Midland Heart Limited (202121035)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121035

Midland Heart Limited

31 August 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a flea infestation and door gaps he said led to their spread.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident has been noted to be vulnerable. The property is a flat in a block.
3. Under the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairs and insurance for the structure of the property and block, while tenants are responsible for their personal belongings and repairs which are not the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord’s website advises it is responsible for pests in communal areas, while tenants are responsible for keeping their own homes free of pests.

Summary of events

4. The resident’s account advises that on 20 August 2021, he noticed fleas on his children. The information provided then advises that around 15 September 2021, the resident reported a flea issue at the block to the landlord and the environment health department of his local authority, which contacted the landlord. The local authority advised that they were confident the fleas were cat fleas, and raised concern that it may be a building wide issue as the resident was on the top floor and did not own a cat. The local authority suggested that if other properties were affected the building may require widespread treatment.
5. The landlord raised a works order for a pest control contractor to treat the resident’s flat and communal areas, after internally checking it could arrange treatment of the resident’s flat since this was normally his responsibility. The landlord also checked if other tenants needed their properties treated and arranged to treat one other property as a precautionary measure.
6. The pest control contractor attended on 24 September 2021, and the resident complained the same day by telephone. It was noted he reported that the cleaning contractor had attended after the pest contractor, which the landlord noted meant the treatment had to be potentially carried out again (as the effectiveness of the treatment will have been affected). It was noted he believed the flea infestation was caused by a stray cat whose removal would be a satisfactory outcome to the complaint. It was noted he reported he had thrown away all his furniture due to the flea infestation. It was noted he reported he should have been decanted due to the flea infestation and that the infestation had caused a decline in his health as family could not visit his property. It was noted he reported that communal and flat doors all had gaps which could be providing access for pests and contributing to their spread.
7. The landlord’s records advise that between 27 and 30 September 2021, it internally considered the concerns that the communal areas were cleaned shortly after they were treated, which potentially affected the treatment since this required a week to take effect. The records show that the landlord subsequently arranged for the pest contractor to re-attend on 30 September 2021 and requested a week to elapse before its cleaning contractor attended again. The information provided confirms that the pest contractor attended on 30 September 2021 and the cleaning contractors next attended on 8 October 2021, a week later.
8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 5 October 2021 explaining there had been technical issues, and on 19 October 2021 issued its stage one response:
   1. It noted a telephone conversation it had with the resident in which he said his desired outcomes were for the fleas in the communal area to be treated and to be provided compensation for his furniture.
   2. It advised that after the resident reported fleas, its contractor attended to treat the communal area on 23 September 2021. It noted that its contractor had advised that standard flea treatment only required one visit.
   3. It advised that as the resident raised concerns about his health, an exception was made to carry out treatment in his flat, and its contractor carried out a follow-up treatment to individual properties on 30 September 2020 and reported no further visits were required. It explained that when pest treatment was carried out it does not normally move its residents, as treatment could be carried out while a property is occupied, and it did not receive any information that would have qualified him for a move on a discretionary basis.
   4. It advised that a repair had been raised for the resident’s front door to be assessed for gaps on 19 October 2021, and said the operative had been asked to assess communal doors for gaps as well, after which repairs would be raised should they be required.
   5. It noted the resident reported furniture was affected by fleas and had disposed of this in the communal area. It noted it had arranged to remove the furniture as a goodwill gesture and had not recharged him for doing this. It advised that it was unable to reimburse the resident for the furniture and explained residents were recommended to have contents insurance to cover damage to belongings.
9. The resident raised dissatisfaction with the response the same day. He felt he had been mistreated and the landlord had lied in its response. He said that on the same day the pest contractor treated his property and communal areas, the cleaners came and mopped the communal areas. The landlord confirmed it had escalated the complaint and informed the resident that he would receive a response by 16 November 2021.
10. The landlord internally discussed the issue and noted that its staff and contractors had been entering and exiting the building and no evidence of fleas had been found on them since the last treatment of communal area.
11. On 2 December 2021, the landlord issued its final response:
    1. It noted the resident expressed concern that the communal area was affected by fleas which could spread to individual properties. It advised that it had carried out treatment to the communal areas and individual flats; its inspections had found no fleas present; and no reports had been received from other residents that this was the case. It explained that pest treatment was normally a tenant’s responsibility and it had acted beyond its normal service by carrying out treatment to his flat.
    2. It advised that it was unable to reimburse the resident for his furniture, as the decision to dispose of them had been made by him, and he would be expected to have contents insurance to cover unforeseen eventualities. It advised that it had arranged removal of the items the resident had disposed of in the communal area as a goodwill gesture.
    3. It noted recent correspondence stated the local authority said there was still a flea issue that need to be tackled. It advised that it had been informed by the local authority that there was no evidence of a flea infestation the local authority was currently concerned about.
    4. It advised that it had investigated concerns about the communal doors and there had been no reports of the doors having gaps.
    5. It acknowledged and apologised that there had been a delay in its complaint response, and awarded £50 in recognition of this.
12. The resident’s account subsequently advises that the local authority carried out some visits to his property in December 2021 and March 2022 and were unable to find evidence of fleas, although he believes there were reasons for this.
13. The resident contacted this Service and expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord has refused to acknowledge or deal with the problem. He explained that he started getting bitten around the end of September 2021 which had not stopped, and he supplied photos of physical marks that he stated was evidence that pest activity within the property continued. He subsequently reported he had scabies which he believed was linked. He detailed that the landlord had said the issue only impacted him when it also affected another flat. He also detailed that the landlord had carried out treatment once and then cleaners had cleaned all the treatment that had been laid in the communal area.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

