Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202114138)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114138

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

20 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding:

a. the pest infestation and reimbursement of the pest control costs incurred,

b. the request for another refuse bin in the communal bin store,

c. the repairs required to the wooden balcony rails,

d. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a lease with the landlord and the property is described as a one-bedroom flat on the fourth floor which has a shared entrance.
The lease obliges the landlord to maintain the structure of the building.
The landlord’s estate inspection policy sets out the landlord’s approach to inspecting its estates and covers the services paid through the service charge. It notes the importance of estate inspections in the improvement of its service delivery.
The landlord’s pest control guidance sets out the steps to be taken when it receives a report of pest infestation. It states that reports should be sent to its contractor and outlines its responsibilities in achieving a resolution.
The landlord’s repair policy available online advises that it will treat the communal areas for pests and it will treat the surrounding flats if it needs to.
The landlord’s complaint procedure had two stages with complaints resolved within 28 days at both stages.
The landlord’s compensation procedure sets out how it will assess compensation and provides guidance to its staff in its tariff of discretionary compensation payments. The tariff of discretionary compensation has three categories: low failure, medium failure and high failure. It also states that awards of between £10-£150 can be awarded for poor complaint handling and that reimbursement of the cost incurred can be reimbursed in full up to the value of £300.

Summary of events

The landlord’s show that the resident emailed the landlord on 23 June 2020 regarding rubbish that she believed was attracting pests to the property. The resident requested that the landlord contact her to discuss what action could be taken as she was paying for pest control to attend her address to resolve the pest infestation.
The resident complained on 23 July 2020 that she had a mice infestation in her property, resulting from a lack of cleanliness in the block and from other residents who were leaving rubbish in the communal areas. She complained that the landlord was not taking its health and safety responsibilities seriously in the midst of a pandemic. She requested that the landlord take action to ensure that all residents abide by the terms of their agreement. Furthermore, she disputed the amount of her service charges as the landlord had failed to act regarding her concerns for the past three years.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 July 2020 advising that it would respond by 7 August 2020.
In response, the resident emailed the landlord on 26 July 2020 advising that it was unreasonable to expect her to wait until 7 August 2020 before she received its complaint response. She advised that the whole block had a mouse infestation and that the litter left by the residents was contributing to the problem. The resident provided pictures of the bin chamber overflowing with rubbish and of rubbish left outside a resident’s door.
The resident communicated with the landlord on the following dates: 28 July 2020, 29 July 2020, 30 July 2020 and 31 July 2020. The resident advised the landlord that:
1. She has reported the mice infestation over the past couple of weeks and the landlord had failed to act.
2. There was a dead mouse on the landing of the fourth floor and she would take legal action if it did not remove the dead mouse.
3. The communal bins were overflowing with rubbish and there were rats in the communal area.
4. She had informed the Council of the mouse infestation.
5. She had paid £185 to a private pest control contractor who had found mice in the property.
6. The mice infestation would continue as other residents were not keeping their properties clean.
7. She requested that the landlord provide her with information on its reimbursement process for costs paid to the private pest controller.
8. The resident advised the landlord that it needed to address the upkeep of the communal areas.
The landlord provided an update to the resident regarding the complaint on 3 August 2020. It advised that it did not have sufficient information to complete its complaint response.
On 4 August 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to establish if the mice infestation in the communal area had been resolved as it had raised an emergency works order on 28 July 2020 to remove the dead mouse.
The resident responded the following day, 5 August 2020, to advise that pest control had not attended and provided pictures.
The landlord informed the resident on 6 August 2020, that it had requested for the pest control team to reattend to check the communal areas of the block. However, it would not check leasehold properties.
The resident and the landlord communicated on 11 August 2020, 28 August 2020 and 30 August 2020. The resident advised that:
1. The pest infestation was continuing as the landlord was only treating properties that had complained about having pests in their property.
2. The landlord needed to adopt an eradication strategy and then seal the entry points to prevent re-entry.
3. Rats had been seen in the communal rubbish area and outside the main entrance to the building.
4. The previous day, she had reported for the second time that there was a dead mouse in the communal areas.
5. The pest control team had attended and removed the dead rodent. However, the problem with residents not providing access to the pest control operatives and overflowing bins in the communal area persisted.
The landlord’s records on 14 September 2020, record that pest control had attended to all properties in the block for the second time on 13 September 2020. The pest control team had removed rubbish and had requested for proofing works to be carried out to the resident’s property. It was noted that the removal of the kitchen units would be undertaken by the repairs team.
On 23 September 2020, the pest control team reported that it had carried out a visit to the resident’s property on 18 September 2020. It advised that the resident had reported hearing noises in the walls from the mice, however, it had not seen any mice. Its inspection consisted of the removal of the kick boards. The rodenticide had been untouched, there was no fresh mice droppings or carcasses found at the time of the visit.
The resident reported to the landlord on 21 October 2020 that she had seen a mouse the previous night in her bedroom. On the same day, the resident contacted the Private Sector Housing Team (PSHT), to advise that she had been reporting the infestation to the landlord since July 2020. In addition, she had a smell coming from her kitchen which she believed to be a dead mouse and the landlord had informed her that it could take up to two weeks for action to be taken.
On 22 October 2020, the PSHT took the following actions:
1. It contacted the landlord regarding the mice infestation, and that pest control had advised that a meeting was taking place on 23 October 2020 to discuss the building.
2. It contacted the resident to advise that it had contacted the pest controller and signposted the resident to her landlord regarding the mouse infestation.
The resident informed the PSHT that she was happy that action was being taken and looked forward to an update following the meeting on 23 October 2020. Furthermore, she was aware that it was the landlord’s responsibility to take action but she was keeping councillors informed as the infestation was a matter of public health.
