London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202103674)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103674

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

12 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of a rat infestation;
2. response to the resident’s request for garden works;
3. handling of various reported repairs to the property’s plumbing and heating systems;
4. handling of the resident’s concerns around anti-social behaviour (ASB);
5. handling of repairs to the property’s windows and doors;
6. complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured non-shorthold tenant, and the tenancy began on 15 October 2020. The property is a three bedroom end of terrace house with a garden. Images show most of the garden is paved aside from a small section of soil containing two fruit trees.
The tenancy agreement shows the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This applies to all fixtures and fittings used to supply utilities, heating and sanitation, which will be kept in working order. The resident is responsible for minor repairs and replacements. She is also responsible for keeping the garden cultivated, tidy and rubbish free.
The landlord updated its repairs policy during the timeline. Its initial document, valid until 5 April 2021 did not provide any repair timescales. Its subsequent document, effective 6 April 2021, shows it aims to complete routine repairs at the earliest mutually convenient time. The initial document shows the landlord was responsible for water pressure issues where the relevant provider confirmed a property’s supply was operational.
The landlord’s ASB policy shows it will log reports and decide how to respond based on the information received and the level of risk. High priority cases will be logged and assessed within one working day. For all other cases, the timescale is three working days. If, after considering a complaint, the landlord is unable to take action it will explain why and signpost towards relevant agencies. The landlord can carry out estate inspections with a view to preventing ASB. This is to identify and respond to any linked environmental issues.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy, which can be found online The policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it will respond within 20 working days. A further ten working days is available at both stages providing the complainant is updated.
The resident was in regular contact with the landlord’s complaint handler for a significant portion of the timeline. The information seen suggests she reported a number of issues during their discussions. Further, these reports prompted the landlord to make various internal enquiries. Though the Ombudsman has not seen details of every discussion, the resident’s reports can be inferred from subsequent correspondence between various involved parties.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair history shows a works order was raised on 29 October 2020 to install a pump. The notes said a pump was needed to address low water pressure at the property. They show the order was raised following an inspection by the landlord’s supervisor.
The history shows further orders were raised the following day. The notes said, following a visit that morning, a plumber needed to reattend because there was no pressure “at all”, and the resident was washing with bottled water. Further, the landlord was unable to authorise the installation of a pump. A separate order was also raised to address rat droppings. The landlord’s internal correspondence, from around this time, shows it considered the pump an improvement.
The resident raised a formal complaint around 2 November 2020. She said she had called the landlord again about the water pressure, but “nobody seems to care”. Further, the lack of pressure meant she either needed move out for the weekend, or leave a bucket under the “trickling” tap until there was enough water to wash. She stressed the importance of access to running water during the pandemic.
Between 2 and 5 November 2020 further orders were raised. They initially show the heating was not working due to a suspected airlock. Subsequently, two orders were raised to address a lack of running water. The notes said the landlord should supply enough water for three people, and to allow the toilets to be flushed. Finally, an order was raised to change a toilet “filler” and a check a valve in the loft tank. This was to ensure both appliances were filling correctly. The history suggests the landlord attended property around four times during this period.
The resident raised her concerns with an MP around this time. She said various engineers had been unable to address the water pressure. Further, the problem was due to the property’s tank fed heating system, which should be replaced with a combi boiler. However, the landlord refused to replace the system due to budgeting concerns. She said she had bought a significant amount of bottled water so her family could wash. From the information seen, one of the landlord’s contractor’s told the resident a combi boiler would resolve the pressure issue.
The resident also said she asked the landlord to install a gate to restrict access around the side of the property. This was on the basis a large group of youths were taking drugs next to her fence. She said one of the youths had shown her son an illegal weapon to intimidate him. The resident said her family felt vulnerable and her complaint to the landlord had not resolved the situation.
On 5 November 2020 the parties exchanged emails about the rat problem. The resident reported the landlord’s contractor was only instructed to lay poison. However, there was also a mess to be cleaned up. The landlord confirmed it raised a separate cleaning order with its contractor. The resident then said the loft insulation would need to be replaced and all rodent access points needed cleaning and blocking.
