
1. It said the resident was decanted due to claims that rats were in the walls and within and under the property, however no evidence was found of rat droppings in the property and two dead cockroaches were found. It explained the decant was extended to allow her to continue with pest control treatment as this was tenant responsibility.
2. It detailed that its surveyor had confirmed it would carry out repairs in relation to paving; a broken drain; a cupboard door; filling holes; and renewal of a back box for a socket. It confirmed a CCTV survey which had already been completed had found no defects, and there was no indication rats were going into the property through the main drainage. It noted operatives had attended for repairs and the resident had said she would not allow these unless they removed rats from under the property.
3. It noted the resident said she had been told not to move back into the property until repairs were completed, and it explained that she was contacted about returning to the property after its surveyor confirmed works would be carried out with her in-situ. It asked her to contact its repairs team to arrange for the repairs to take place and reminded her of obligations to provide access under her tenancy.
The contractor attended again to try to carry out the collapsed paving and internal repairs on 19, 28 and 30 October 2020 and 2 November 2020, but they did not gain access and the resident was reportedly away. The landlord did not receive any request to escalate the complaint in a timeframe specified, and received further contact from the resident on 29 December 2020 and 5 January 2021, when she reported repairs had not been completed, rats were able to get through voids and holes in the property, and that she wished to make a further formal complaint:
1. She said she was unable to reside safely in the property due to the rat infestation and dangerous paving. She said she had paid for pest control, but the rat infestation had not subsided and continued to be an issue for neighbours on either side. She said she had experienced accidents on the paving in 2019 and recently.
2. She said there were ‘horrid stenches’ in the property and inspections had found there were droppings and possibly dead rats within the walls. She said an external company had concluded rats were beneath the foundations, in communal areas and within the walls, and she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to the local authority’s pest control report that she said showed rats were burrowing under the property. She said the landlord and her neighbour’s landlord were aware of a rat infestation issue before she moved in and they needed to liaise to resolve the issue.
3. She said that there were unusable areas of the property and she requested a rent abatement from 1 October 2020 until issues were resolved; rehousing; and compensation for distress and injury she and her daughter had experienced as a result of issues.
The landlord reviewed the resident’s reports and requested for any outstanding repairs to be re-raised, and on 30 December 2020, its records advise that all works detailed at paragraph 16 in addition to a dripping overflow pipe were gone through with the resident, re-raised and scheduled for 21 January 2021.
In January 2021, the resident reported to the landlord and this Service that pest control had been arranged, the issue was extensive, and would only be resolved if the property was demolished, after which the landlord internally considered if it should arrange pest control. The landlord noted pest control reports it had received had been ‘low risk;’ the rats were under the property in the sewers; and it was the responsibility of the resident to deal with any pests that entered the property. The landlord concluded that the resident’s claims was not supported by its contractors or surveyor and that it would not arrange pest control.
The landlord’s records advise the repair to the dripping overflow was completed on 13 January 2021; the back box repair was completed on 18 January 2021; and contractors attended for remaining repairs on 21 January 2021. The information provided advises that work was done to make the pathway stable and to cement over a hole being used by rats as an access point. The internal repairs such as proofing work was reportedly not completed as the resident did not wear a facemask, said she was exempt from doing so, and said she would re-book the repairs after her pregnancy. The external work was not completed as it was noted there was a large rat infestation that the contractor asked the landlord to resolve before the works were re-booked.
In February 2021, the landlord visited on two occasions with the contractors and re-raised works. The resident alleged at inspections that the property was uninhabitable, and the landlord received enquiries from the local authority about claims it was unreasonable for her to occupy the property due to the rat infestation and the coldness of the property. The landlord noted that its surveyor informed the resident that the property was habitable. The landlord’s surveyor noted there was no evidence at any visits of rats at the property. The landlord arranged a heat loss survey which its records advise was satisfactory. The surveyor noted that the resident raised mould growth on furnishings and window frames, and it was agreed to do a mould wash. The surveyor noted the resident reported there had been rats in a neighbour’s bathroom duct and requested panels removed in her bathroom, and this was added to the list of works. The surveyor also requested that a quote be provided for installation of a positive input ventilation unit, to assist with condensation at the property.
