Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited (202006660)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006660

Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited

11 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

The complaint is regarding the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation.
2. Handling of repair reports, including relating to damp and mould in the property and a faulty kitchen light.
3. Handling of the resident’s complaint and its offer of compensation.

Scope of Investigation

In correspondence with the landlord and this Service, the resident has stated that she considers that the ringworm condition her family and particularly her children have been suffering from has been caused by the mouse infestation in her property. However, while it is noted that the resident has provided some medical evidence in support of her position, in accordance with Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme it is beyond the remit and expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between any disrepair issues and reported health conditions. This investigation will therefore not make any judgement on whether any action or inaction by the landlord had a direct causal link on any health issues suffered by the resident or her children.
It is noted later in this report that the resident did submit a public liability claim against the landlord, which was referred to its insurer in January 2021. However, it is not clear whether this was related to the alleged impact of the mouse infestation on her children’s health condition, with correspondence seen by this Service simply referring to “the matter”. Therefore, if she has not already done so, the resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a further personal injury claim if she considers that her family’s health has been affected by any action or inaction by the landlord.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was a tenant of the landlord, a Housing Association, from 2016 until 2021. She resided in a two-bedroom flat in a purpose build block.
The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of its repairs policy. However, its Repairs and Planned Maintenance Handbook, available on its website, lists repairs including “replacing light bulbs and fluorescent tubes” and “making sure your home is pest-free so that…(pests) do not spread into other areas and other flats” as being the responsibility of residents.
Section 6.5 of the landlord’s Complaints Policy states that complaints “must be logged within 6 months of the event which is being complained about”. The landlord also has a service level agreement with the Local Authority under which residents can refer their complaint to a local tenant complaints panel, made up of residents of the Local Authority, after the completion of its complaints procedure.
The landlord’s compensation policy notes that any award above £50 needs the approval of a Manager or more senior member of staff. Section 9.2 of its policy (under “Calculating the level of compensation”) notes that “compensation applied for distress and inconvenience should be limited to £25 per incident”.