During internal correspondence on 12 November 2020, the landlord’s gas engineer said a combi boiler would not resolve the low water pressure. Instead, the issue was with the water pressure coming into the property. Further, combi boilers needed a similar amount of pressure to operate correctly. The following day, the landlord told the resident its external contractor had recommended a combi boiler. However, the property’s existing boiler was installed in 2018 and repairs needed to be attempted.
The resident updated the landlord on 16 November 2020. The main points were:
1. The landlord’s external heating contractor attended the property and changed something on the tank. However, the visit was heating focussed so the low pressure was not addressed. Further, the situation would not change until a combi boiler was installed. Following a conversation with the contractor, the resident felt a combi would reduce her energy bills because she was constantly using the immersion heater.
2. The landlord’s pest control contractor attended and laid bait. They reported the loft insulation was soiled with rat droppings and needed replacing. They also said the rats would return unless the whole terrace was treated, and entry holes were filled. Following her conversation with the contractor, the resident said she understood addressing the infestation was likely to be a long process.
3. The resident received a voicemail from one of the landlord’s representatives. It said the landlord was unable to address the reported gang activity and the resident should call the police.
During internal correspondence the following day, the landlord said the resident was receiving the “very minimum pressure to the property which varies from day to day.”
On 25 November 2020 the landlord raised separate works orders allowing its pest control contractor to treat the whole terrace. Its internal correspondence shows the works were initially raised incorrectly on a single works order.
The resident updated the landlord on 4 December 2021. The main points were:
1. Repeated contractor visits were putting her family at risk during the pandemic. Since they were also a waste of the landlord’s resources, the next attending engineer should install a combi boiler. The existing tank was expensive to run and it was responsible for the low pressure. The resident said the situation should be resolved before Christmas.
2. The resident was assured previous toilet works would improve the flush. Nevertheless, pressure in the toilets was still low and attending engineers questioned why the ordered parts were being fitted to an old system. All attending engineers had confirmed the resident would be better served by a combi boiler. She was not confident “a cheap electric shower” would improve the shower pressure.
During internal correspondence on 19 January 2021, the landlord’s building services manager said the low pressure was a plumbing issue. Further, the boiler would function correctly once the pressure was resolved. The landlord updated the resident the following day. It thanked her for agreeing a “whole property” inspection to address any issues. It also said the landlord would be in touch when it received a response on the ASB issue.
On 27 January 2021 the landlord emailed the resident a list of agreed repair works resulting from an inspection earlier that day. The main points were:
1. Given the extent of the works, the landlord would refer the resident’s request for a bathroom upgrade to senior colleagues.
2. A works order had been raised to inspect the pipe from the downstairs toilet to the main external drain.
3. A works order would be raised to address an issue with the front door, and to install a storm guard, once a suitable contractor was found.
4. A works order had been raised to remove two apple trees from the property’s rear garden.
5. The bathroom extractor fan would be repaired and moved to the other side of the room. The bath would be replaced along with the surrounding tiles. A shower rail would also be added.
6. The landlord would investigate the height of both toilets, to see if they could be replaced without referring to an Occupational Therapist. The landlord was aware this had been possible at the resident’s previous address.
7. The landlord would arrange a surveyor’s inspection given the resident’s security concerns around the property’s rear doors.
The resident updated the landlord the following day. She said a specialist contractor had advised surrounding bricks needed removing prior to the tree works. She also asked if the landlord could pave the soil area following the works. This was on the basis she did not want to plant the area, and soil was escaping into the next door garden. She also said the drainage contractor attended and there was nothing wrong with the drains. Instead, the problem was the toilet which recently overflowed due to the additional added water.
Between 1 and 3 February 2021 the landlord held internal discussions about the agreed bathroom works. Following the initial escalation, its repairs manager said most of the works were unsuitable for its repairs service, which was only offering a “critical” service during the pandemic. Further, tiling should not be replaced because it did not match, and a functional fan should not be moved. They also questioned why a new shower rail should be installed.
The manager said they would arrange the toilet to be attended as a critical repair. However, the landlord had hundreds of residents awaiting critical repairs. It therefore needed to be strict about completing repairs in line with its obligations. Subsequently, the manager said they understood there were a few repairs in the bathroom and they would investigate further. However, none of the issues were critical and a shower would not be installed in the event the bathroom was upgraded.
