Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202121470)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121470

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

15 December 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 rodent infestation;
2. complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and he holds a joint tenancy with his mum. The tenancy began on 21 December 2020. The property is a two-bedroom semi-detached house with a garden. The resident and his mum have a number of vulnerabilities. They include a learning disability, autism, and Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), along with depression and anxiety.
The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure and exterior of the property. This includes foundations, steps and other means of access. The resident must report any repairs the landlord is responsible for, and he must tell an Environmental Management Service immediately if the property becomes infested. He is obliged to keep the property free from rats and mice.
The landlord provided an interim repairs policy effective from June 2020. The policy’s extended repair timescales confirm it relates to the pandemic. The Ombudsman was unable to find a more relevant document online. The below assessment was based on the Ombudsman’s consideration that one month was a reasonable timescale to complete non-urgent repairs.
The landlord operates a two-stage formal complaints procedure. Its complaints policy, effective March 2020, shows it aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond within 15 working days. Complaints will be acknowledged within two working days at both stages. First time service requests and complaints about neighbours are not treated as complaints in the first instance.

Summary of events

From the landlord’s later correspondence, the resident first reported rodents at the property on 26 May 2021. Though the Ombudsman has not seen the resident’s initial report, the resident has not disputed this timeline.
On 3 June 2021 the landlord’s pest control contractor attended the property. The timeline shows this was around five working days after the resident’s initial report. The contractor’s inspection report said the resident reported rodents scratching under floor boards near the stairs. Further, though there was no indication of pest activity in this area during the visit, bait was deployed in the property’s loft. It also said mice were sighted “from the overgrowth to the garden that backs on”. The contractor recommended this overgrowth was removed.
On 25 June 2021 the contractor attended the property again. Its report said the bait laid during its previous visit had all been taken, so it was replaced accordingly. It also said no foul smell was identified but a drain issue was possible. The inspection report shows the contractor made no recommendations based on this visit. This indicates the overgrowth had been removed during the period between the two inspections.
Another contractor visit took place on 19 July 2021. The inspection report said the property’s internal areas were clear of rodent activity at the time of the visit. Further, there were no reports of sightings from the resident. It shows the contractor made no recommendations based on the visit.
During internal correspondence on 8 November 2021, the landlord asked its administration team to raise an order with the pest control contractor. It said the property needed to be re-treated for rodents. The timeline shows this was around 16 weeks after the contractor’s previous inspection. No information was seen to show the resident reported pest activity during the interim period.
The information seen suggests the above correspondence was prompted by a formal complaint from the resident. The Ombudsman has seen an undated copy of the complaint, which was included in the landlord’s internal correspondence on 9 November 2021. The complaint concerned several outstanding repairs. The resident also said he had heard mice moving in the loft. His main points were:
1. Recent rodent activity confirmed there were entry points to the property. Since rodents should not be able to access the property, the landlord should investigate and seal any entry points.
2. Rodents in the loft and under flooring may be entering the property from next-door. This was on the basis the next-door neighbour did not keep their home in good condition. Further, they were “not bothered about reporting repairs”. The resident had heard the neighbour’s dog reacting to noise caused by rodent activity.
3. Similar noises were keeping the resident awake at night. He could hear rodents scratching and eating bait. The resident had severe anxiety and the sounds prompted panic-attacks. The landlord should contact its pest control contractor and resolve the situation.
On 16 November 2021 the contractor attended the property with the landlord. Its inspection report shows a foul smell was present and odorising sachets were deployed. Further, a rat was trapped by recent works to rear paving stones. During these works, a rat burrow had been identified and sealed. The report recommended the neighbour’s flag stones were also relayed to seal any rat runs.
The contractor returned on 26 November 2021. Its inspection report said the contractor inspected the following locations with a joiner: kitchen area, external area, loft, behind bath panel and bathroom box section. It said no dead rodents were found and no further entry points were noted. It shows there were no recommendations based on the visit.