On 23 October 2020, the landlord noted that:
1. That the meeting was held with the pest controller and the residents of the block. The notes do not indicate whether the resident attended the meeting.
2. The landlord emailed the resident to advise that it was waiting to receive a report from the pest control team.
The pest control team sent the landlord their report on 23 October 2020. The report noted that it had undertaken significant work to address the mouse and rat activity. It recommended the following
1. It would conduct monthly visits to all flats over the next 12 months, with two visits occurring in the first month.
2. If it received a report of mouse activity, it would attend to the property within five working days.
3. All flats will have ceiling “bait safes” installed which will be baited and monitored.
4. As part of the monthly visits, it would monitor and bait the loft spaces and riser cupboard.
5. The properties that required kitchen units to be removed, it would assess on a case-by-case basis.
6. It had conducted a drain survey, which had identified several works required to prevent rat access such as: works to surface access water gullies, seal open pipes, repair fractured pipes and renew broken sections of pipes.
On 29 October 2020, the pest control reported to the landlord regarding a visit undertaken to the resident’s property on 26 October 2020. It advised that the resident had reported a dead mouse in the kitchen, that she had obtained her own pest control company and that it was not convenient for it to enter the property. It was noted that no further action was required to the resident’s property.
The pest control team informed the landlord on 30 November 2020, that once the baiting programme was complete, if there was still evidence of pest activity, it would recommend proofing works. It confirmed that it had not found evidence of activity in the resident’s property and it had a visit scheduled for 5 December 2020.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 30 November 2020. It apologised for its delayed response and the inconvenience experienced by the resident. The key findings were that:
1. The cleaning contractor had carried out regular checks, removed the rubbish from the block.
2. The pest control team were completing a 10-month baiting programme to eradicate pests from the block
3. If it found evidence of mice activity, it would carry out proofing works to the property.
4. It had not identified any service failure and it had acted in a timely manner to her reports of infestation
5. It would use her complaint to assist with the improvement of its services and to help understand the root causes of any failures.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 December 2020, advising that she had been contacting the landlord for the past three years and she had not received an adequate response or acknowledgement of the issues regarding the maintenance of the building and the mice infestation. She advised that residents in the building did not maintain their properties to a reasonable standard of cleanliness, there was regularly overflowing rubbish in the communal bins and rats visible. Furthermore, mice had been seen in the communal areas, the balcony railings were rotten and the drains were not adequately protected.
The resident sent a further email on 7 January 2021 to the landlord advising that she had sent an email on the 8 December 2020 and it had failed to respond and provide a reimbursement of the pest control costs.
On 25 January 2021, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord to request that it contact the resident regarding her concerns about the maintenance of the estate and the mouse infestation.
The landlord’s record shows that on 3 March 2021, it carried out an inspection of the block and that on the sixth floor, it identified issues with the gratings to the gullies.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 9 March 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. The key findings were:
1. It agreed that the pest control issues has been ongoing since 2017.
2. It acknowledged that the resident had paid £384 to resolve the mice infestation and it agreed to refund the cost of the pest control.
3. It advised that it had started a 10-month baiting programme for the block since July 2020.
4. It acknowledged that the resident had requested another communal bin. It confirmed that the building should have three communal bins and at the present time the building only has two operational communal bins.
5. It advised that the defective communal bin was due to be replaced within 28 days and apologised for the frustration experienced by the resident.
6. It has raised works orders for the repairs to the gully gratings, the panes to the balconies outside the flats and to redecorate the handrails to the balconies on the front landings to each floor. The work would take place within 28 days.
7. It had upheld the complaint and had made an award of compensation of £404, broken down as: £10 for its complaint handling delays, £20 for the resident’s time and trouble in making the complaint and £384 for the reimbursement of the costs of the pest control.
On 6 April 2021, the resident responded advising:
1. that mice were still accessing the building even though the baiting programme was in place.
2. In its previous correspondence, it had agreed to address the pest control issues raised since March 2017, but it had not done so.
3. The resident had provided the invoice for pest control on two previous occasions.
4. The bin capacity was still inadequate. The resident provided pictures of overflowing bins and fly tipping which had been present for months.
5. The resident advised that the building only had two communal bins.
6. The repairs to the balcony remained incomplete.
The resident phoned the landlord on 12 April 2021 to advise that the wood on the balcony had been painted but the wood was rotten. Therefore, she was scared that the wood would fall and injure someone.
In response, the landlord advised that it had issued a works order to correct this. As the work was required to the fourth floor, it would require an elevated working platform, therefore, the work could take up to 90 days. The landlord informed this Service that the initial repair to the balcony was completed on 6 April 2021 and the final repair to the balcony was completed on 3 March 2022.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service on 23 September 2021 that the landlord had not addressed the infestation in the communal areas. She also complained that the balcony rails on the fourth floor was rotten and the landlord had failed to manage the pest infestation as the communal rubbish bins and communal areas were overflowing with rubbish. She advised that her preferred outcome was for the landlord to manage the pest infestation in the communal areas and to receive reimbursement for her expenses for the pest control costs she had incurred and compensation for the delays in its complaint handling.
On 21 October 2021, after the complaint process had been exhausted the pest control team advised the landlord that though it had carried out significant proofing works to the block, it was still receiving reports of mice activity. It had undertaken the last pest control visit on 17 October 2021 as part of the baiting programme of works. It proposed that a further baiting programme consisting of 13 monthly visits commence for all flats. It is noted that the landlord agreed to extend the baiting programme.