Later the manager said the landlord was under significant budgetary pressure. However, they could apply to a specific fund which should at least facilitate the bathroom upgrade. The application would require quotes and pictures, amongst other information, which would require access from the resident. They said the landlord should inform the resident how much information would be needed to support the application.
On 10 February 2021 the landlord’s gas manager gave internal feedback about the boiler. They said the current boiler was around three and a half years old, and provided heating and hot water in conjunction with a tank fed cylinder. Further, this system provided a greater volume of water than a combination boiler, which had a bearing on the filling speed of a bath. As a result, the landlord preferred any replacements to match the existing system. They said the landlord would need a very good reason to replace the existing boiler.
The landlord updated the resident on 18 February 2021 It said it would follow up the loft insulation with its relevant contractor. It would also arrange quotes for the bathroom upgrade, the downstairs toilet, the front door, window vents, and to address the tree and paving in the rear garden. The resident replied the following day. She said the current heating system did not work for her family. Further, the overflow pipe spilled into her garden causing a health hazard.
On 11 March 2021 the landlord updated the resident’s MP about her concerns. The main points were:
1. Water pressure at the property was not affected by the boiler. The current system was “gravity fed” and the boiler was only three years old. Since a typical boiler lasted between ten and 15 years, there were no current plans to replace it. The landlord understood all the properties in the area had the same heating system. Further, the system was checked and an airlock was identified. Following this repair the system was functioning correctly.
2. The landlord would contact the resident to discuss her concerns. It was aware she wanted a shower to be installed. However, this was not possible given the water tank was located in the bathroom. This was because the shower head needed to be lower than the tank to achieve the required pressure. The resident could seek permission to modify the property, by installing a pump or an electric shower, through the landlord’s relevant form.
3. There were no current open ASB cases relating to the terrace. The landlord had asked its relevant manger to begin investigating and they would contact the resident for information. The resident should contact the police if she felt in danger.
On 17 March 2021 the resident reported a patch on her bedroom ceiling below the loft tank. She said she was concerned it was damp and questioned whether the ceiling was strong enough to support the tank. She said this was another reason why the heating system should be replaced with a combi boiler. The wording of the email shows an image was attached. The Ombudsman was unable to view the image at the time of the assessment.
Between 18 and 30 March 2021 the landlord made internal enquiries about when the property’s windows and kitchen were due for replacement. Its relevant correspondence shows they were scheduled for the 2023 and 2024 financial years respectively, subject to budget approval. During this period, the resident reported she was unhappy with recently completed kitchen works. This was on the basis the whole kitchen should have been renewed and no choice of colours was offered.
On 7 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord an image of black mould on a wooden window frame. She said the landlord should push to resolve the issue because there was asthma in the family. Based on the information seen, the landlord was replacing windows in a neighbouring property around this time.
The landlord’s contact history from 9 April 2021 shows it spoke to the resident about the ASB. The notes show the resident’s doorbell camera captured various concerning activities. However, the resident had not contacted the police because she was concerned the youths would identify the source of the report. Further, she was worried about her family’s safety. A further entry on 14 April 2021 shows the landlord spoke to its neighbourhood team about the resident’s ASB concerns. They show gangs of youths in the area was a known problem. However, reported incidents were passed on to the police and tenants were encouraged to call 101.
The landlord updated the resident on 23 April 2021. It said a damp and mould inspection was needed to assess the windows. Further, it was unable to comment about works to other properties. Though kitchen renewal works were undertaken while the property was empty, the landlord “could argue the works were below standard and did not represent an upgrade”. It said it had received around four quotations and was awaiting clarification on the garden, front door and fencing.
Between 28 April and 20 May 2021 the landlord made internal enquiries about the resident’s requested garden works. Its internal correspondence shows the complaint handler was advised the trees were the resident’s responsibility. They responded that the paving was uneven and needed to be addressed. The landlord’s maintenance manager replied the works would involve lifting and relaying the existing paved area. Further, images of garden and visits to the property had shown the paving was “not sufficiently out to warrant this level of work”.
