Newlon Housing Trust (202123300)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123300

Newlon Housing Trust

19 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of pests in her home.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a house, and has vulnerabilities which are known to the landlord.
3. On 12 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and reported “a rat in her bathroom” and requested for pest control to attend. The landlord told the her that it did not “carry out pest control to houses” and that there were other adults living at her property who were able to assist her.
4. The landlord raised the issue as a formal complaint after enquiries made by this Service on the resident’s behalf. The resident alleged the landlord had discriminated against her, and had denied that pest infestations had occurred at her home since 2002. She described how the situation impacted her health. To resolve the issue, she wanted the landlord to undertake pest control, and compensate her.
5. The landlord issued its stage one response on 8 February 2022, and apologised for the resident’s experience. It explained that in certain cases, it may undertake the eradication of pests for vulnerable residents if they are unable to do so themselves, but that it had determined there were other adults within the resident’s home and would expect them to help her. Nonetheless, because it had undertaken pest control treatments in the past, and in light of the impact the situation was having on the resident, it arranged for pest control services to attend her home and investigate if any proofing works were required to prevent rodents from entering.
6. Pest control services inspected the resident’s home on 11 February 2022. The contractor reported that it did not see any sign of rodents, and made no recommendations, but as a precaution they “baited” under the kitchen sink and in the loft. It reported seeing some small holes near the boiler, and theorised about the possibility of others in inaccessible parts of the property.
7. The resident escalated her complaint following this as she felt that the landlord had not fully addressed her concerns, especially in relation to the impact on her health from “living in complete terror of these rodents”. She sought compensation, and a commitment from the landlord that it would provide any future pest control visits as needed. The landlord issued its stage two response on 15 March 2022. It reiterated that it did not refuse to undertake pest control for the resident, with the expectation that she would undertake this herself. It provided information for where she could find it’s polices relating to tenants with disabilities. It apologised for a misunderstanding about the date when she first reported historical issues with rodents, as it said it did not hold records for repairs and cases as far back as 2002. It explained that no amount of pest control could guarantee that there would be no future pest sightings, and so suggested that the resident consider alternative housing if she felt the property was unsuitable. It subsequently wrote to her saying it could assist her with finding alternative housing on medical grounds.
8. A follow up inspection by the pest control service on 28 March 2022 noted that the baits were untouched and there was no sign of rodent activity. Nor had the resident and her family seen any.
9. The resident referred her complaint to this Service, as she believed the landlord had discriminated against her and felt that it was trying to get her to move home. She said the combined issues impacted her health, and as a resolution wanted the landlord to provide her with a written agreement to be responsible for rodent infestations at her home. 

Assessment and findings

10. The landlord has a pest policy (which considers pests to include mice and rats), which states that residents are responsible for treating pest infestations if they live in a house. There are circumstances, such as “where the resident (of a tenanted house) is vulnerable, such as being elderly or having a disability, [it] may carry out prevention and eradication measures.” It states that this exception may not apply where adult household members also live at the property.
11. The resident has explained in her complaint to the landlord and to this Service how her experience with the rodent has impacted her health. Unfortunately, this Service cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Also, allegations of disability discrimination and personal injury are serious legal complaints which must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law. The courts can consider medical evidence, allegations of discrimination, and make legally binding findings. Because of that, the courts are the more effective and appropriate way in which to achieve a remedy in the face of the serious allegations in this aspect of the resident’s complaint. In line with paragraph 23(i) they will not be considered in this investigation.
12. In the resident’s complaint and correspondence, she has referred to historical issues of pest infestation in the property since 2002. Whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s response to the resident’s most recent report of a pest issue in January 2022, as the Ombudsman is generally limited to only investigating matters in the year or months leading up to the formal complaint to the landlord.
13. Unless a tenancy agreement or landlord policy states otherwise, a landlord would usually not be responsible for a pest problem in one of its tenant’s homes, unless the pests were occurring due to repair or structural problems in the property, such as holes in the walls. The landlord’s pest policy aligns with this general convention, while also allowing for certain conditional exceptions. The landlord’s records give no indication that when the resident reported seeing a rat in her home it was aware of any repair issues which it might need to address. Also, while the resident was known to have vulnerabilities, the landlord understood there to be other adults in the property who could assist. Accordingly, its initial advice to the resident that the pest issue was one she was responsible for was in line with its policy, and reasonable.              
14. Once the resident’s actual situation became clearer at the time of her complaint, the landlord used its discretion to arrange for pest control services to attend her home. It then subsequently consulted with its surveyor to determine if any proofing measures could be undertaken to prevent rodents from entering. It advised the resident in its stage two response that once the report was reviewed by its surveyor it would update her about any actions it would take. This was an appropriate course of action as it met the landlord’s obligations to address a pest problem if repair issues were a contributing factor, and demonstrated that the landlord took the resident’s complaint seriously and was focused on helping resolve it.
15. In her complaint to this Service the resident explained that she was distressed by the landlord’s suggestion (in its final complaint response) that she consider moving homes because of the pest problems she had experienced. She said she believed the landlord was trying to get her to move. However, nothing in the evidence indicates that this was anything more than an option it suggested to her. In the circumstances of the manner in which the resident said she had been affected by the pests, and the history of previous pest reports, it was a reasonable and relevant suggestion to make.
16. In its final complaint response, the landlord explained it would act on any actions resulting from the pest control service’s inspections. However, the two reports provided in the evidence for this investigation do not show the pest services making any specific recommendations, or, in fact, finding any evidence of a rodent problem. The second report states the resident was present, so she will have likely already been aware of that outcome.
17. One of the outcomes sought by the resident was a commitment from the landlord to attend any future pest problems. As set out above, apart from certain circumstances, a landlord has no obligation to address pest problems in a rented home. That responsibility lies with the tenant. The exceptions being primarily if repair or structural issues are present which are contributing to the problem. If such repair issues are present it is the tenant’s responsibility, in line with their tenancy agreement, to report them to the landlord and allow it to take the necessary action.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Recommendations

19. This report sets out that the landlord’s pest policy allows it the discretion to assist with pest control in certain circumstances. Following the resident’s complaint and experiences, the landlord will undoubtedly consider any future pest reports she makes in the light of the full information it now holds about her circumstances.