Summary of Events

On 2 October 2020, the resident contacted this Service and her landlord by email to submit a complaint. In her complaint, she raised the following concerns:
1. From “the end of 2017”, she had noticed mouse infestations in the property, although she reported other residents had noted the same issue. She stated she noticed mouse droppings in her home and would “take pictures or make videos of things” she had had to throw away after being eaten by mice.
2. From 2017 onwards her family developed ringworm. She stated that in 2018, a former neighbour, who had also reported a mouse infestation, also advised she was suffering from the condition. She advised the condition had affected her self-esteem and confidence.
3. Having done online research and reading that ringworm can be caused by mice urinating on carpets, the resident advised she contacted the landlord to report the “mouse infestation…was getting really out of hand”. The date she contacted the landlord is not noted but she reported the landlord was initially dismissive and “implied it was because my house was dirty” and that mice “usually reside where there is (available) food”. Although the date is again not noted, the resident advised that her Housing Officer subsequently advised that infestations within the home were a tenant’s responsibility and, during later calls, she was repeatedly advised there was “nothing (we) can do”.
4. She advised the situation became worse when her neighbour moved out (it is not stated when this was) as, when the neighbour’s property was void, the landlord sent a pest controller who carried out additional proofing works. As a consequence, this work directed more mice towards the resident’s flat.
5. The resident also advised that “last year” (2019) she contacted the landlord to report that her bathroom was “developing mould”. She stated that she “had someone clean it out the first time” (it is not clear if this was arranged privately or if the landlord arranged for an operative to attend) at the end of 2019. However, she reported that when she later contacted the landlord again regarding the issue, she was promised a call back but did not receive one.
6. She advised she waited until the Government’s coronavirus related lockdown restrictions had ended before contacting the landlord again, but after this it waited “another 2 months” before contacting her and in this time the mould had grown. She stated the landlord had attended “two weeks ago” and cleaned the mould, but that it had started growing again two days later, which she believed indicated that further work was required.
7. The resident also reported she had had “no light in (her) kitchen for over a year” and the landlord had advised it was her responsibility to resolve, despite her stating it was an electrical issue. When she advised the landlord the “whole light panel had to be changed”, it advised the repair was not an emergency (as she had called on a weekend) and it would contact the resident “within 48 hours to arrange an appointment”. However, the resident advised she was not contacted for three weeks, when she was “on lockdown” and not allowed to let people into her home.
8. The resident provided the landlord with pictorial and video evidence of the mouse infestation and advised she had been unable to use all the rooms in her house for the past three years due to the infestation, sharing a bedroom with her children and using the kitchen as little as possible.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 7 October 2020 and stated it understood her complaint to be about the “ongoing issues regarding (a) mice infestation” and her “concern for the health of (her) family”. It subsequently issued its Stage One complaint response on 21 October 2020. The landlord noted the following findings in response:
1. It acknowledged there was a “genuine concern of mice infestation in your home” which the resident had attempted to manage “in several ways over a period of time” and, having seen the photos she provided, it understood “how disheartening and frightful it must be to have your children exposes to this condition”.
2. However, it advised that, having reviewed its property records, it could not find any evidence the resident had reported “concerns of mice infestation to (the landlord) or our maintenance contractors until 2019”. It noted that an order was then raised to “put mesh over the air bricks to stop the rodents getting through the external vents and seal gaps around the area”, although it did not detail when this work was raised or completed.
3. It also advised that while it had noted the resident’s concerns, it “could not investigate” them or “provide arguments in response” as it would not consider “historical complaints over a six-month period” as per its complaints policy.
4. However, it noted the resident “would also have been advised from our tenancy handbook, that the treatment of pest infestation in the home is regarded as a resident responsibility”. While it would not usually “undertake pest control treatment on behalf of residents”, it advised it would “carry out proofing works as often as is necessary”, although this needed to be reported to its contractor to arrange.
5. It apologised that “the information provided to you…may not have been helpful, as ideally you should be encouraged to raise repairs with us for proofing to be done to prevent the mice accessing your home”. It advised it was “reviewing internally” how it handled calls from residents.
6. It also acknowledged it had “had a few calls from other residents in the last few months and recognised there has been an increasing problem with mice throughout the block”. It had therefore engaged a pest control contractor in September 2020 and “agreed to have a full block treatment undertaken to manage the mice activity in the communal areas and throughout”. Its contractor had been attempting to contact all residents “to monitor and treat any mice activity within” and had made a recommendation that the landlord should do proofing work “throughout the building and…individual flats”.