Following further internal correspondence, the manager said they were unable to justify spending £4.5k to remove the apple trees and relay the patio because the resident was now unhappy with it. They said the resident accepted the property as it was, and there were no health and safety issues. The complaint handler received further responses, from other colleagues, after requesting a review of the decision. The correspondence said, though the trees had been examined, the resident wanted the roots removed and the soil area paved. However, the landlord had not agreed to any garden works
It also said the resident wanted the whole garden repaving because the new slabs would not match the existing stonework. Further, obtaining quotes was not an agreement to complete the requested works. Later, the landlord said its records suggested it was willing to complete the works if it was able to obtain specific funding. However, its subsequent records suggested its attempt to gain this funding was unsuccessful. Overall, the landlord said it was unable to authorise the works if no repair was needed.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 21 May 2021. This was more than 28 weeks after the resident first raised her complaint. It addressed the resident’s concerns around water pressure and boiler issues, outstanding repairs and pest control since October 2020. The response contained a copy of the gas manager’s comments from February 2021. The main points were:
1. The resident should expect contact from the landlord’s contractor in relation to the bathroom upgrade and renewal of the downstairs toilet. The landlord agreed to replace the front and rear doors and a separate contractor had been arranged. Further, a works order had been raised to fit a new unvented cylinder.
2. In relation to the garden, the landlord obtained quotes to assess the level of works. After the works were declined, the resident’s request was escalated to its senior leadership, who confirmed the works were considered cosmetic. Further, they could not be authorised given there were no health and safety concerns.
3. The landlord’s pest control contractor completed a six week treatment plan. A works order was subsequently raised to treat all the properties on the terrace. Afterwards, a surveyor’s inspection was unable to identify any entry points in the loft. The response included a copy of the surveyor’s comments about the infestation.
4. The surveyor accepted the terrace had a history of rats entering lofts, but they said the problem was always treated symptomatically because the landlord could not confirm how the rats gained access. The landlord would inspect the loft again while reinsulating and block any holes it found. An alternative pest control contractor had been instructed to attend the property following the resident’s reports of rats between the walls.
5. In relation to the windows and kitchen, the landlord should have managed its communication and repairs more effectively. It understood the resident was currently unwilling to arrange a damp and mould inspection. However, she could tell the landlord to proceed if she wanted to complete the inspection in future. Recent repairs to the kitchen would not affect any forthcoming upgrade date.
6. In total, £550 compensation was awarded to acknowledge the resident’s distress and inconvenience, along with her time and effort, over a period of seven months. This figure comprised £175 for inconvenience, £175 for distress, £175 for time and effort and £25 for a delay in responding to the complaint.
Between 21 and 24 May 2021 the resident disagreed with the landlord’s findings. She said little progress had been made since October 2020. Further, the garden was a health and safety issue because the fruit trees were feeding the rats, which subsequently entered properties. The resident said the issues should have been rectified prior to her tenancy, and she was unhappy with the level of compensation given works were outstanding. The landlord escalated her complaint on 24 May 2021.
During internal correspondence on 2 June 2021 the landlord confirmed its funding application was rejected. As a result, it said, it only completed essential works. Further, the garden was in “immaculate condition”.
Between 10 and 14 June 2021 the resident reported the thermostat on her new tank was faulty. She asked the landlord to review its decision concerning the trees, and enquired about the fences and windows. The landlord’s records show she was advised the fences did not need repairing, and the windows were due to be upgraded during upcoming planned works.
On 17 June 2021 the local authority’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) contacted the landlord. They said the resident had complained about rats and ASB. They wanted details of the landlord’s previous actions in respect of both issues.
The following day the landlord received an update from its alternative pest control contractor. The update said the new insulation was fitted and there no were signs of any rat droppings or entry points. Further, there was no evidence of any rat activity during three previous visits to the property. However, the fruit trees “could possibly encourage rodents into (the) garden”. This wording cannot fairly be considered a firm recommendation from the contractor to remove the trees.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 23 June 2021. This was around 21 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord acknowledged its response was delayed. The response addressed the water pressure; bathroom works; pest control issues; downstairs toilet works; front and rear doors and the resident’s requests for a combi boiler; replacement windows; tree removal; paving works and boundary fencing. The main points were:
1. The landlord decided to replace the cylinder to improve the water pressure. It acknowledged a combi boiler was recommended by its contractors. However, its obligation was to repair and maintain the existing system. It later decided an unvented cylinder would resolve the issue and completed the installation.
2. The landlord recognised pest activity was upsetting for the resident. Treatment works to the properties in the terrace were ongoing. Further the landlord was working closely with Environmental Health to resolve the issue.
