Clarion Housing Association Limited (202114070)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114070

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 August 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 landlords handling of the residents reports of a moth infestation in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord at the property, with the tenancy commencing in March 2016. The resident lives alone, has no income, and suffers from Debilitating Osteoporosis.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord that the property became infested with moths namely under her carpet and furniture, which she believed originated from the initial carpets laid at the start of the tenancy. She said that she had reported this issue “over the years”, though the first evidence available to this investigation of such a report was from February 2020. It is not disputed however that the landlord had previously informed the resident that a potential moth infestation issue would be her responsibility under the terms of the tenancy.
  3. The resident made a stage one complaint in April 2021, based on her view that the carpet laid by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy was the cause for the moth infestation. She said that this had resulted in damage to her personal belongings such as coats and jumpers. The resident also made the landlord aware of her personal situation, namely her lack of income, support and her disability.
  4. The landlord responded in May 2021, acknowledging the damage caused and that the resident had no means of income. The landlord confirmed that it had no records of any previous reports for which it apologised; it also confirmed that her neighbour’s carpet had been replaced due to its end of tenancy process, rather than as a result of any other issues. The landlord advised the resident that moth infestation was her responsibility; it also advised her of its guidance support number through which she might source financial assistance. This advice was reiterated in the landlord’s stage two complaint response in July 2021, which also offered an additional £50 compensation payment for the time the landlord had taken to complete the review of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraphs 39 (d) and (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) the investigation is unable to comment on events that took place at the commencement of the tenancy. The Ombudsman requires issues to be raised with the member landlord, and then progressed to this Service in a timely manner so that points of dissatisfaction can be investigated while issues remain ‘live’ or at least shortly thereafter. As such, this investigation will not consider and issues of potential service failure in relation to the carpets provided at the commencement of the tenancy. It is also noted in this respect that the first evidence available of a moth infestation at the property was dated February 2020, four years post commencement of the tenancy.
  2. The landlord offered £50 in compensation for its delay in responding to the complaint through its complaint process. As the landlord’s complaints handling was not specifically detailed as a point of dissatisfaction within the complaint, the landlord’s offer has not been commented on further here.

The resident’s reports about a moth infestation

  1. The landlords’ tenancy management policy, and pest control and wildlife management procedure both outline that ‘preventing, reducing and eradicating moth infestation is the tenant’s reasonability’.
  2. Section 5.2.5 of the landlord’s Tenancy Management policy states that ‘where an infestation has occurred due to no fault of the tenant but the cost of the treatment or work is very likely to cause undue hardship to the tenant, the relevant head of service can use their discretion to give approval for the necessary work to be undertaken on a rechargeable basis.’
  3. Clause 7.1 of the same policy outlines that if a resident is unable to maintain their home due to ill health or disability, the landlord will work with the resident to explore ‘obtaining support and assistance to help them fulfil their tenancy obligations’ and further 7.2 states that the ‘head of service can use its discretion for the necessary work to be undertaken and exempt a vulnerable tenant from any recharge’.
  4. The landlord’s pest control and wildlife management procedure also details that the landlord should look to consider a visit from a housing officer if a report about pest infestation is made and the tenant is identified as vulnerable.
  5. It is not clear in the evidence available whether the moth infestation could be construed to have been caused by the resident. Given the requirements of the landlord’s tenant management policy however, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to look into her report in February 2020, assess whether there was evidence of the resident being responsible and then, depending upon the outcome of this investigation, making a discretionary decision as to whether the works could be completed and then recharged, or completed and not recharged due to her vulnerability.
  6. However, there is no evidence of any action having been taken by the landlord to support or assist the resident to eradicate the moths following her February 2020 report. That said, it is also unclear whether the landlord was made aware of the resident’s financial circumstances or health issues at that time. The equality and diversity form completed by the resident upon commencement of her tenancy stated that she works 30 hours per week and had no health issues. Therefore, it is not clear when the resident’s circumstances changed and whether she made the landlord aware at the time.
  7. In any case, at the point that the resident submitted her formal complaint (April 2021), she clarified the extent of her vulnerability, including her lack of support, her disability and her financial constraints. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to refer to tenant responsibility for eradicating any pest infestation of the type she had reported, there is no evidence that the landlord acted in accordance with the discretionary powers detailed above. Had it done so, it would have inspected the property, assessed whether there was a pest issue and, if so, concluded what remedial actions were required. It would then have been in a position to decide whether it could undertake these works and either recharge the costs to the resident, or else agree to cover the costs themselves.
  8. The landlord failed to evidence consideration of this approach at either stage of its complaints process. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to take discretionary powers available to it under relevant policies and procedures seriously and to enact them wherever possible. In this instance, the landlord’s failure to act on its discretionary powers, or at least confirm that it had least considered these options, evidences an overall service failure on this case.
  9. The landlord did signpost the resident to Local Authority pest control services and to its internal support phoneline in consideration of her complaint. Whilst this was commendable, it did not reflect the full extent of the landlord’s responsibilities under its policies and procedures as detailed above. The resident had confirmed her difficulty in resolving this issue for herself and it is of concern that the landlord has not evidenced that it considered all options available to it in its response.
  10. It is also of concern that the landlord has acknowledged a record keeping failure, in its failure to retain records of the resident’s earlier report(s) of the infestation. It was appropriate that it apologised to her for this oversight, though a concern remains that such reports could be missed. The landlord referred to the ongoing difficulties it was experiencing at this time due to the pandemic. However, whilst the Ombudsman expected service delivery to be affected during this time, it remained a reasonable expectation that records would be retained of customer contact throughout this period of interrupted service delivery.
  11. In addition, it was not appropriate for the landlord to provide inaccurate advice in its stage one response about the hatching cycles of moths eggs. It acknowledged and again apologised that this information had not been helpful and that it had not been fully researched in its final response. Ensuring that residents are provided with only relevant and factual information is an important aspect of the complaints process as this provides reassurance and transparency to the resident about the landlord’s position and assists in the improvement of the landlord/tenant relationship. The landlord’s apology for the unhelpful advice was an important starting pointy for improving this relationship however.
  12. The resident referred to damaged personal possessions relating to the moth infestation. However, the landlord’s tenancy management policy outlines that it has no responsibility for damages caused to resident belongings in such a scenario. The resident may however be able to pursue an insurance claim through her insurance provider in this respect.
  13. In all the circumstances of the case, a finding of service failure has been identified here. The landlord responded appropriately when it informed the resident that she was ultimately responsible for any moth infestation at the property. However, the landlord has not evidenced that it acted in accordance with its discretionary powers under its tenancy management and pest control procedures. Had it done so, it may have been able to identify options that fully resolved the issue for the resident.
  14. To reflect this service failure, the landlord has been ordered to re-visit this issue. This will involve inspecting the property, assessing whether any resolution works are required (such as replacement carpets) and then to confirm to the resident the options for completing such works, including whether it will further exercise its discretion and cover the costs on account of her vulnerability.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a moth infestation.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord to arrange an inspection of the property so that it can assess whether any remedial works are required at the property to address the resident’s concerns about a moth infestation. If so, the landlord to confirm to the resident the options it can offer in order to complete these works, including whether it is prepared to cover the costs.
  2. The landlord to evidence compliance with the above order to this Service within 28 days of this report.