The landlord’s submission to this Service on 14 October 2022 advised that the defective communal bin was replaced on 11 January 2022.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed its procedures and acted appropriately. This assessment will consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive matters and the formal complaint and consider whether its responses were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

the pest infestation and reimbursement of the costs incurred

The landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the structure of the building and to resolve reports of pests in the communal area.
Looking at the resident’s reports to the landlord regarding a pest infestation in the communal area in August 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging an emergency call out to the address, in line with its pest control policy. It contacted the resident on 4 August 2020 to check if the mouse infestation had been resolved and arranged for the pest control team to reattend the building. It informed the resident of the action that it would take regarding the inspection of the communal areas and clarified that it was responsible for the inspection of the leasehold properties.
The landlord carried out inspections to the resident’s property between September 2020 to December 2020. The pest control team’s inspection in September 2020 removed the kickboards within the resident’s kitchen and it did not find any mice activity. The resident did not allow the landlord to inspect in October 2020 and the inspection in November 2020 and December 2020 did not reveal any activity in the property.
The landlord met with residents in the block and commissioned a report from pest control to resolve the pest infestation in the communal areas. It acted reasonably in agreeing to the recommendation from the pest control company to engage in a ten-month baiting programme to resolve the pest infestation in the block and to undertake repairs to the drains.
On being advised that the pest infestation has not been eradicated the landlord has reasonably agreed to a further programme of baiting occurring within the block to resolve the pest infestation. This is in accordance with its responsibility to maintain the structure and exterior of the property and its pest control policy.
The resident informed the landlord that she had spent £384 on commissioning a pest controller to eradicate the pest control within her property. On review of her complaint, the landlord agreed to refund the costs that the resident had paid. This was a reasonable approach to take as the landlord has accepted that it has an ongoing pest control problem within the building that is affecting the resident’s property.
In considering whether or not the landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable, the Ombudsman has taken into account the landlord’s compensation policy, and this Services own Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes) and our published Remedies Guidance.
In particular, the Remedies Guidance explains that where there have been service failures by the landlord, if the landlord has recognised the failures itself and taken appropriate action to put this right, including offering reasonable compensation, then the Ombudsman will not necessarily require that the landlord do anything more. One of the factors that the Ombudsman considers is whether the redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord.
The landlord has acknowledged that the building has a pest infestation and it is linked to the pest infestation in the resident’s property was linked to the communal pest infestation. Furthermore, as the landlord baiting programme extended to an assessment of the internal and external areas of the building, the resident was unlikely to have incurred the pest cost costs if it had taken action earlier. Therefore, the landlord has acted appropriately by refunding the resident the cost of the pest control costs that she had incurred to address the pest infestation and the award of compensation represents proportionate and reasonable redress for this.