The information provided advises that the landlord subsequently completed a mould wash on 8 February 2021; front and rear garden paving works on 22 and 23 February 2021; repairs for a further mould wash, stain block, holes, plinths, drawer runners, reseal window frame and cupboard door on 3 March 2021; repairs for bathroom hole checks, a WC door, overhaul of WC pan and syphon, a vinyl sheet, a fence post and a window on 8 March 2021; and works to fit a wire basket on a soil vent pipe and minor making good to timber fascia on 11 March 2021.
The landlord’s damp specialist also inspected to quote for the positive input ventilation unit on 21 February 2021 and supplied a report for this on 4 March 2021. The report noted high moisture readings and slight black mould present indicated the property suffered from condensation, and recommended installation of fans and a positive input ventilation unit. The report also noted that readings and salting to brickwork indicated that walls suffered from rising dampness due to lack of an effective damp proof course, and recommended works that included injection of a chemical damp proof course to the bathroom wall.
On 5 March 2021, the landlord issue a stage one response to the resident’s further complaint:
1. It acknowledged and apologised that when the resident was decanted in September 2020, she was not offered a meal allowance, but it noted she was reimbursed for meals and taxis.
2. It advised that its surveyor had inspected to assess a rat infestation and found no evidence for this. It noted the resident had said she had not previously completed an incident form for injuries from the garden paving, and it confirmed it had asked a separate department to contact her in relation to this.
3. It noted that the surveyor identified there could be potential access for rats due to a drain in the garden not being closed and a hole in paving. It advised that works were raised for these but there was no access on three occasions. It then noted that it inspected following the complaint and works for the drain and hole were completed on 22 and 23 February 2021.
4. It acknowledged that the resident requested a rent abatement due to not living in the property because of pest issues and outstanding repairs. It said the resident would not receive a rent abatement in the circumstances and rent was only abated if the whole of the property was unable to be used.
5. It noted that the resident had said the property was too cold to live in due to window draught. It said that after the inspection in February 2021 works had been raised to repair the window sealant. It also said that a heat loss survey had concluded the property heated to a satisfactory standard.
6. It noted that the resident had raised issues and a complaint about damp and mould, and noted that mould wash treatments were completed in February and March 2021.
7. It noted that some concerns raised about staff being rude had been referred to an appropriate manager to investigate in line with internal procedures, and said it was unable to advise the outcome to this due to data protection.
8. It acknowledged and apologised that there had been delay in resolving repairs to the drain and windows. It awarded £400 compensation which included amounts for repairs delays, delays responding to the complaint and time and trouble.
The resident requested escalation of the complaint on 24 March 2021. She said it was unfair to be expected to pay rent and remain in a property which was in disrepair and affected her and her child. She restated concerns about rats and the property being cold. She added that a contractor had indicated that there was rising damp, and that the landlord had ignored reports that a mould issue was reoccurring. She restated that she wanted a rent abatement and to be moved. Following this, the landlord internally discussed the complaint and took steps to arrange for an inspection by its pest contractors.
On 21 April 2021 the landlord noted a review of the damp specialist report was outstanding. It noted that the report confirmed installation of a positive input ventilation unit and fans was appropriate, and it internally requested for repairs to be raised for these. It noted that damp works would be progressed as necessary, after further discussion with the damp specialist about leaks at the property which it was concerned may have contributed to some readings. It noted that a further inspection was intended to check that a water tank contained no evidence of droppings and that there was no leaking plumbing under the bath.
On 27 April 2021, the landlord’s pest contractor visited and supplied a report. The report advised that an internal, external and communal survey was carried out. The report noted that the resident reported that she heard rats in the walls at night and that the contractor had ‘been told’ neighbouring properties had reported the same issue. The report noted that there was rat evidence in the form of burrows within communal areas at the property rear near a cherry tree. The report noted that the paving had started to subside again and it was suggested there were still active burrows there. The report recommended removal of overgrowth under the cherry tree, baiting of the burrows, baiting of the resident’s property, a baiting programme, and a drain survey to see if rats were using the sewer system.
On 29 April 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint:
1. It noted that the resident said there were around 1,500 rats underneath the property; felt that the landlord had failed a duty to eradicate them; and wanted to be rehoused and receive a rent abatement.
2. It advised that there were no communal areas associated with the property and in accordance with policy, the resident was responsible for pest issues within her home.
3. It noted that its surveyor had not found any evidence of a rat infestation in the property.
4. It confirmed that it had arranged for its pest control contractor to visit on 27 April 2021 and if anything was identified within its responsibility it would arrange works.