7. It noted the contractor had attended the resident’s property on 12 October 2020 and begun treatment as well as making recommendations for further proofing works. The landlord stated it would contact the resident by the end of week commending 30 October 2020 to arrange an appointment for the proofing works and additional repairs which had also been raised by its surveyor, which included:
  1. To remove and refix a sink and a corner and sink base unit.
  2. Remove and refix worktops.
  3. Remove and refix unspecified appliances.
  4. Block holes around pipes and soil pipe with wire mesh and plaster.
8. It advised the pest control treatment would be “ongoing until the mice activity subsides” and it confirmed its contractor had already booked a follow-up appointment with the resident on 29 October 2020. It clarified that “this is being done for all other neighbours as well as a one-off block treatment”.
9. However, while it noted the resident’s concerns over her family health and that she felt the mouse infestation had been a contributing factor, it advised it had not seen any “official medical reports” and had not “had the opportunity to undertake any assessments to your home prior to this complaint” so would not accept any liability for any reported health implications “over previous years”.
10. Regarding reported damp in her property, the landlord noted that it had treated “mould to your bathroom ceiling” at the end of 2019 but that this had “re-occurred”. It noted its contractor had advised a mould wash was undertaken in September (assumed to be 2020) but that stains had been left on the ceiling which need to be repainted. It also noted that the resident’s bathroom was “not properly ventilated”. It advised after discussing the case with a surveyor, it had raised the following work orders and would contact the resident week commencing 30 October 2020 to book an appointment:
  1. Renew defective condensation control fan.
  2. Redecorate ceiling area with vinyl silk emulsion.
11. Regarding the reported faulty kitchen light, it noted she had now reported this to its contractor but there had been some “some delays due to you needing to self-isolate”. It did not provide any information relating to any further contact or appointments.
12. The landlord concluded that it partially upheld the resident’s complaint as there had been “some failures around communication where both the pest control and repair issues were concerned”. However, it also concluded the resident had not “brought (these issues) to our attention sooner” and it had therefore been “unable to address them in a shorter timeframe”.
Records show that, two days later, the resident requested her complaint be escalated to Stage Two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord acknowledged the request the same day.
On 5 November 2020, the landlord issued its Stage Two complaint response. It noted the following findings:
1. It reiterated it was partially upholding the resident’s complaint and offered its “sincere apologies for contributing to the difficulties you have faced in your home and in accessing our services”. It offered her £125 compensation.
2. Regarding the reported mouse infestation, it acknowledged the impact the situation had had on the resident and how she and her family felt about living in their home. It clarified that, while “pest control in the home is responsibility of residents”, there was “a point at which, as a landlord, we need to step in and look at a wider treatment programme”. It acknowledged this was “clearly the case with the situation in your building”.
3. While it reiterated that “due to the length of time that had passed” it had limited information from which to review “the times you contacted us about the mice” but acknowledged that “opportunities were missed in terms of identifying your building as having a wider issue”. It apologised for this and for the fact the resident felt she had reached “a point where you gave up trying to get the matter resolved”.
4. The landlord advised it had “tried to understand how your situation evolved” and noted that there had been internal confusion between departments regarding whether blockwide pest treatment and proofing had already been carried out. It noted proofing works had been completed in June 2019, but it had not been “aware you were still experiencing problems”. It apologised that her issues “were not relayed to (its Property Services Team) so further action could be considered”.
5. It was unable to review any calls made due to the amount of time that had passed before logging the complaint but it advised that, as a result of the resident’s complaint, it would be speaking to the relevant teams to ensure “these opportunities are not missed in the future and ensure proper escalation processes are put in place to identify when we need to step in as a landlord”.
6. It noted that the resident’s block was now on a “full treatment programme” and that proofing works at her property had been completed that day.
7. Regarding the reported impact of the mouse infestation on her family’s health, the landlord, the landlord explained it could not “consider what impact any lack of action…may have had on your children’s condition” as it was “not medically trained and (has) note been presented with evidence to demonstrate this link”. It confirmed that, having spoken to the resident, it would be willing to revisit this part of the complaint if the resident submitted further evidence following an appointment with a specialist in November 2020.
8. Considering calls the resident had made to report issues with mice, it advised that it could not investigate this further due to the length of time that had passed as it only retained recorded calls for “a couple of months”. However, it apologised it the resident had felt anyone “implied (her) house was dirty or that you were in some way doing something to encourage the mice”.