3. The bathroom and downstairs toilet had been assessed and a specialist contractor was appointed to complete the required works. Similarly, the landlord’s door and window contractor was assigned to replace the property’s front and rear doors.
4. The landlord acknowledged there were signs of damp and mould around the property’s windows. However, its obligation was to provide a repair and maintenance service. It was pleased the resident was offered an inspection by the landlord’s specialist damp and mould contractor, but it acknowledged the resident declined this offer.
5. Window replacement programmes were based on stock condition surveys. The property was scheduled for replacement windows in 2023-2024. However, this was a proposed, rather than guaranteed, timeframe. The landlord’s void records indicated the windows were in fair condition with no immediate repair needs. Any required repairs should be reported in the usual way.
6. The landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns around youths gathering near the property. In response, it inspected the fences and no repair needs were identified. No further action would be taken or considered. The landlord’s current maintenance policy was not to provide any fencing or gate repairs. However, repairs may be considered in exceptional circumstances on a case by case basis.
7. The landlord was aware the resident reported pest activity was linked to fruit trees in the garden. Further, she wanted the trees removed and the area paved. However, the garden met the landlord’s required standards and tree removal would only be considered in the event of a health and safety risk. The existing paving was “in good order with no repair needs”. The resident was responsible for maintaining the garden in line with the tenancy agreement. However, she could apply to remove the trees and permission would not be refused unreasonably.
8. The landlord’s previous compensation award was based on seven months of delays to repairs. Since some of the agreed repair works were still incomplete, the landlord increased its offer to reflect a further month of delays. It also increased its payment for time and effort to the maximum amount possible under its compensation policy. As a result, the landlord’s revised compensation offer was now £650 in total.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman the same day. She said she pest control had issued written confirmation the rats were eating the fruit. Further, Environmental Health were trying to have the trees removed. She also said she raised the trees with the landlord prior to signing the tenancy agreement. Overall, the situation was a health hazard and the landlord previously agreed to remove them. Her email included the landlord’s list of agreed works from 27 January 2021.
The landlord’s repair history shows the works order to fit a new cylinder were completed on 13 July 2021. It also suggests all bathroom works were completed the following day.
The landlord exchanged emails with the EHO on 23 July 2021. The main points were:
1. An alternative pest control contractor attended the property three times between 12 May and 10 June 2021. No evidence of pest activity inside the property was found during these visits. The landlord was advised to ensure there were no cracks in the drains or gaps under kitchen units, and it would be following up these preventative recommendations.
2. The resident had been told multiple times she was responsible for maintaining the garden and trees. This included sweeping up any fallen fruit and pruning any branches overhanging neighbouring gardens. The trees were young and healthy and the landlord was not in a position to remove them. Its previous works order to remove the trees was raised in error.
3. The landlord had arranged for the resident to have a new bathroom installed. This included a new fan and flooring. The downstairs toilet would also be replaced, along with the property’s front and rear doors. A new cylinder had been installed to rectify historic problems with low water pressure.
4. The resident previously reported issues with youths sitting on the property’s external wall. The landlord would check whether any further action was possible.

No information was seen to show landlord received any further correspondence from Environmental Health following the above interaction. Nor was any seen to show it was instructed to take any specific actions following the EHO’s involvement.

On 12 August 2021 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the new front door. She said she was supposed to receive a more detailed design and the door was missing a number and knocker. Further, she was told the doorway would be wider but the current “gap” was smaller. During internal correspondence on 17 August 2021, the landlord said it would never agree to widen the doorway, and it never made promises around a door’s appearance. However, the landlord should reattend to fit a number and knocker.
The landlord exchanged emails with the installer the following day. It said the front door handle was stiff and the rear door’s hinges were fitted externally. The installer agreed to attend the same day to fit the missing number, along with a knocker. However, the gap (below the front door) may result from the resident’s operation of the door, which included a specific safety feature. Further, the rear door’s external hinges were correctly installed and could not be tampered while it was closed.
The installer updated the landlord on 19 August 2021. It said the resident would not allow it to install the number and knocker, or inspect a reported gap below the front door. It said the resident wanted a front door conforming to a specific design, along with a French rear door. The update shows the installer was only authorised to replace existing items with similar designs. It also said the resident denied its engineer access to the property. The resident later provided dated images of the engineer working in the open doorway.
