Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202016783)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016783

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

1 July 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 the resident’s report of pest infestation in her property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of proofing works to her property.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a second floor flat within a block of flats.
  2. According to the landlord’s records, the resident initially raised a report through its online repairs form on 18 January 2021, stating that she had seen a rat (pest) in her kitchen. This repair was cancelled by the landlord, and it later apologised to the resident explaining that its process was to cancel jobs where further details were required, it noted that she should have received contact from it thereafter advising that additional information was required.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 2 February 2021 explaining that she had reported pest in her kitchen in January 2021, and as a result of the repair being cancelled without an explanation from the landlord; she had scheduled a private pest control contractor who attended her property on 21 January 2021. The resident said that the contractor’s report confirmed that there was evidence of pest around her kitchen cupboards which were not sealed off. She explained that the contractor had started treatment and had recommended that the landlord complete proofing works. The resident said she had forwarded the contractors recommendations to the landlord, but no one had contacted her or scheduled an appointment to attend. She noted that as she was on the second floor, there may be pest activity in other properties. The resident said that since the pest infestation she had developed a skin condition and that she and her daughter had been unable to stay in the property due to health concerns. She raised reports with a councillor, which was passed to the landlord stating that she was “out of pocket” by £150 after paying the private contractor.
  4. The resident chased the landlord in early February as she had not heard anything regarding proofing works to be completed. Its records showed that its contractor attended and inspected the resident’s property on 9 February 2021. The contractor found: that pest activity was noted under “kick plates” (space at the bottom of cabinets), within holes behind the toilet and there were droppings in the kitchen. It confirmed that minor proofing to the ingress points had been completed, bait was fitted around the property to help monitor and control activity, and tracking dust had been laid under the kick plates to identify any other ingress points. It noted that a follow up visit had been arranged and it would continue to monitor activity.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 9 February 2021 and apologised for any inconvenience caused. It explained that it had spoken to its property coordinator who confirmed that proofing was required as there were gaps near the pipes, and that there may be a delay as proofing needed to be completed before the gaps were filled. It recalled that its contractor had attended the resident’s property in February 2021 and was handling the issue. The landlord offered the resident a reimbursement of £150 for the pest control service and £30 for its service failure.
  6. The landlord’s records show that two follow up inspections were completed in February, and on both visits, the contractor reported that no new rodent activity was found by way of bait consumption or tracking dust. It noted that the resident also reported no further pest sightings or activity, and that the previous proofing work remained sealed, but a permanent seal was recommended. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 8 March 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling and lack of communication. She said that no permanent proofing had been completed including to the pest entry holes. She said that she and her daughter had the right to live in the property feeling safe and reiterated that she had been unable to stay in the property as works were incomplete. The landlord advised the resident in early April that it had arranged for its contractor to attend her home on 16 April 2021 to complete the outstanding works, replace the kick plates, secure the backs to the kitchen units and proofing. This was cancelled by the resident.
  7. The contractor’s final report showed that a full inspection and outstanding proofing works were completed to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom on 18 May 2021. The report also confirmed that all the holes and gaps identified had been fully sealed to prevent pest ingress. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 28 June 2021 and apologised for the delay in its response and any inconvenience caused. It recalled that after issuing its stage one complaint response, the resident reported that she had seen a rat and that its contractors had not attended to complete the proofing works. It explained that a work order had been raised but closed as its contractor required the area to be free from pests. It recalled that it had since arranged a new work order in April 2021 to complete the proofing works. The landlord advised that it had upheld her complaint and offered £50 for the time and trouble, £30 for its service failure and £20 for the complaint delays totalling £100 in compensation.
  8. The resident brought her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports and its overall communication.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident explained that since the pest issues she had developed a skin condition and that the issues had impacted both her and her daughter’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her medical conditions. However, it is outside the role of the Ombudsman to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or insurer. This is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a pest infestation in her property

  1. The landlord’s pest control guidance states that pest issues including rats is its responsibility. The landlord’s repairs guide advises that where a resident lives in a block of flats it will carry out pest control where it has been agreed that all residents will share the cost of the service through service charge.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint about a rat sighting in her kitchen on 2 February 2021 and the landlord’s failure to address her issue, (this aspect of the report is covered in the complaint handling). The landlord’s records showed that its contractor attended and inspected the resident’s property on 9 February 2021. Despite the resident having to outsource a private contractor to address the pest infestation, the landlord did endeavour to put matters right by; inspecting her property, monitoring, and controlling pest activity, minor proofing work, and by arranging follow up visits to monitor the pest issue. In this case the landlord’s actions were appropriate as they would help to identify the ingress points, as well as monitor and control any pest activity before completing any permanent proofing works. The landlord apologised to the resident and reimbursed her £150 for the service of the private contractor. Overall, the landlord has taken the appropriate steps to rectify the issues, therefore its handling of the reports of a pest infestation in the resident’s property was appropriate. 

The landlord’s handling of proofing works to her property

  1. The tenancy agreement advises that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure of the property, including maintaining installations it provided.
  2. The resident raised concern stating that the landlord had not completed permanent proofing including to the pest entry holes in her property. The landlord’s records showed that temporary proofing was completed in the resident’s property on 9 February 2021, and that follow up appointments were arranged to monitor and ensure pest activity ceased before sealing the pest ingress points. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as pest infestations as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord, and it would be entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake. In this case, the landlord’s contractor concluded that it would continue monitoring the pest activity before completing permanent proofing works. According to its record’s outstanding proofing works were completed to the resident’s property on 18 May 2021. This was reasonable.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint process aims to respond within ten working days of acknowledging the resident’s complaint at stage one, and 20 working days for its final complaint response. The resident initially reported pest sighting in her property on 18 January 2021 through the landlord’s repair form, the repair was cancelled by it and thereafter the resident raised a formal complaint about its poor communication and failure to address the pest issues. The landlord explained that its process was to cancel jobs where further details were required. This was clearly inconvenient for the resident. Best practise would be for the landlord to contact the resident and obtain further information or advise her accordingly on how to report the issue through the correct channel. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered the resident £30 for its service failure and £50 for her time and trouble. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 2 February 2021 and the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 9 February 2021, this was within its complaint process. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 March 2021 and the landlord issued its final complaint response on 28 June 2021 which was a significant delay outside its complaint process. In certain circumstances, there are occasions where it would be reasonable for a landlord to delay providing a complaint response. However, in accordance with its complaints procedure the landlord should have kept the resident informed of any delays and managed her expectations accordingly. It should have set clear timescales in which the resident was likely to receive a response, rather than her having to chase the landlord. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it offered the resident £20 for its complaint delay. However, on the basis of the evidence provided to this Service, this award was not proportionate in the circumstances and further compensation will be ordered as detailed below in view of this.
  3. In both the resident’s formal complaint and escalation request she advised the landlord that she was unable to stay at the property due to the pest issues. Nothing in the contractor’s reports suggested that the issues required major repairs or deemed the resident’s property uninhabitable, and so it would not be expected for the landlord to provide alternative accommodation. Nonetheless the landlord failed to address this element of the resident’s complaint and this constitutes service failure. And it should offer compensation as detailed below.  

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s pest infestation, satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of proofing works to the resident’s property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord by way of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for its failure to address all the elements in the resident’s complaint and the delay in providing the stage 2 response.
  2. The landlord should also pay the resident the £100 compensation offered in its final complaint response as this was the basis for the finding of reasonable redress, if it has not done so already.
  3. Payment should be made within 4 weeks of the date of this report.