14. In correspondence the resident raised other issues such as repairs, a water leak, and a boiler. The resident was advised that a complaint needs to have been considered by the landlord in a final response for this Service to look at a complaint, and he was advised to complain to his landlord about repairs that include the above.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a flea infestation and door gaps he said led to their spread

15. This Service understands the resident believes he has been affected by a flea infestation for a long time and that this is frustrating and upsetting for him. This Service also understands the resident feels the landlord has failed to properly address or provide support about the issue, which he believes has impacted him and his family including his mental and physical health. This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises the concerns he reports have affected and caused distress to him.
16. In cases in relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to definitively determine if there is still a flea infestation or if a tenant should be rehoused. It is also not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination on matters such as the cause of skin conditions and the impact on mental or physical health, as this is not in our expertise and jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, correctly applied its policy and procedure when reaching decisions, and responded reasonably.
17. The evidence shows that within ten days of receiving concerns from the local authority, and just over a month after the resident first noticed fleas, the landlord arranged for pest control contractors to carry out treatment to the resident’s property; to one other property in the block as a precaution; and to communal areas. This shows that the landlord responded in a reasonably timely manner to reports it received about fleas; and also shows that the landlord was customer focused to carry out pest treatment in individual properties, normally the tenant’s responsibility.
18. The resident raises concerns that the same day pest contractors attended, cleaners cleaned away the treatment in communal areas. This appears to have been the reason for the resident’s escalation of his complaint, and appears to remain one reason for his continued dissatisfaction. The resident may be under the impression that the landlord took no further action after that. The evidence shows this is not the case, as after the attendance on 24 September 2021, the landlord arranged for the pest contractor to re-attend on 30 September 2021, to carry out the treatment again. The landlord also liaised with its cleaning contractor to make sure they did not attend until 8 October 2021, a week after the second treatment. This shows the landlord took appropriate action when it became aware cleaners had cleaned communal areas after pest contractors had treated them. This investigation notes that while the above is the case, the resident may have been under the impression that no further treatment was carried out when communal areas were cleaned shortly after the first treatment. This may have been due to the lack of clarity in the landlord’s complaints responses, which this investigation makes a recommendation in respect to.
19. The resident requested that the landlord reimburse him for furniture that he disposed of. It is not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction or expertise to make definitive decisions about liability or negligence, and while this Service can take a view on the position by reference to policies, if this is disputed, only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision. The landlord’s response to refer the resident to his insurance appears reasonable, as this is in line with the tenancy agreement terms that the landlord will insure the structure of the property but not personal belongings. This investigation understands the resident has vulnerabilities and the landlord could have considered these and the necessity for the furniture disposal it helped arrange. However, the resident does not complain about this aspect, it was his own decision to dispose of the furniture in communal areas and prompt their removal, and there is no evidence of specific fault on the landlord’s part in respect to matters.
20. The resident raises concerns about lack of support from the landlord and reports that flea activity within his property has continued and also led to scabies. This investigation understands how distressing matters were and are for the resident, however it is not in the Ombudsman’s role to definitively determine if the resident should have been rehoused, if there is still a flea infestation or if this has impacted the resident’s mental or physical health, as noted above; although this Service can take a view on the issues with reference to policies.