9. Regarding the repair issues, the landlord stated it was satisfied it had addressed these appropriately in its Stage One response. However, it advised that “more generally…we accept that our repairs service has not been where we would like it to be for some time”, explaining its repairs service had been impacted by the change to a new contractor at the start of 2020.
10. It also noted its service had been impacted by Government imposed coronavirus lockdown restrictions and that, at the time its new contractor took over on 1 April 2020, it was only able to carry out emergency repairs “for many months” which had a knock-on effect on non-emergency repairs. It noted the resident was “impacted” by these circumstances but that it would have “expected the communication with you…to have been much clearer”. It apologised that this was not the case and advised it was working with the contractor to improve the repairs service.
11. It clarified there had been “clearly times when we should have responded better” but also noted there had been other occasions where it had responded, or the resident had not “always informed us of the situation”. It offered the resident £125 compensation, consisting of £50 for “failed service”, £25 for “distress and/or inconvenience” and a £50 goodwill gesture.
On 13 November 2020, the resident advised the landlord she remained dissatisfied with its response and the compensation offered and that she had found further evidence of mice in the property. She requested that her complaint be escalated to Local Authority’s Housing Complaints Panel.
Internal landlord correspondence shows that, on 17 November 2020, a request was made for pest controllers to contact the resident and reattend the property to investigate if further proofing work was required following her reports of finding more mice. An appointment was subsequently booked for 23 November 2020, following which the landlord’s contractor noted there were “no other proofing works to be carried out to the property”. They noted the resident had requested it “pull out the kitchen” to investigate further but it had not been able to do so and did not believe was necessary due to the “amount of proofing works which have been carried out and the further inspection”. They did however pull out the resident’s cooker and filled gaps around pipework with wire wool. The operative further noted the resident’s property had been “proofed both internally and externally” and that, as a pest control contractor was due to attend in the next few days, it would be “worth waiting for their report to see if they advise differently”.
Landlord records show a pest control contractor subsequently attended the resident’s property on 11 Jan 2021. In their report the contractor noted bait set previously had not been taken but “proofing works remain outstanding behind cupboards by cooker” and “weep holes require covering” outside the property. Its recommended actions confirmed “gaps and holes remain in kitchen and bathroom”.
On 21 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident following the findings of the Tenant Panel, which it noted wrote to her on 23 December 2020. This Service has not seen a copy of the Panel’s original report, but the landlord noted it had made four recommendations and provided its response to each:
1. The Panel considered the landlord’s offer of £125 compensation “seemed insufficient” as it found the resident had been treated “unfairly and insensitively”. The landlord advised it would “review the level of compensation” once the outcome of a separate insurance claim made by the resident had been determined.
2. The Panel considered the landlord should review its policy for residents being responsible for pest infestations within their own properties, “particularly where it appears the pests are originating from outside the property” and that multiple properties were affected. The landlord advised it had already undertaken “a full review” and was revising its pest control process, although it did not provide details of any revisions or changes made. The new process would take effect from the following week.
3. The Panel stated the landlord should “take a more proactive approach in dealing with continual treatment and prevention of mice infestation in the entire block”. In response, the landlord advised that further works were planned following an inspection of the whole block on 12 January 2021 and that it would “continue to monitor the effectiveness of the works” and would attend to reinspect regularly “until the situation is under control”.
4. The Panel noted the landlord’s decision to refer “the matter to their insurance company…would inevitably prolong the resident’s suffering whilst investigations are being carried out”. It recommended “the matter” should be addressed “as quickly as possible” to avoid possible escalation to this Service. The landlord advised that once it had heard from the insurer, it would be in touch with the resident.
On 22 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to hand in her notice and requested to end her tenancy.
As part of this investigation, on 3 August 2022, the landlord has confirmed to this Service that no compensation had yet been paid to the resident as its original offer of £125 had not been accepted and it was yet to review its compensation offer, as recommended by the Tenants Panel. It advised its insurance company had processed the resident’s claim in April 2022 and offered her £750 but she had not responded. It therefore stated that as it did “not know the final outcome of the insurance claim” it had not reviewed the level of compensation but “intended to do so” once it knew he final position regarding the insurance claim.