In response to our information request in November 2022, the landlord told the Ombudsman it inspected the neighbour’s home on 3 December 2021. Further, though the home was found to be tidy, it raised a repair order to address “disrupted” flagstones and a crack in the neighbour’s wall. The timeline suggests this visit took place around 13 working days after the contractor recommended works to the neighbour’s flags.
On 5 December 2021 the resident raised another complaint. It concerned the neighbour and outstanding repairs to be completed urgently. The resident said he was aware the neighbour’s property was recently inspected. Though he was unsure what conclusions were drawn from this inspection, the resident said, he heard the neighbour blaming him for the issues in their home. The resident’s main points were:
1. The property was infested again but the entry points must be through the neighbour’s home. The resident had heard significant rodent activity in the neighbour’s loft, and there were “severe holes” outside their back door.
2. The resident was aware of a rodent problem in the area. Nevertheless, the landlord had not done anything to resolve the neighbour’s “mess”. Rodents should not be able to enter through holes the landlord failed to repair.
3. The resident had contacted the contractor again and would ensure it attended. However, the contractor’s operative was “useless” because they only ever laid bait or fragrances. The neighbour’s paving stones should be lifted and repointed. Similarly, any holes in their home’s brickwork should be sealed immediately.
The parties exchanged several emails over the next few days. The exchange was prompted by the resident’s email on 6 November 2021. He said, though a complaint was already logged, the landlord should urgently repair the neighbour’s flag stones. Further, it should allow the contractor to enter the neighbour’s loft. The landlord replied the following day. It offered to raise an anti-social behaviour (ASB) case to address the dispute between the neighbours. It also confirmed the resident’s infestation concerns had been logged as a formal complaint. The exchange’s key events were:
1. The resident reported having a heated discussion with the contractor’s operative. He said the operative was not proactive because they had only laid bait in the loft. Further, the operative said they had reported the external repairs, but the resident had been chasing the landlord for months. The resident said the operative should not attend the property again.
2. The resident asked the landlord to allocate him a Housing Officer to resolve issues with the property and the neighbour. The landlord replied the same day. It offered the resident a home visit and asked for his availability the following week.
3. The landlord updated the resident about its progress in addressing his repair concerns. The resident asked for compensation as part of the landlord’s resolution. His email suggests he was previously compensated after raising similar concerns.
The Ombudsman has seen a screen shot that shows repairs to the neighbour’s flagstones were completed on 9 December 2021. This was around 17 working days after the contractor’s recommendation. The repair notes seen show the landlord also checked the neighbour’s brickwork for holes. The notes said the pest control contractor was also treating the neighbour’s home.
The contractor updated the landlord the same day. It said an entry point under flags to the rear of the property was previously identified and sealed. Further, the loft was clear on its last visit to the property and there were no additional reports from the resident. It said the resident wanted identical works completing to the neighbour’s home and their flags were a likely entry point. However, the resident expected the contractor to visit the neighbour the same day without the landlord’s authorisation. Further, he became annoyed when he was advised this was not possible.
The Ombudsman has seen several undated text messages between the resident and the contractor. They were included in the landlord’s internal correspondence on 9 December 2021. In one message, the resident told the contractor not to bother attending the property as scheduled. This was on the basis the resident would not permit the contractor to bait the loft unless it also baited the neighbour’s loft. During another message, the resident was abusive towards the contractor.
On 10 December 2021 the landlord issued a stage one complaint response. This was around four working days after the resident’s second complaint. The response said the landlord had inspected the property on a number of occasions in accordance with its relevant procedures. Further, since the landlord was unable to find any evidence of service failure, the resident’s complaint was not upheld. The main points were:
1. The landlord sealed an access point under flag stones to the rear of the property. No further rodent activity or entry points were identified during subsequent inspections.
2. The landlord and its pest control contractor were working with the neighbour to seal any entry points into the property next door.