During internal correspondence on 31 August 2021, the landlord said it was not obliged to fit fire doors in properties with front and rear entrances. This suggests the resident raised further objections to the property’s new doors. The landlord said a standard door would offer around 30 minutes fire protection. Further, the resident seemed to be chasing “an aesthetic design issue” rather than a manufacturing flaw. Once the number and knocker were installed, the works would be complete. Doorways would not be expanded unless there was a medical need.
The landlord agreed to jointly inspect the door with the installer. However, the landlord’s representative failed to attend a scheduled inspection on 22 September 2021. Its internal correspondence shows this was due to a bereavement. The installer abandoned the inspection after reporting the resident declined to open the door.
The resident updated the landlord on 6 October 2021. She said pest control attended that day and laid bait in the loft. Though the contractor found no evidence of activity in the loft, the resident said it advised the fruit trees should be removed.
The landlord ultimately attended the doors again on 15 October 2021. Its related internal correspondence shows the resident reported her concerns related to the installer rather than the landlord. It shows the resident was advised to contact the installer and notify the landlord if she needed any further assistance.
During a phone call on 8 August 2022, the resident told the Ombudsman her primary concerns were the fruit trees and the infestation. She said she could smell dead rats in between the walls and the trees were encouraging the infestation. She said the landlord’s pest control contractor had issued written confirmation the trees should be removed. Further, she raised concerns about the trees prior to moving in, and was given the impression the matter would be addressed.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the resident experienced a number of repair issues over an extended period. Further, that multiple visits were required to rectify the problems. It is acknowledged the situation was both distressing and inconvenient for her resident and her family. Further, that she asked her MP to intervene on several occasions to progress her concerns.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It is understood the resident has recent concerns around infestation. However, the scope of this assessment limited to the landlord’s response to her formal complaint, which is reflected in the timeline above. The resident should report any recent rat activity as a new issue. Further, any concerns about the landlord’s handling of this new report should be raised as a new complaint with the landlord. This is because the evidence shows there were no signs of infestation by the end of the above timeline.

The landlord’s handling of a rat infestation

The timeline shows the resident reported rat droppings within weeks of moving into the property. Ideally, the landlord would have identified and resolved the problem before she moved in. Further, the surveyor’s comments confirm it was aware the terrace had a history of infestation. On that basis, this assessment checked the landlord’s repair history to see when the last related repair was reported. This was with a view to understanding whether the resident’s experience could have reasonably been avoided.
The history confirms the previous report of rats was from April 2016. It shows a CCTV survey of the property’s drains was undertaken to try and identify the point of access to the loft. Given the length of time between the reports, it cannot be fairly said that the landlord should have been aware of the infestation prior to the resident’s tenancy. From the information seen, rat activity was centred in the loft and inside the walls.
The evidence also suggests the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s initial report. This is because its subsequent correspondence said its contractor completed a six week treatment programme. The corresponding works order was marked complete on 21 December 2020. This suggests the contractor attended the property around ten days after the initial report. The evidence also shows the landlord promptly complied with the contractor’s recommendation to treat the whole terrace, though it was noted there was a short delay when the initial order was incorrectly raised.
However, the timeline shows the resident had to ask the landlord to raise a cleaning order. It also suggests the soiled insulation was not replaced for around seven months between 5 November 2020 and 10 June 2021. This was an unreasonable timeframe overall. Further, it was noted the property lacked insulation during most of the winter months, and the resident spent time chasing replacement insulation. On that basis, the landlord was responsible for service failure in respect of this complaint point, which should have been reflected in its offer of compensation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for garden works

In relation to the garden works, it was noted the resident’s comments were broadly consistent during the timeline. However, no information was seen to show the trees were discussed at an earlier stage. In contrast, the evidence confirms the landlord initially agreed to remove the trees and later reversed its decision. Nevertheless, the evidence shows its decision making in respect of the garden was reasonable. This is because there was no evidence to show it received any specific recommendations to remove the trees from either Environmental Health or its relevant contractors.
Since there were no overriding health or safety concerns, the landlord was entitled to refer the resident to her obligations under the tenancy agreement, which is a legal contract between the parties. Similarly, no information was seen to show a relevant qualified professional identified any health or safety concerns around the garden’s existing paving. Nevertheless, the landlord obtained quotes for the works and gave them reasonable consideration.