the request for another refuse bin in the communal bin store

The landlord has a responsibility to ensure that the building is kept clean and to deliver high quality services to its residents by carrying out regular inspections of its communal areas.
The resident complained about the amount of refuse in the communal bin chamber advising that the communal bins were overflowing and that this was contributing to the pest control problem in the building.
Whilst the landlord disputed the volume of rubbish that was in the communal bin chamber reported by the resident advising that when it inspected it had not found that volume of rubbish and in its complaint response it advised that its contractors removed the excess rubbish. This Service requested information on the dates and times that its contractor attended to remove the excess rubbish during the period of the complaint and this was not provided by the landlord. This is not reasonable as the landlord should be able to show the additional provision it put in place to manage the refuse whilst the defective bin was being replaced.
The landlord acknowledged that the communal bin store should have three functioning communal bins and that one bin was defective which contributed to the build-up of rubbish. In its final complaint response on 9 March 2021, the landlord advised that the defective communal bin would be replaced within 28 days. It was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident when it believed that the defective communal bin would be replaced and from the available evidence this occurred in January 2022. Whilst the Council had responsibility for replacing the defective bin, the landlord has not demonstrated the action it took to expedite the provision of the third bin nor has it shown how it acted on the reports that it received from the resident.
. The resident has provided pictures showing the communal bin chamber overflowing with rubbish during the period of time that the building was without three functioning communal bins. The building was without three functioning bins from at least March 2021 until January 2022 which is at least 10 months. This was of particular importance as the landlord was managing a pest infestation in the building including the presence of rats so it was of importance that it stays on top of the accumulated rubbish from the residents.

the repairs required to the wooden balcony rails

The landlord is responsible for undertaking repairs to the common parts.
The resident complained to the landlord in her escalated complaint in December 2020 that the wooden balcony railings required repair. There is no evidence that the resident had made a previous report of this to her landlord. The landlord in its complaint response on 9 March 2021 informed the resident that it had agreed to carry out the repair to the balcony railings and would do so within its repair standard of 28 days.
From the available information, the landlord addressed the resident’s concern regarding the condition of the balcony and completed the repair on 6 April 2021. However, there was an unreasonable delay in the work carried out as the resident had reported the repair in December 2020 and it took until 9 April 2021 which was nearly three months.

the related complaint.

The landlord operated a two-stage complaint procedure at the time with complaints answered within 28 days at both stages.
The resident complained on 23 July 2020 regarding the pest control and the condition of the communal bin stores and the landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day 24 July 2020.
The landlord appropriately updated the resident in August 2020 that it did not have sufficient information to respond to the complaint. However, it did not provide its initial complaint response until 30 November 2020. This was an unreasonable delay of four months to provide the resident with its complaint response.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint on 30 November 2020. The landlord provided its final stage response on 9 March 2021 and apologised for its delay response. In its review of its complaint handling, the landlord made an award of £10 for its delays in providing its complaint response, which was the lowest award possible under its complaint’s procedure. In addition, it awarded £20 for the resident’s time and trouble in making the complaint which was inappropriate as the resident had experienced unacceptable delays with a four-month delay at the first stage and three-month delay at the final stage in the landlord providing its complaint response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress to the resident’s complaint regarding the pest infestation and reimbursement of the costs incurred which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for another refuse bin in the communal bin store
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s the repairs required to the wooden balcony rails
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord was managing an ongoing pest infestation in the building and agreed to reimburse the resident with the costs incurred by the resident in obtaining her own pest control operative to resolve the pest infestation in her property.
The landlord accepted that for the management of refuse three communal refuse bins were required. Whilst one of the communal refuse bins were out of action, there was an accumulation of refuse in the communal bin chambers which there was an unreasonable delay in resolving.
The resident reported that the wooden balcony railings required repair in December 2020 and the repair was completed in April 2021, which caused an unreasonable delay.
The landlord delayed in providing its complaint response to the resident at both stages of the complaint procedure. Its compensation award of £30 did not reflect the impact on the resident in waiting to receive the landlord’s position on the complaint.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident £210 compensation broken down as:
1. £100 for its handling of the accumulation rubbish in the communal refuse chamber.
2. £50 for the delay in completing the repair to the wooden balcony railings.
3. £60 for its delay in providing its complaint responses.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the compensation award of £404 that it agreed in its complaint response.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.