The resident escalated his complaint on 12 December 2021. He said he was unhappy with the pest control operative’s conduct during each previous visit. This was on the basis their competence was questionable and they had given contradictory information about the location of a dead rat within a cavity wall. Further, fragrance sachets the operative used did not mask the “revolting” smell of the dead rat, which lasted around one month. The resident’s main points were:
1. The operative’s actions were not sufficient to resolve the infestation. While the landlord quickly arranged its contractor to attend the property, the contractor had not attended the neighbour’s home despite the resident’s repeated requests.
2. The neighbour’s home was in a “disgusting state” and necessary repairs had not been completed. This was unfair because its condition was affecting the property. Since the neighbour failed to take responsibility, the landlord should complete the necessary repairs for him.
3. The neighbour’s flag stones had now been relayed. However, the works must have trapped a number of rodents, which subsequently entered the property from next door. This was on the basis bait previously left in the property’s loft had now been eaten.
4. No bait was left in the neighbour’s loft even though laying bait was a simple task. The resident was still experiencing infestation because the landlord failed to send the contractor to the neighbour’s home. This was particularly unfair because the contractor was aware of rodents next-door from June 2021. The landlord should pay the resident £30 in compensation to recognise its failure.
On 16 December 2021 the resident updated the landlord by email. He said he could hear rodent activity next-door and pest control works to the neighbour’s home were needed.
On 17 December 2021 the landlord issued its final response to the complaint. This was around four working days after the resident’s escalation request. The resident’s complaint was not upheld. The landlord said it was sorry the resident was unhappy with the contractor. The main points were:
1. The contractor was reputable and it had the landlord’s confidence. Further, the landlord’s records showed the contractor had responded to its requests accordingly.
2. The landlord was unable to provide specific details about the neighbour for data protection reasons. However, the resident should be assured the landlord was working with them to treat the infestation and seal any entry points.
The resident disagreed the same day. He said, though flag stone works were complete, there were still entry points in the neighbour’s home. Further, the landlord had not completed works to the neighbour’s home in years. The infestation issues were therefore associated with the neighbour’s home. However, the landlord had neglected both properties over a number of years. While he was no longer concerned about repairs to the property, it was unacceptable to live in an infested home.
On 17 December 2021 the resident completed the Ombudsman’s complaint form. He said the landlord had sealed all the exterior entry points into the property. However, the infestation was ongoing and the landlord failed to take it, or its health and safety implications, sufficiently seriously. Further, the situation was making him and anxious and depressed. His main points were:
1. Though the neighbour’s flag stones were sealed, no bait was laid in their loft and their home had not been adequately inspected. The landlord should therefore check all the walls and ceilings and lift the neighbour’s carpets if necessary.
2. The resident said the landlord should award him £100 compensation for putting up with the infestation since June 2021. Further, during this time, the contractor failed to mask the smell of dead rodents.
3. The local authority’s Environmental Health Team had refused to help the resident with the infestation.
The contractor visited the neighbour’s home the same day. Its inspection report shows bait was laid but no rodent activity was found. Further, no recommendations arose from the visit. However, the neighbour raised concerns the resident was attracting rodents by throwing breadcrumbs into the property’s garden to feed the birds.
The contractor’s records from 22 December 2021 show it called the resident to arrange another inspection. Its corresponding report said the resident refused to allow the inspection to take place.
The contractor made further visits to the neighbour’s home on 12 and 31 January 2022. No pest activity was found during either visit and no recommendations were made. The contractor’s reports did not say that any bait was replaced.
The landlord’s repair records show the resident made no further reports of rodent activity until around March 2022. Further, the pest control contractor attended at this time. Though little information was seen about this report, the timeline suggests it relates to a subsequent infestation. This is because the records show there were no reports from the neighbour during the interim period. No information was seen to show the resident made any further reports after March 2022.