5. It advised that it would not decant or rebate rent because it was a tenant’s responsibility to deal with pest issues in the property.
6. It noted that the resident had originally raised concerns about a drain and a hole in the ground, and had added draught and damp and mould concerns.
7. It said there had been a number of occasions where it had been unable to gain access. It also noted that for some proposed proofing work, the resident had said she did not want to wear a mask and said she would rebook works after her pregnancy. It noted that on 21 January 2021 operatives had not completed repairs to a gulley as it was felt there was evidence of rats. It explained that attendance of pest control was not considered necessary and outstanding repairs were completed on 3 and 8 March 2021.
8. In respect to damp and mould, it advised that its qualified building surveyor had surveyed the property and not advised of any rising damp. It said an external damp specialist had provided a report, and the resident would be contacted about installation of two fans and a positive input ventilation unit which had been quoted for.
9. It advised that it supported the information in its stage one response, and could not see a reason to decant the resident or rebate any rent. It noted that a local authority managed the housing waiting list which the resident was registered for, and it encouraged her to continue to bid and consider mutual exchange.
10. It acknowledged and apologised for a delay in providing the complaint response and awarded £25 compensation for this.
In May 2021, the landlord carried out the inspection to check that a water tank contained no evidence of droppings and that there was no leaking plumbing under the bath, and confirmed there were no signs of rats or leaks. The landlord reviewed its pest contractor’s report. It noted it was reported that paving slabs had started to subside, and it noted that an inspection found there was no obvious sinkage. It noted that a CCTV drain survey would be arranged, however it would not do any other works as the gardens to the flats were not communal. It was noted that attempts were being made to contact the neighbouring property’s landlord, as it was noted that their dealing with rubbish on adjacent land would assist with the rat population.
In June 2021, the landlord noted that the property had been ‘ok’ at most recent inspection, however the resident’s bathroom wall had tested damp which would be arranged to be repaired and decorated. On 23 June 2021 the landlord raised a repair to assess mould in the bathroom, around the front entrance door, and on the walls, ceiling and floor, which was completed on 27 July 2021. In August 2021, following contact from this Service, the landlord noted that works orders for the positive input ventilation unit and fans had not been raised, and these were requested to be raised again.
The resident contacted this Service at the end of June 2021 and reported that damp issues and the rat infestation were still present, and said she wanted substantial compensation, and for issues to be resolved or for her to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation.

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and its repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for structural repairs. In addition, the landlord’s tenancy management policy confirms it has responsibility to assess and try to prevent the cause of pest issues, including communal causes. Under the same policy, the resident has responsibility to report issues; take action to prevent spread of the problem; and treat and/or pay for treatment of infestations. It is therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate pest reports and to take steps in line with its obligations to try to resolve them; while tenants should be mindful of some responsibility of their own to take action.
The landlord’s policies confirm that some responsibility for pests at the property lies with the resident, and she would be reasonably responsible for initial pest issues in the property and in the grounds, given the landlord does not consider there to be communal areas at the block. However, the local authority’s pest contractor report and the resident’s account raising concern about rats nesting under the property points to there being a possible structural element to the issue. This, the landlord’s policies and its obligation to provide tenants with a safe and habitable home suggests it should intervene if there was evidence that an infestation in external/structural areas significantly affects the property.
In this case, the landlord has carried out multiple inspections where it had opportunity to review the issue and its obligations to intervene. The landlord took steps in line with its policies to assess if there were any structural or drain defects it needed to repair which was leading to an infestation. The landlord raised works to address any access points in the property, for which initial works did not go ahead due to lack of access and the resident reportedly being away. The landlord subsequently took action to complete relevant works when the resident contacted and complained that works were not complete, the completion timeframe of which does not appear to have caused any detriment. The landlord later arranged for its pest contractor to attend, and while an April 2021 report made recommendations for aspects such as tree undergrowth, a landlord does not have to accommodate all recommendations a contractor makes, and the landlord considered these based on information available.
The evidence for the issue reasonably affects the action the landlord considers it proportionate to take, and there is limited evidence the property was impacted in a significant way or that the landlord ignored urgent, direct recommendations about the issue. The evidence confirms there have been rat issues at the block, however there is limited evidence these directly impacted the resident’s property or relate to disrepair the landlord failed to take action for. The initial reports appear to involve rat access to a property of another social landlord. The landlord however found limited evidence for rats at its own inspections and discussions with neighbours. The extent and frequency that the resident was affected by rats in the garden, walls and roof is unclear, and a rat infestation was never found to directly affect her property and result in uninhabitable conditions – which would have been indicated by evidence of, or the landlord observing, issues such as extensive rat droppings or rat urine within the property.