That said, the landlord gave the resident incorrect information when it agreed to remove the apple trees. It is reasonable to conclude the resident then spent unnecessary time chasing the works. As a result, though it did not explicitly say the information was incorrect, the landlord was right to apologise to the resident, for the time taken and inconvenience caused, in its stage one response. Given the wording, it is reasonable to conclude this error formed part of the landlord’s compensation calculation. As a result, the landlord has done enough to put things right in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s handling of various reported repairs to the property’s plumbing and heating systems

Given its comments around the “historic” nature of the pressure problem, the landlord’s repair history was again considered to assess whether the issue was avoidable. It shows pressure problems were last reported in March 2019 and August 2016. The notes from 2019 show the kitchen tap was working correctly, but there was reduced flow from the bathroom taps. Corresponding notes from 2016 show there was no cold water to the property.
Given the timespan, it cannot fairly be said the landlord was aware of a persistent problem that should have reasonably been addressed prior to the resident’s tenancy. Rather, the information suggests the problem was intermittent and varied in severity. This is consistent with the above timeline, which suggests the resident used bottled water between 29 October and 5 November 2020 because the problem was acute. However, the history suggests low pressure was not reported again until 2 December 2020 and no further reports were recorded after this date. The information points to severe low pressure for around a week.
It is also acknowledged the landlord attended the property several times during this period. Nevertheless the timeline shows it took around eight months, between 29 October 2020 and the cylinder installation on 13 July 2021, to fully resolve the pressure problem. During this time various methods were explored to resolve the issue. While it was noted a different type of cylinder was eventually installed, no information was seen to show the landlord ever disputed responsibility for the low pressure, which it described as a plumbing issue (rather than a supply problem).
Overall, the evidence shows the landlord failed to identify the root cause within a reasonable timeframe, which prevented the problem from being promptly resolved. Further, the landlord’s contractor gave the resident incorrect information about a combi boiler and a pump. It is reasonable to conclude the overall situation ultimately caused the resident distress and inconvenience, so landlord’s handling of the issue should have been reflected in its offer of compensation. However, no evidence was seen to show it accepted responsibility for any failings in relation to the problem. On that basis, there was service failure in respect of this complaint point.
In relation the property’s heating, the repair history shows faults were reported on 2 November 2020, 14 February and 11 March 2021. Further, on each occasion the landlord had attended by the following day and resolved the problem. From the information seen, the bathroom repairs were largely cosmetic. No information was seen to show the landlord failed to respond adequately to a broken appliance. While the resident’s requested works took several months to complete, the evidence suggests the works were an improvement rather than a response to disrepair issues. On that basis, there was no evidence of failure in respect of the timescale.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around ASB

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
Little evidence was seen in relation to the landlord’s ASB handling. However, the timeline suggests the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns in line with its policy, or within a reasonable timeframe. From the wording of her correspondence to the MP, on 4 November 2020, the resident had already raised ASB concerns with the landlord and asked it to install a gate. This was with a view to restricting access to the side of the property. From the information seen, it is unclear whether the resident reported her son’s frightening encounter with the youths.
Given the above, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord should have logged the resident’s concerns and responded within at least three working days. However, the timeline shows it took around 12 days, until 16 November 2020, for the landlord to tell the resident to call the police. No information was seen to suggest the landlord logged an ASB case or that it provided its rationale during the voicemail. This was an inappropriate response given the circumstances.
The landlord’s next reference to ASB during the timeline was on 19 January 2021. At this point it said it was seeking a response from its relevant team and would be in touch. However, the evidence suggests the landlord did not contact the resident again until 9 April 2021, following intervention from the resident’s MP. The interim period was around 11 weeks. This was again inappropriate given the nature of the resident’s concerns and she was unable to resolve them during this time.
Ultimately the issue was not clarified until the landlord issued its final response on 23 June 2021. Nevertheless, the landlord still did not explain why it was unable to take action against the youths in line with its policy. It is reasonable to conclude this lack of clarity could be confusing for the resident. That said, no information was seen to show any repairs were necessary to the property’s fences. Nor to show that the landlord was obliged to amend them.