Assessment and findings

Pest Control

In its Stage One complaint response, the landlord noted that it would not consider “historical” issues raised by the resident, noting that she had referred to reported issues with mice in her property from 2017 onwards. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not unreasonable, and it acted in line with its complaints policy, which states it will not consider matters more than six months old.
From the information provided to this investigation, there is no evidence the resident raised the matter with the landlord prior to June 2019. While it is noted the resident has advised this Service that she did raise concerns over a mouse infestation before then, and the absence of any related records is a reflection on the landlord’s poor record keeping, there is nevertheless no evidence the landlord received earlier reports and failed to act on them or that there was any unreasonable delay in responding.
As above, the first report regarding mice within the landlord’s records is from 17 June 2019. Although there are no details of the initial report, a further record entered on 5 July 2019 noted that “air bricks were installed to stop the rodents getting in through the external vents” and further reference is made to a gap being sealed. The evidence available indicates that the landlord originally responded appropriately, attending the property within a reasonable time period to carry out proofing works, just over two weeks after receiving a report.
From the information available, it is evident that any proofing works carried out in June 2019 did not solve the problem and the resident continued to experience problems with mice in her property, leading to her lodging a formal complaint in October 2020. It is noted that, in its Stage Two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged it had received similar reports from other residents which prompted it to engage a pest control contractor in September 2020 who would undertake a “full block treatment…of communal areas and throughout”.
This Service has not seen details of reports from other residents due to third party data concerns, this appears to have been a reasonable step for the landlord to take, acknowledging the situation affected the whole building and accordingly arranging for a specialist contractor to undertake works across the block.
While the landlord did acknowledge the resident may have “given up trying to get the matter resolved” and, as above, it acknowledged having received similar reports from other residents in the block, there is nonetheless no evidence of the resident submitting further reports herself to the landlord between June 2019 and her complaint of 2 October 2020. There is therefore no evidence the landlord acted inappropriately by failing to respond to her reports.
Once the resident submitted her complaint, records show the landlord responded reasonably by carrying out a further inspection of the property. In its Stage Two complaint response, it outlined that a contractor had attended the property promptly on 12 October 2020 to begin treatment and made recommendations for the further proofing works, which were raised and booked in for 28 October 2020. It advised that the pest control treatment across the block would be “ongoing until the mice activity subsides” and records indicate that its pest control contractor subsequently attended the resident’s property on 11 January and 24 February 2021. This indicates the landlord took the problem seriously and aimed to resolve the issue, as well as following-up on the actions set out in its complaint response.
This Service understands the distress the mouse infestations caused the resident, particularly having reviewed the photographic evidence submitted to the landlord during her complaint, and how unpleasant the situation would have been for her. However, it is noted the landlord’s complaint responses, particularly its Stage Two response, also aimed to empathise with her and to understand the impact the situation had had on her family. It also acknowledged that, while its repairs policy indicated that dealing with pest infestations were a resident’s responsibility, in this case it should have recognised a need to “step in” and consider a “wider treatment programme”, rather than dealing with individual properties. This was a reasonable response from the landlord and indicated it was prepared to learn from the case to improve its responses in future.
It was also reasonable that the landlord apologised if the resident had been given unhelpful information regarding treating the mouse problem herself, or if any of its call centre staff had implied that her property was “dirty”. However, its investigation of the issue was limited by the fact recordings of the calls are only kept for a few months and the resident’s complaint was not lodged until a considerable time later. This was not unreasonable and, from the information provided in its Stage Two response, the landlord appears to have given consideration to the issue and carried out reasonable enquiries.

The landlord’s handling of repair reports, including relating to damp and mould in the property and a faulty kitchen light