There is concern however with the time it took for the landlord to arrange for a pest contractor to inspect. This Service recognises the landlord has to balance taking action with financial considerations. However, given the combination of factors, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to be more proactive, and to bring in a pest specialist sooner for an expert review of the issue and if there was more that needed to be done. The resident had a child and was pregnant; there were rat issues in a neighbouring property; and both its drain contractor and the local authority reported issues. Further, in January 2021, contractors reported there was a large infestation that affected ability to carry out works. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was therefore not reasonable that it took until April 2021 and around seven months, for the landlord to bring in a specialist to assess the matter. This means that the Ombudsman finds it appropriate to make a finding for this aspect.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs including damp and mould.

The landlord generally appears to have responded reasonably to the resident’s non damp and mould related repairs, and lack of completion of initial works appears to have been through no fault of the landlord, and due to lack of access and the resident reportedly being away. There was uncertainty following the initial reports and inspection, however the landlord handled matters in respect to the decant and expenses reimbursement in line with policy, and made its position clear soon after that the property was habitable and repairs could be completed with the resident in-situ. The landlord’s response to the complaint which did not exhaust its procedure, in October 2020, detailed works and action the resident could take to progress these.
The landlord then attended within three weeks and carried out some repairs, after the resident raised that repairs were outstanding and complained again. The lack of completion of some internal repairs again appears reasonable, as while the resident said she was exempt, it was understandable if contractors did not wish to carry out works in the property without the resident wearing a face mask, given the risks of Covid-19. It is clear at this point that the landlord was attempting to progress and monitor works, and this investigation cannot see that the repairs being completed within a month and a half after this attempt caused any significant detriment. Consequently, the £400 compensation awarded in the stage one response appears more than reasonable, given the main failing was a two month delay in written complaint response, and the landlord was taking steps in relation to the repairs issues during this period of delay.
The Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out this Service’s remit for complaints, confirms it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for any personal injury to the resident or her child as a result of the paving issue, as there are separate claims procedures for this. This is reflected in the landlord’s policy which sets out that it does not investigate complaints about liability and personal injury. However, this Service can assess whether the landlord responded reasonably in respect to the issue.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was reasonable in its response to the paving issue, as it raised works when the resident mentioned the issue. The landlord was also reasonable to refer the resident to complete an incident form for any alleged personal injury caused to her and her child. This is because the landlord took action to rectify the paving in a reasonably timely manner, once it was informed about the issue and previous injuries that had occurred, and there is no evidence that any detriment was caused by the time the landlord took to complete the works.
While this is the case, there are concerns about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould related repairs. The landlord has inspected damp and mould issues at the property and carried out mould washes, and has concluded that the property was habitable. This appears reasonable, as this was based on first hand inspection; photographs seen by this investigation do not show the issue to be extensive; and assessments of black mould was that this was ‘slight.’ Nevertheless, this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould confirms that landlords should take a pro-active, zero tolerance approach to the issue, so it was positive that the landlord commissioned an independent specialist to confirm if it was appropriate to install a positive input ventilation unit in the property. However, the landlord did not review the specialist’s report supplied on 4 March 2021 until 21 April 2021. This was one and a half months after the report was provided and after the resident complained.
The resident reported in her complaint escalation that a contractor said rising damp was indicated. The landlord responded by saying that its surveyor had not advised of this, and that the resident would be contacted about fan and ventilation works. This gave the impression there was no basis for the resident’s claim about rising damp. This investigation notes however that the damp specialist’s report mentions brick efflorescence, stated that rising damp was indicated, and recommended works to the bathroom wall. The spotlight report on damp and mould confirms landlords should clearly communicate and provide relevant information and explanation about outcomes, and have processes in place to follow up actions. This helps ensure that residents, and also the landlord, are clear about next steps and that there is effective monitoring of issues.