Further, the evidence indicates the landlord ultimately gave reasonable consideration to the associated environmental factors. It also increased the property’s security by installing new doors. However, the above information confirms there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB concerns, which was contrary to its ASB policy and took too long to conclude. No information was seen to show the problem remains ongoing.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property’s windows and doors

The landlord accepted its repairs and communication should have been managed more effectively in respect of the “windows/kitchen”. As a result, failures of this type were reflected in its final offer of compensation. It also offered to conduct a damp and mould assessment in response to the resident’s report of mould on the window. The evidence shows this offer was ultimately declined. No information was seen to show additional repairs to the windows were deemed necessary by a suitably qualified professional. Nor was any seen to show that further window repairs were subsequently reported.
As a result, there was no evidence the landlord failed to respond appropriately to any window repair requests. Further, new front and rear doors were ultimately installed as agreed. However, the timeline shows further issues occurred after the landlord’s final response letter. This is because the landlord failed to attend a scheduled appointment and its contractor failed to fit a door number. Its internal correspondence shows the number should have been provided, so it agreed to fit a knocker as a “courtesy”.
From the information seen, it is unclear if the landlord, or its contractor, subsequently installed these items. Given the circumstances, a formal apology would be sufficient to address the above issues. The landlord is therefore encouraged to write to the resident, and offer to fit the outstanding items if necessary. However, no service failure was found given these events occurred after the final response was issued. As a result, the landlord previously offered reasonable redress in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It is accepted the landlord’s complaint handler was working with resident throughout the stage one complaint journey. It is also recognised that additional issues arose at this stage, which ultimately made the complaint more complex to manage. However, the timeline shows the landlord’s stage one handling was contrary to its complaints policy, which confirms the landlord should have issued a response within a maximum of 20 working days. Instead, there was a delay of around six months based on the period between 30 November 2020 and 21 May 2021.
During this period, the resident contacted her MP on a number of occasions. It is reasonable to conclude this was prompted, in part, by her dissatisfaction with the progress of the complaint. Further, this additional inconvenience may have been avoided if the complaint was progressed correctly. The above assessment also shows the landlord ultimately failed to correctly address a number of issues in its final response. For example, in relation to its ASB handling or the unacknowledged delay in respect of the replacement insulation.
Overall, the evidence suggests the complaint became complex to manage because it was held at stage one for too long. The landlord could have reasonably told the resident any issues raised after the initial complaint needed to the subject of a separate complaint. This would have allowed it space to investigate them in accordance with its policy timescales. Ultimately, the resident was impacted because the landlord failed to fully redress what went wrong. It also missed an opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint through its internal complaints procedure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around ASB.
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of a rat infestation.
3. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of various reported repairs to the property’s plumbing and heating systems.
4. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of:
1. Its response to the resident’s request for garden works.
2. Its handling of repairs to the property’s windows and doors.

Reasons

The landlord’s ASB handling was contrary to its policy and took too long to conclude. The landlord did not explain why it was unable to take action against the youths.
The landlord’s compensation offer did not address a seven month delay in replacing the property’s loft insulation. The property lacked this insulation for most of the winter months.
The landlord did not dispute it was responsible for the low water pressure. However, it failed to identify the root cause of the problem within a reasonable timeframe. The resident incorrect information about a combi boiler and a pump.
The landlord’s stage one complaint handling was contrary to its policy, which ultimately increased the complexity of the complaint. The landlord subsequently failed to redress a number of issues.
The landlord offered the resident proportionate redress in respect of its incorrect information about her requested garden works.
The landlord also offered proportionate redress in respect of its handling of repairs to the property’s windows and doors.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1150 in compensation comprising:
1. £150 to address and distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s ASB handling.
2. £150 to address any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect its handling of the rat infestation.
3. £100 to address any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of its handling of plumbing and heating repairs.
4. £100 to address any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in its complaint handling.
5. £650 which the landlord awarded at stage two.
6. The landlord should deduct any compensation it has already paid, in relation to this complaint, from the above total.

Recommendations

The landlord to share the report’s key findings with its relevant staff with a view to improving its service going forwards.
The landlord provide the resident a formal apology in respect of the missed joint inspection and missing door number. The landlord is encouraged to fit a number and knocker if these items remain outstanding.
The landlord’s letter could include an explanation as to why it was unable to take action against the youths.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above order and confirm its intentions regarding the recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.