In her complaint, the resident also raised concerns over outstanding repairs in her property, including damp and mould and a faulty kitchen light. She advised she had been without a working kitchen light for over a year and the landlord had not appropriately responded to reports made regarding mould in her property.
From the information available, prior to the resident’s complaint, there is no evidence of the landlord being made aware of damp or mould issues other than one report received in April 2018 when repair records note the resident had reported mould in her bathroom. However, it is not clear from the records what action was taken by the landlord following this report, which raises concerns over the accuracy of its record keeping.
It is additionally noted that while the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s Stage Two response both refer to mould treatment being carried out in 2019, the landlord’s repair records do not contain any reference to this, which means the landlord is not able to properly evidence the steps it took or whether its response to the issue was reasonable. This is not appropriate and raises further concerns over the accuracy of its repair records which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounts to service failure.
However, repair records do note a further report received in September 2020. Although the records do not contain further details, its Stage Two complaint response advised it had carried out a “mould wash” and it is noted the resident’s complaint acknowledged the landlord had attended “two weeks” earlier. This indicates the landlord attended promptly after receiving a further report from the resident and it raised follow-on works, including installing a new condensation control fan and carrying out some redecoration of the bathroom ceiling. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a reasonable response from the landlord.
Regarding the kitchen light, while the resident advised she had been without a working light for over a year, there is no evidence the issue was reported to the landlord prior to September 2020. On 15 September 2020, repair records note the fluorescent light in the resident’s kitchen needed repairing and that she had already attempted to fix the issue by replacing the bulb. As per its repairs policy, light fittings are a resident’s responsibility so it would not have been unreasonable for the landlord to have initially advised the resident of this. However, records indicate it then agreed to carry out a repair as the resident had already made reasonable efforts to resolve the situation herself.
However, of the repairs the landlord agreed to carry out above (installing a new condensation fan, ceiling redecoration, and fixing the kitchen light), there were delays in completing the works. Records indicate that the fan and kitchen light were installed/repaired on 5 January 2021 and the ceiling redecoration was not carried out until 15 March 2021. Although the landlord noted the resident had been shielding for a period, this does not explain the overall length of delay, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was unreasonable. The delay is especially unfortunate as the landlord had already apologised for delays caused by the knock-on effect of the coronavirus related lockdowns on non-urgent repairs.
The landlord offered £50 for “failed service” and apologised to the resident on behalf of its contractor for poor communicated better with her, although it is not clear from its Stage Two response exactly which issues it considered had been subject to poor communication. While it was appropriate the landlord apologised and offered compensation, in light of the further delay in completing the repairs, for which this Service has not seen a further explanation, and Order for further compensation has been made to reflect the further delay.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its offer of compensation

From the information available, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s complaint, acknowledging it and providing a response at Stage One promptly. It then escalated the complaint when requested and, again, provided its Stage Two response in timely fashion. Its Stage Two response also showed it had given further consideration to the complaint and, where it could not reasonably carry out further enquiries due to the length of time since instances occurred, it provided reasonable and clear explanations for this.
Although it could at times have been clearer about the service failures it identified, it was reasonable in offering relevant apologies and compensation. At the end of the complaints procedure, it also appropriately advised the resident of her rights to escalate her complaint to this Service or to make use of the Tenants Panel. The way it processed the resident’s complaint through its procedures was, in general, an example of reasonable complaint handling.
Regarding the compensation, in its Stage Two response the landlord offered the resident £125, which consisted of £50 for “failed service”, £25 for “distress and inconvenience” and a £50 goodwill gesture. It acknowledged that there were “times when it should have responded better” to the concerns she raised. It is noted that, following the resident’s refusal of the landlord’s compensation offer and the escalation of her complaint to the Local Authority’s Tenants Panel, the Panel considered the landlord’s award was too low as the resident had been treated “unfairly and insensitively” and recommended it increase its offer.
As above, this Service has not seen the original report from the Panel, only the landlord’s responses to it. It is therefore unclear whether the Panel set out how it reached the conclusion it did and which particular aspects it considered the landlord should have offered further redress for. However, in a follow-up letter to the resident, the landlord acknowledged the Panel’s recommendation and advised it would review the compensation award once a separate insurance claim submitted by the resident had been resolved.
It is also noted that the Panel considered the landlord’s decision to refer the resident to its insurer in early 2021 over an area of concern would “prolong (her) suffering whilst investigations are being carried out” and it should seek to resolve the issues “as quickly as possible”. As noted previously, this Service has not seen correspondence regarding the resident’s insurance claim other than an acknowledgement email from the insurer referring to “the matter” and therefore this investigation will not comment on whether the landlord was reasonable or not in referring the resident to its insurer to make a claim.
However, it is noted that, despite the landlord advising the resident in its 21 January 2021 letter it would review its compensation offer, it has since confirmed to this Service in August 2022 it has not yet done so, over 18 months later. While the landlord advised it intended to wait until the insurance claim had been resolved before reviewing its compensation offer, this length of time amounts to an unreasonable delay. The landlord did not act reasonably by making its compensation offer reliant on the separate insurance claim and should have noted the findings of the Panel which already noted the matter should be resolved “as quickly as possible”.
The landlord has advised this Service its insurer processed the resident’s claim in April 2022, over a year after it referred the resident’s claim. While any delays in the claim being processed by the insurer are not the landlord’s fault, there is no evidence the landlord had been in touch with the resident during this significant length of time to provide any updates, or what it considered whether it should proceed and review the compensation offer since the resident. This was not appropriate and the landlord should have at some point during the 14 months that passed before the insurer issues a response, considered the resident had been waiting a significant amount of time and the impact this may have had on her.
While the landlord’s update to this Service noted its insurer advised the resident had not responded to its offer in April 2022, there is no evidence the landlord itself sought to contact the resident to discuss this, attempted to progress matters, or provide her with any other kind of updates, since its January 2021 letter. While it is acknowledged the resident was no longer a tenant of the landlord, the landlord still had responsibilities to resolve the complaint and reconsider its compensation offer. That it left the complaint open and unresolved for such a considerable length of time was unreasonable and demonstrated poor levels of communication and a lack of consideration to the resident.
The landlord’s actions, or lack thereof, were not appropriate particularly having regard to the comments of the Tenants Panel, which noted the likely “suffering” caused to the resident by delays in the complaint and insurance processes, and it did not treat the resident fairly. Its decision to base its compensation review on the outcome of a separate insurance claim was not reasonable and caused a significant delay in resolving the complaint, which to date is technically still open as the landlord is yet to review its compensation offer, which it promised to do. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this amounts to maladministration.
The Ombudsman has therefore made an Order for the landlord to pay further compensation regarding this delay, along with an additional Order to complete the review of its original compensation offer.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation.
2. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of repair reports, including relating to damp and mould in the property and a faulty kitchen light.
3. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and offer of compensation.