21. The landlord is generally obligated to move a tenant if there is considered to be a serious health hazard at a property, or if works are being carried out that cannot be done while a tenant is in the property. There is no evidence that the landlord or the local authority considered the flea issue to be a serious health hazard that required the resident to be moved, and the landlord has explained the pest treatment could be carried out while the property is occupied. There is no evidence the landlord was obligated to move the resident in the circumstances seen in this case, so its response to this aspect was reasonable.
22. The landlord is entitled to rely on available evidence and the opinion of its professional staff when making decisions, and there is no equivalent professional evidence that supports the resident’s account that a flea issue continues for which the landlord should take action. The landlord noted it had not seen any evidence of fleas from visits to the block since treatment was carried out. There is no evidence there have been communications from the local authority that a flea issue remains, and while the resident believes there are reasons for this, his own account advises that the local authority was unable to find evidence of fleas at visits in December 2021 and March 2022.
23. This Service would not expect a landlord to take action about an issue unless there is sufficient evidence to show that an issue exists and that this is within their responsibility. The evidence and the resident’s account advises that any flea infestation at the block is likely to be restricted to his property, which he would be responsible to address rather than the landlord under policies. The landlord would only be obligated to take further action if evidence arose to show the issue is communal or widespread at the block, which there is no evidence it is. The evidence shows that treatment was carried out at one other property at the block as a precaution, and there is no evidence that the landlord has received continued reports about other properties apart from the resident’s own.
24. The resident raised concerns about gaps to individual flat and communal doors in the timeframe of the complaint, which the landlord confirmed it would assess. The outcome to this is unclear, however the landlord’s confirmation of steps it would take appears a proportionate resolution to this aspect. There is limited evidence for any detriment that has been caused by the gaps, given the level of evidence for a communal flea issue, and a review of information suggests some gap is not unreasonable to allow adequate ventilation.
25. The resident advises he has scabies and believes these are linked to the fleas, which will be distressing, however, if this is the case he should present any supporting evidence he has such as a doctor’s letter to the landlord in order for it to consider any appropriate action.
26. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports were appropriate. It responded in a timely manner to the reports and was customer focused to carry out pest treatment in individual properties, normally tenant responsibility. It took appropriate action when it became aware communal areas had been cleaned shortly after pest contractors had treated them, by arranging for communal areas to be re-treated and for cleaners to not attend until suitable time elapsed. It considered and set out reasonable positions to the resident’s complaint and concerns. It appropriately acknowledged and remedied for a delay in response to the complaint.

Determination (decision)

27. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a flea infestation and door gaps he said led to their spread.

Reasons

28. The landlord responded appropriately to the reports and the resident’s complaint, based on the available evidence. There is limited evidence for an ongoing flea infestation within the landlord’s responsibility, since the treatment of the communal areas. The evidence and the resident’s account advises that any flea infestation is likely to be restricted to his property and so would be under his responsibility to address.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

29. The landlord to pay the £50 it offered for the delay in its complaint response, if this has not already been paid.
30. The landlord to review the case and try to ensure that complaint responses provide accurate and detailed summaries of all events and actions taken, to avoid potential misunderstandings.
31. The landlord to consider any support it can provide in regard to replacing the resident’s furniture, if he still lacks furniture. As part of this it could consider if it can refer him for support to help him apply for any relevant grants or local schemes that may be able to assist in his circumstances.