During an email to the Ombudsman on 25 November 2022, the resident told this Service the infestation was ultimately resolved because the landlord sealed the entry points into both properties. Further, his previous repair issues were resolved through the landlord’s complaints process after it awarded him compensation.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation was both distressing and unpleasant for the resident and his mum. Given the impact of the infestation, along with its health and safety implications, their frustration was understandable. The timeline shows the resident’s concerns about rodents entering the property from next-door were warranted. This is because it suggests completing these works ultimately prevented more rodents from accessing the property. No information was seen to show additional entry points were subsequently identified in either home.
Though the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, no information was seen to show the infestation was prolonged due to any failures on the part of the landlord or its contractor. For example, no information was seen to show the contractor was aware of rodent activity next-door in June 2021. Nor was any information seen to show the landlord failed to respond promptly to any of its contractor’s recommendations. As mentioned, one month was considered a reasonable response timescale given the circumstances.
Similarly, no information was seen to show the landlord was obliged to respond to repairs on a proactive basis. As a result, the condition of the flagstones does not evidence a failure on the landlord’s part. It was noted the timeline indicates the contractor was already treating the neighbour’s property before the resident began raising concerns about the lack of bait in their loft. This is based on the information in the landlord’s screenshot, which is dated 9 December 2021.
No information was seen to confirm the nature of the treatment referenced in the corresponding repairs notes. However, based on previous cases the Ombudsman has seen, treating an infestation typically involves placing bait and waiting for the relevant pest to take it. It is reasonable to that conclude rodents are wary of human interaction. Further, that this makes it difficult to adopt a more proactive approach towards infestation.
Overall, the timeline shows the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s infestation concerns. For example, the evidence confirms its contractor made multiple visits to both properties. This represents additional monitoring of a potential health hazard by the landlord. Further, the landlord was willing to adopt a holistic approach to the infestation, by treating both of its semi-detached properties, when the infestation returned in November 2021. This was an appropriate approach given the circumstances.
Given the above, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the infestation. This is because no information was seen to show the infestation was unnecessarily prolonged due to failures by the landlord or its contractor. Instead, the evidence shows the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports. It ultimately completed treatment works to both of its semi-detached properties, which appears to have resolved the infestation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline shows the landlord issued complaint responses within its relevant timescales at both stages of its complaints process. No evidence was seen to show it responded formally to the resident’s November 2021 complaint. However, at this point, the resident’s concerns were largely focussed on repairs. From the wording of his relevant correspondence, no information was seen to show the landlord should have reasonably raised a formal complaint about the infestation at this stage.
The landlord’s approach was therefore consistent with its relevant complaints policy, which shows the landlord will not treat first–time service requests as complaints in the first instance. No information was seen to show this approach was unfair to the resident. Little information was seen in relation to the landlord’s complaint acknowledgements. However, no information was seen to show the resident was prompted to chase the landlord unnecessarily due to any lack of communication on its part.
Given the above, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because the Ombudsman was unable to find any evidence that the landlord’s complaint handling resulted in any unfairness to the resident or that it caused him any detriment.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. handling of a rodent infestation
2. complaint handling.

Reasons

No information was seen to show the infestation was unnecessarily prolonged due to failures by the landlord or its contractor. Instead, the evidence shows the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports. It ultimately completed treatment works to both of its semi-detached properties, which appears to have resolved the infestation.
No information was seen to show the landlord’s complaint handling resulted in any unfairness or detriment to the resident.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider reverting to its pre-Covid repair timescales, or similar, given the worst effects of the pandemic are now over. This is to ensure its repairs policy reflects reasonable response timescales.
The landlord to continue considering the wider environment during infestation cases. This is because infestation often has health and safety implications for neighbours/an area.
The landlord to consider that there may be occasions when it is more appropriate to raise a formal complaint, rather than a service request, immediately. This is because the Ombudsman has seen (other) cases where an informal complaint handling stage has resulted in unfairness to residents. The landlord should be guided by the nature of the concerns raised.
The landlord should confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendations within four weeks of this report.