The landlord does not demonstrate it fully met this approach in respect to the rising damp concerns or the fan and ventilation works, and its approach to the damp specialist recommendations was unclear. The landlord noted in internal correspondence that the damp specialist had, separately to the report, mentioned issues with the bathroom and brick efflorescence, which were intended to be discussed with the specialist. This did not accurately reflect that the issues were mentioned in the report. The outcomes to the intended discussions are unclear, however the landlord later internally said in June 2021 that bathroom damp repairs would be arranged. This indicates there was basis to the recommendations, however there is no evidence of such works being raised as of mid-August 2021. The landlord also identified in August 2021 (after contact from this Service to progress the Ombudsman’s formal investigation) that works for the positive input ventilation unit and fans had not been raised, and these were requested to be raised again. This means there were delays of over five months (at least) in any substantial action being taken for identified issues.
This Service understands that resolving damp and mould issues can be complex and take time, however the above evidences that in the timeframe of the complaint, there was lack of effective consideration, communication and monitoring for the damp and mould related recommendations and works at the resident’s property. The complaints process presents an opportunity for a landlord to objectively assess the service it delivers, and the landlord missed the opportunity in its final response to more effectively consider available information such as the damp specialist report, and communicate and deliver all appropriate outcomes in a timely way.
The landlord should have identified and acknowledged that rising damp at the property was indicated; clearly communicated to the resident what its approach would be for this issue; and more effectively monitored and progressed the damp concerns and the fan and ventilation works. This will have unreasonably impacted the resident, as any delays to works ultimately delays effective solutions being found to alleviate any damp, mould and condensation issues at the property. This means that there are unacknowledged failings in this case for which the Ombudsman finds it appropriate to make a maladministration finding and award compensation. In doing so, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord made a more than reasonable previous compensation award, and so has awarded a smaller amount than it ordinarily would have in recognition of this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a rent refund and to be rehoused.

In cases in relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to definitively determine whether a tenant should be rehoused, or if a property is or was uninhabitable. The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and correctly applied its policy and procedure when reaching decisions.
The landlord has reviewed the resident’s requests for a rent refund and to be rehoused, both linked to her claim that the property is uninhabitable. It has satisfied itself as to the property’s habitability through first hand inspections of the property; informed her that it was unable to support her requests; and detailed the resident’s options to move.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for a rent refund and to be rehoused were reasonable. There is a high bar for a property to be deemed uninhabitable, and in review of information including photographs of the property, this investigation has seen no evidence to suggest the property or specific rooms would meet such a bar. The landlord’s position that the property was not uninhabitable was made in a reasonable way, as it is entitled to rely on the professional opinions of staff such as surveyors and contractors when making such decisions. The landlord was therefore reasonable to detail the resident’s options to move, rather than rehouse her, and to reject her request for rent refund, based on the evidence available.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s repairs including damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for a rent refund and to be rehoused.

Reasons

While this Service recognises the landlord has to strike a balance about what action to take, given a combination of factors it would have been appropriate for the landlord to bring in a pest specialist sooner than it did to review if there was more that needed to be done.
While the landlord’s response to many repairs was reasonable, the landlord’s complaint response does not demonstrate that the damp and mould issues were considered, communicated about and monitored in an effective way, which led to unreasonable delays in the handling of recommended and identified works.
The landlord’s position that the property was not uninhabitable was made in a reasonable way, as this was based on first hand inspection and the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinions of staff such as surveyors and contractors when making such decisions.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation in respect to its handling of the rat infestation and damp and mould complaints. This is in addition to the landlord’s previous award of £400, which it should take steps to pay if it has not already. The landlord should demonstrate compliance with the above within four weeks of this report.
The landlord to review the current status of works for the positive input ventilation unit and reported damp to the bathroom wall, and take any appropriate action to complete any outstanding works if applicable. The landlord should provide the outcome to this to the resident and the Ombudsman within four weeks of this report.
The landlord to review its repairs and complaint handling in relation to the damp and mould, alongside the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, to review whether its processes and procedures are currently sufficient to avoid the issues identified. The landlord should provide the outcome to this to the Ombudsman within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to review the current status of any damp, mould and condensation at the property, review any actions to address or mitigate this, and communicate the outcomes to the resident.
The landlord to review when it considers it appropriate to instruct its pest contractor to attend for rat infestation reports, in light of other independent evidence such as reports from the local authority and its own contractor.
The landlord to liaise with its residents at the block to review the current status of, and evidence for, the rat infestation at the block. The landlord to then review if it needs to take any appropriate action, including liaison with the social landlord of a neighbouring property at the block if applicable, in order to explore a joined up solution to any ongoing issue. The landlord should communicate any outcomes to its residents.