Torus62 Limited (202128612)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128612

Torus62 Limited

3 October 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 concerns the level of compensation offered by the landlord following a pest infestation in the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
3. The resident called the landlord on 25 January 2022 to report an infestation of mice in the property. The landlord advised the resident to contact the local authority. Following further reports from the resident where she described the infestation worsening, the landlord arranged an inspection of the property on 1 February 2022 and bait was laid. It also raised a work order to undertake repairs to seal access points.
4. On 11 March 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. She described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. The length of time the landlord was taking to resolve the matter.
   2. The poor level of communication she had received from the landlord.
   3. The landlord was aware of a pest infestation in the area for several months but did not take any preventative measures until the resident contacted it.
5. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to be compensated for the damage to her belongings from the mice, which totalled £3,012.26.
6. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
   1. Noted that it first received a report about an infestation of mice in a property on 17 January 2022. Following the report made by the resident on 25 January 2022 it became aware that the problem had spread to more than one property and took steps to contact all residents in the area.
   2. Explained that while it was satisfied that it had acted on the reports appropriately, it accepted that the resident had received poor communication and that there was a delay in raising a work order for the repairs recommended during the 1 February 2022 inspection of the resident’s property.
   3. Apologised and offered £400 compensation, which it broke down as: £100 for poor communication, £100 for the delay in raising repairs, and £200 as a goodwill gesture.
   4. Declined the resident’s request to be compensated for the damage to her personal items. It explained that this would be an insurance matter and advised the resident to contact her home contents insurer.
7. Following further correspondence between the landlord and resident, the landlord increased its goodwill gesture by £200 to bring its total compensation offer to £600.
8. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issue of the complaint as the landlord’s decision not to compensate her for the damage the mice infestation caused to her belongings. As a resolution to the complaint the resident requested that the landlord increase it compensation offer to cover the costs of the damaged items, which now stood at £3,209.82.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

9. Section 2.3.1 of the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes “the roof, internal walls, skirting boards, floors and ceilings”.
10. Section 3.7.3 of the tenancy agreement states that the tenant is “responsible for insuring the contents of your home and for taking any security measures required by insurers”.
11. The landlord’s neighbourhoods policy describes how it handles pest control. This states that “where an infestation occurs in a tenant or leaseholder’s home as a result of a structural defect, [the landlord] will repair the defect and arrange for treatment of the infestation. In all other cases the responsibility for dealing with the infestation lies with the tenant or leaseholder”.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it prioritises repairs as “Emergency”, “By Arrangement” and “Programmed”. Repairs by arrangement are defined by the landlord as repairs that “can wait without causing major inconvenience to the customer [and] can be carried out at a scheduled appointment to suit the customer’s availability”. The landlord aims to complete this type of repair within 20 calendar days.
13. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering discretionary compensation where there has been “avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or other unfair impact of the service failure”. The policy does not provide any payment guidance but does note that “compensation calculations will be based upon what is considered fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case”.
14. The compensation policy also states that the landlord will not consider compensation payments in circumstances where any damage is covered under contents insurance “unless the damage has been caused as a direct result of the actions or omissions of [the landlord] or a contractor working on its behalf”.

Scope of investigation

15. In her request to escalate the complaint on 4 March 2022, the resident stated that the landlord had not properly inspected the property when it was vacant. She noted that if the inspections had been undertaken properly, the entry points would have been identified and repaired prior to her moving into the property in April 2018 and the pest infestation would not have occurred.
16. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
17. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment will not consider any specific events prior to July 2021.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord following a pest infestation in the resident’s property.

18. Once it was informed by the resident of the pest infestation, the landlord was obligated to respond to the issue in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately to the resident’s reports. It arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property. Bait was laid and based on the surveyor’s report, the landlord correctly determined that as the entry points highlighted by the surveyor would be considered a defect, it was its responsibility to resolve the issue and that repairs were required to be raised to seal the entry points into the property.
19. However, the landlord recognised that there was service failure in how it handled the issue following the 1 February 2022 inspection. It accepted that the information it provided was inadequate which caused inconvenience to the resident, as she had to call and write emails to the landlord on several occasions in order to receive updates and chase the status of the repairs. The landlord also accepted that there was a delay in raising work orders which resulted in the work to seal the holes surrounding radiators, door architraves and skirting boards being completed eight calendar days outside of its published timescale detailed above. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
20. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It looked to put things right by improving its communication to the resident (it wrote to all residents in affected properties to inform them of the status of the infestation and what action it would be taking), ensuring the recommended repairs were completed, and offering £600 compensation. It looked to learn from its mistakes by improving its repair service. The landlord’s internal emails show that following the complaint being raised, it requested and received regular updates from its surveyor on the status of the bait traps that had been laid and the progress of the repairs. It also worked with its contractor and the resident to arrange appointment dates to complete the repairs.
21. It was appropriate, and in line with the guidance set out in its compensation policy detailed above, for the landlord to compensate the resident for its admitted service failures and the inconvenience that this had caused. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (with is available on our website) recommends a payment of £50 to £250 in instances of service failure resulting in some impact on a complainant (the impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved). As examples of when this level of redress should be considered, the guidance suggests:
    1. Repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls.
    2. Failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact.
22. The £100 awarded by the landlord for its poor communication and the £100 awarded for completing repairs eight-days outside of its published timescale were made in line with this guidance, while the £400 goodwill gesture awarded in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident was above the recommended payment guidance. Therefore, the total compensation award of £600 represents reasonable redress from the landlord and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves these elements of the complaint.
23. The resident has requested further compensation from the landlord to cover the costs of damage to her personal items caused by the infestation. The resident described damage to carpeting, furniture and kitchen utensils totalling £3,209.82.
24. The landlord has provided repair and call logs for the time period considered in this complaint. These logs do not show any reports of issues relating to pests prior to the 17 January 2022 call, first reporting mice in the area, and the 25 January 2022 call where the resident first informed the landlord of mice in her property.
25. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was at fault for the pest infestation, or that it could have taken any action to stop the issue sooner and prevent damage to the resident’s possessions. The landlord arranged for its surveyor to inspect the property when the matter was reported by the resident. The surveyor identified that the issue was the responsibility of the landlord, arranged to have bait traps laid and recommended repairs. While it has been acknowledged that there was a delay in raising work orders, traps were laid by the pest control contractor during the inspection and were then regularly checked and replenished as needed. An inspection on 24 February 2022 found no evidence of any mice activity in five of the affected properties (including the resident’s property) and evidence of light mice activity in three of the affected properties. An inspection on 8 March 2022 found no evidence of any mice activity in any of the properties.
26. For the landlord to accept liability for the damage to the resident’s personal items and offer compensation within its complaint process there would need to be evidence which showed that the landlord had not responded to the issue within a timely manner or in line with its published polices, or that it had ignored previous reports made to it about pests The evidence presented in this case does not support this position.
27. Although the upset caused to the resident by the damage to her possessions is wholly understandable, it was appropriate for the landlord to decline the resident’s request for it to pay compensation to reimburse her for the costs of the damaged belongings within its complaints process and state that it was an insurance matter. Any further claims for reimbursement would therefore be a matter for the landlord’s liability insurer and the resident’s home contents insurer to resolve. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the landlord’s insurer and therefore we cannot comment further or the insurance process or the outcome of any insurance claim.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of compensation to the resident following a pest infestation in her property, amounts to sufficient redress which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Recommendation

29. The landlord is recommended to pay the £600 compensation offered, if it has not done so already.