Reasons

While the Ombudsman recognises the distress the mouse infestation would have caused the resident, there is no evidence it failed to respond to reports made prior to her complaint in October 2020. Following this, its responses were reasonable and indicated it took the problem seriously by putting in place appropriate steps to resolve and monitor the issue.
The evidence available to this Service indicates the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s repair reports regarding damp and mould, having responded to previous reports in 2019 and 2020. However, there are concerns over its record keeping relating to these repairs. Regarding the broken kitchen light, there is a lack of evidence this issue was raised prior to the resident raising the concern within her complaint, so there is no evidence of a lack of action from the landlord prior to this. However, while it responded reasonably following the complaint and arranged appropriate works orders, there were further delays in completing the works.
The landlord advised the resident it would complete a review of its original compensation offer but has not done so for a significant length of time. It should not have made its final compensation offer dependent on the outcome of a separate insurance claim and in doing so, it caused unreasonable delay. There is no evidence it contacted the resident to provide any updates regarding the review, or that it sought to contact her once the insurance claim was processed over a year later. Additionally, despite the recommendations made by the Tenants Panel, the subsequent delays and lack of consideration for how this may have affected the resident indicate it did not take these on board.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £500 compensation, consisting of:
  1. £350 relating to the unreasonable delay in reviewing its original compensation offer.
  2. £150 for delays in processing repairs and its poor record keeping.
2. Carry out the promised review of its original compensation offer and contact the resident to advise of the outcome. If it decides not to increase its original offer of compensation, in line with the recommendations of the Tenants Panel, it should write to the resident to explain its decision.
For the avoidance of doubt, the £500 compensation awarded by the Ombudsman is in addition, rather than in place of, the landlord’s original compensation offer.
The landlord should complete these actions within four weeks of the dates of this letter and provide this Service with evidence of its compliance.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its processes for cases where there are simultaneous complaints and separate insurance claims made by residents. It should see that its processes ensure complaints are resolved in a timely fashion and not subject to undue delays caused by processes outside the landlord’s direct control.