Wandle Housing Association Limited (202200819)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200819

Wandle Housing Association Limited

15 May 2023

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 about the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation at the resident’s property.
This Service has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident had a tenancy agreement with the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 December 2021 to express their dissatisfaction with its handling of an ongoing mice infestation. The resident explained the following:
1. Work previously carried out had only provided temporary solutions, as the mice had returned.
2. The impact the issue was having on their own health and that it was making their anxiety worse.
3. The landlord had only considered short-term solutions and not sought a long-term one.
4. The issue with mice had been going on for “years” at that point.
5. That they were a single parent and could not continue living in those conditions.
6. Their local MP was involved and that a response was required as a matter of urgency.
This Service has seen evidence to show the resident had reported an infestation of mice at their property in October 2020. However, privately funded pest control invoices show the issue being present in January 2019.
Following the resident’s email, the landlord contacted them asking for information about previous preventative work that had been carried out, specifically whether it included ‘proofing’.
In a letter to the landlord dated 14 December 2021, the resident outlined the issues with the mice infestation and stated that other residents in the area had a similar issue. The resident said they had been told they were the only person to have reported an issue but had found this to be inaccurate. They also said the landlord had not been responding to them. The resident provided the landlord with its published obligations to tenants regarding pest control and requested action to resolve the issue. This letter had been signed by other residents affected by the issue.
On 15 December 2021, the resident responded to the landlord’s information request explaining “boards” had been place behind the cupboards but stated this had not worked. The resident also alleged she had been told a neighbour’s property was the source of the mice issue. This was due to “constant debris and rubbish” in the neighbour’s garden and “rubbish constantly spilling out of wheelie bins” at the property.
The landlord responded to the MP acting on the resident’s behalf, on 23 December 2021. It stated that it was aware of the issue and had been “treating it since the Summer [of 2021]”. It said that an appointment at the resident’s property on 21 December 2021 had identified required proofing work and a subsequent quote for this work to be completed had been received. The landlord also stated that it was aware of and investigating the issues relating to the neighbouring property which the resident believed was the source of the infestation.
The resident responded to the landlord on 11 January 2022. In their response, the resident stated that proofing work had already been done and had been unsuccessful in resolving the issue. They said that they had been told the neighbour had refused the landlord entry, when attempting to investigate the infestation. The resident asked the landlord what it would be doing to solve the issue and gave more detail about the impact it was having on their health. They stated they were unable to sleep at night, due to the noise of mice running around the property, and that the issue continued to affect their anxiety. The resident also told the landlord this had prevented them from moving property due to the lack of interest from prospective home swappers because of the infestation. The resident requested their complaint to be escalated to the next stage and stated the landlord had told them it had been escalated in November 2020.
On the same day the resident forwarded the letter signed by other residents, dated 14 December 2021, to the landlord regarding the pest infestation affecting all of their properties.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 January 2022. It apologised for the impact the issue had been having on their health. The landlord confirmed it would be discussing the complaint with the relevant department and considering it at ‘stage two’ of its process, merging it with the complaint from November 2020. It stated that a plan to resolve the issue had been set out in November 2020, which was in action at the time. The landlord said it would continue to attempt access to the neighbour’s property but may have to consider legal action if unsuccessful.
In emails to the resident on 12 January 2022, the landlord confirmed that the relevant team would be in touch “shortly”. It also provided an apology for the time taken in dealing with the pest issue.
On 18 February 2022, the landlord issued a complaint response to the resident. It stated that it had already completed work to prevent the pest issue, but an appointment had been made for 25 February for additional preventative work. It also made an offer of £25 for the delays when handling the resident’s complaint.
The resident contacted this Service in April 2022. To resolve the issue they have requested an apology from the landlord for failing to put things right and allow the resident to enjoy their property. They have also asked that appropriate compensation be considered.
Due to the ongoing impact of the pest issues, the resident informed this Service they since moved property in December 2022. The resident has said the infestation had not been resolved at the time when they moved out.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a pest infestation at the resident’s property

This Service has been provided with evidence to show that the mice infestation became an issue as early as October 2020. However, the resident has stated the issue had persisted for “around five years” and invoices show it having been an issue in January 2019. This Service can only consider events for which it has evidence of, but does not dispute the issue had been ongoing for several years.
The Ombudsman can understand that the pest infestation over a prolonged period of time would have been distressing for the resident. We acknowledge the resident’s comments about the effect the infestation and the landlord’s handing of it had on their health. However, it is also important to note that the landlord was directly responsible for causing the infestation and is therefore not wholly responsible for any subsequent impact the issue had on the resident or their health. However, it did have a duty of care and was responsible for taking reasonable steps to resolve the issue.
The landlord’s pest control policy states “We [the landlord] are responsible when there is an infestation affecting several homes, where there are pests in communal areas and where any infestations are caused by our failure to meet our repairs and maintenance obligations.”
An email to the landlord from the resident shows the landlord had been aware of the pest issue prior to December 2021. It also demonstrates the landlord had accepted the issue as its responsibility. In doing so, the landlord should have conducted an appropriate investigation into the reported issue, checking for access points into the resident’s property and taking steps to identify the source of the infestation. The landlord also had an obligation to ensure that the property was free from hazards and pests may pose a hazard to the health of residents.
The landlord has provided evidence to show a total of 16 separate appointments were attended over an 18 month period, between October 2020 and April 2022. Identifying and effectively treating an infestation can take time as it may be necessary to block holes, place bait and then monitor for a period to check if the measures taken have resolved the problem. It is evident the landlord made attempts to resolve the issue – completing ‘proofing’ works, filling holes/points of entry and ‘baiting’. However, this Service has not seen enough evidence to show it had been getting to grips with the issue soon enough. Also, the attempts to resolve the pest issue were all proven to be temporary as the infestation remained. It was clear that there was a failure by the landlord to coordinate the works effectively, leading to appointments which were ineffective.
According to reports, it was not until March 2022 that the landlord was able to identify and begin treating the source of the infestation at a neighbouring property – which was identified as requiring ‘extensive’ work. When considering the issue had been raised as early as October 2020, this was not a reasonable amount of time for the resident to wait for the landlord to take appropriate action.
A standard feature of a tenancy agreement is for a resident to allow the landlord reasonable “access” to their property for the purposes of, for example, repairs. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states “Where tenants refuse access for essential repairs, [the landlord] will use appropriate methods to ensure the completion of all necessary work, in line with the Health & Safety Policy and/or Tenancy Agreement.”
The landlord made an unsuccessful attempt to access the neighbouring property in January 2022. The reports provided by the landlord show the next attempt to have been in March 2022. Whilst this Service acknowledges the landlord needed to provide reasonable opportunity for the neighbour to allow access, it also had to do this within a reasonable timescale. Given the extent of the infestation, and the fact it was affecting multiple properties, the landlord should have attempted to return to the property sooner.
While the landlord was limited in the information it could share with the resident about the neighbouring property, it could have done more to keep them informed without breaching confidentiality. The resident had made clear the impact the issue was having on their health and general day-to-day living. Considering the distressing nature of the issue, and the length of time the infestation had persisted for, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not keep the resident informed of developments. This was a failure on the landlord’s part to adequately manage the resident’s expectations, leading to distress and inconvenience for them.
The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance, published on our website. The Remedies Guidance suggests that awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has made an error which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right. Given the considerable impact the pest issue had on the resident and the length of time this remained unresolved, the landlord should pay compensation of £500 to the resident. It is noted the resident has since moved from the affected property.

The associated complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy considers a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.”
Whilst the resident has stated they have made “a number of formal complaints” to the landlord, this Service is only able to consider those which it has evidence of – the first of which was on 6 December 2021.
The landlord’s complaint policy provides timescales relating to responses. These are:
1. Complaint acknowledgment within five working days.
2. A ‘stage one’ investigation and response within 10 working days.
3. A ‘stage two’ investigation and response within 20 working days, with scope for additional 10 days which will be agreed with the resident.
When considering the policy timescales, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint within five working days. However, it did not provide a formal acknowledgement direct to the resident until 23 working days later.
In its acknowledgment, the landlord explained the complaint would be merged with a previous complaint from November 2020 and later confirmed it would be investigated at ‘stage two’ of its complaints process. This meant the landlord should have provided a response within 20 working days, as per its own policy. However, a response was not issued until 28 days later. Although any delay in responding would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, a delay of 8 days in responding is not considered to be excessive. The landlord acknowledged complaint handling failures in its stage two response, offering £25 compensation to the resident.
The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaint meant it missed an opportunity to address their concerns sooner. While it is noted the landlord had attempted to contact the resident prior to issuing its stage two response, it should have conducted an appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. However, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding but did little to explain its handling of the infestation issue and what action it had taken.
Landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing the substantive issue and any inconvenience that has occurred in the meantime. This is part of providing a fair response. The landlord is expected to offer redress, which can include compensation, when it agrees that it has failed to provide a required service. While the landlord had gone some way to resolving complaint handling failures, the response dated 18 February 2022 was not as full as was required.
The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance, published on our website. The Remedies Guidance suggests that awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
This Service has found the landlord’s offer of compensation not proportionate to the identified failings. For failing to provide an adequate response to the resident at stage two of its complaint process and the associated delays, the landlord should pay compensation of £150 (inclusive of the £25 already offered) to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a pest infestation at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to pay the resident compensation of £650, made up of:
1. £25 that it offered during its complaint process (if not already been paid).
2. An additional £125 for the delays in complaint handling, failing to acknowledge the residents complaint within an appropriate timescale and not providing a full complaint response.
3. £500 for the failings identified with its response to a pest infestation at the resident’s property and the impact these failings had on the resident.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above order within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its policy associated with pest issues, particularly the timescales involved when multiple properties are affected and a source is identified for the infestation.
It is also recommended the landlord run refresher training for all relevant staff on complaint handling and responding to complaints to ensure complaints are responded to fully, in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
If there are continued reports of pests at the resident’s former property and/or in surrounding properties owned by the landlord, the landlord should continue to take steps to address this, in line with its legal obligations and relevant policies.