Abri Group Limited (202003525)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003525

Abri Group Limited

8 October 2021

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 how the landlord has handled repairs to the drainage at the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

2. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint recognises its obligation to keep “the structure and exterior of buildings” in good repair.  The policy also confirms the landlord’s responsibility for “plumbing installations, including internal fixtures and fittings”.  The resident’s tenancy agreement further outlines the landlord’s repair obligation stating that the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s home in good condition and that it should keep kitchen and bathroom fixtures and fittings in good working order.
3. The landlord has advised this Service that at the time of resident’s complaint, there was no policy specifically relating to pest control as this was managed as a “responsive repair”. It has further advised that its practice is to carry out pest control within blocks of flats, but in houses, it is down to the customer to arrange for this themselves using the local authority etc. If the infestation is bad / affecting more than one property or if it is a result of a defect in the property, such as rodents making their way into the property through a hole, then it will carry out pest control works.
4. The landlord’s Decant Procedure “covers the action to be taken by staff when dealing with the management of emergency decants…It also covers occasions when we [the landlord] require customers to move out temporarily on a short-term basis whilst works are completed to the property as it is deemed a health and safety issue for them to remain in the property whilst the works are being done”.
5. The Decant Procedure states: “Short term accommodation options include: (over a weekend or up to a week)
   1. Family/Friends,
   2. Through tenant’s home contents insurance,
   3. Bed & Breakfast through Local Authority,
   4. Hotel accommodation (if emergency out of hours)
   5. Guest room of sheltered scheme,
   6. Premier Inn – a meal allowance will be paid by Radian for breakfast. Other allowances will be considered on a case-by-case basis.”
6. The landlord’s Complaints Procedure at the time of the resident’s complaint noted that “many customers do not want to have to go through a formal complaints process. Every effort should be made to resolve issues early on when the service failure is first reported”. Thereafter, if residents wish to make a formal complaint, the landlord’s “complaint process has two internal stages. The first is a personal response and prompt resolution by a Customer Relations Officer. The second is a review meeting with a senior manager and two independent panel members”.

Summary of events

7. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and his property is a new-build ground floor flat. He has stated that he has reported waste and sewage smells, and the presence of rats in the property to the landlord over several years.
8. On 13 June 2018 the resident reported that he could hear rats in the ceiling and that the neighbour upstairs had advised him that rats ran about on her flooring.  The landlord’s pest control contractor was asked to monitor rodent activity, check for new access points, carry out a CCTV survey of the drains and carry out treatment / proofing works at this time.
9. On 28 October 2018 the resident contacted the landlord in respect of rat proofing and on 29 October 2018 the landlord raised an order to survey the drains. On 23 November 2018 the landlord confirmed to its pest control contractor that it should “remove kitchen units and bath panels and proof all access into property. And to re camera inspect waste drains, especially to the rear of property. This needs to be carried out soon to establish entry points into properties as there are no visible entry points/burrows around building”.  The landlord’s pest control contractor attended on the 29 November 2018 and advised via email that it had “jetted and cctv surveyed all foul drains from property but found no evidence of vermin intrusion into property from the drains”.
10. On 29 July 2019 the resident phoned the landlord stating that he was unhappy about the recurring rat problem at his property.  The landlord agreed to raise another job for its pest controllers and to ask it to provide a full report as to where the rats were entering.
11. On 12 August 2019 the resident reported a bad smell in the bathroom following which the landlord carried out an inspection. After the resident made a further report of a bad smell on 1 October 2019 the landlord advised that its pest control contractor would carry out a drain survey.
12. On 28 October 2019 the landlord raised an order in respect of rat proofing.   On 21 November 2019 the landlord raised another order in respect of “extra proofing works for rats”. The contractor had to remove the resident’s bamboo plants to inspect a service lintel and to proof the incoming drain to the kitchen. On 27 November 2019, the landlord left a message for the resident stating that it needed to carry out works to prevent rats from entering and that his kitchen would not be available for a few days. Its records indicate that it would offer the resident a decant if needed whilst the works were carried out.  On this day the resident called back and advised that he could cope without the kitchen for a few days and would accept the landlord’s offer of £20 per day for food. However, the resident’s wife separately advised the landlord that she would find her own temporary accommodation. The landlord has advised this Service that it offered the resident a decant to a B&B which was refused because it could not accommodate the resident’s cats.
13. The landlord’s pest control contractor attended the resident’s property on 28 November 2019.  It carried out a visual and camera inspection of the void under the kitchen sink unit and ascertained that the cause of the smell under the kitchen was due to the kitchen waste pipe not being connected to the waste drainpipe. It believed the pipes had never been connected and was a latent defect. The contractor also thought that the unattached kitchen waste pipe allowed rats to enter the building and then travel throughout.
14. The contractor corrected the drainage pipe but identified further works to be completed over 3-4 days to repair the sink unit and floor screed, remove sludge, and dry and sanitise the void area under the sink.  The works were agreed by the landlord and completed on 3 December 2019. The resident has advised this Service that he stayed in the property with his two cats as he did not want to put them in a cattery but that his wife and son stayed with relatives.  He further advises that he did not receive the payment towards food.
15. On 3 February 2020, the resident wrote a letter of complaint about the length of time taken to diagnose the issue, and the disruption caused once work commenced. The resident told the landlord that his wife and son had to stay with his parents for five days, but they could not accommodate their cats. As a result, he had to take a week off work, which cost him £600 in lost wages. He sought compensation for the distress, disruption and worry caused to him and his family.
16. The landlord responded on 18 February 2020, noting that its repairs history showed that the resident first reported drainage smells on 17 June 2013, and that he first reported an issue with rats inside the property on 11 November 2016. It said that no defects were found when the drains were surveyed in 2013.
17. The landlord apologised for it then taking from 29 October 2018 to January 2020 to fix the issues identified by its pest control contractor. It confirmed these issues related to the problem of the kitchen sink waste that was disconnected and which allowed “grey water and fats to build up under” the resident’s property and “permeate through the soil stack ducting” to the resident’s bathroom. It explained that the kitchen waste was connected to a different soil pipe to the bath and toilet; therefore, the camera survey would not have been able to identify the disjointed sink and waste pipe.
18. The landlord declined to compensate the resident for time taken off work, on the basis that the resident had rejected a decant property and had use of his property except for his kitchen. However, it agreed that he should be compensated for the disruption and inconvenience caused while the works were carried out. The landlord also stated that it would replace a cracked hand basin in the property as a goodwill gesture instead of recharging it to him, and replace worn vinyl flooring. It offered £150, comprising £60 failure to repair and £90 as a goodwill gesture to cover the inconvenience caused.   On 23 February 2020, the resident asked to escalate his complaint.
19. A morning appointment was made for 28 February 2020 to repair the cracked sink, but the contractor did not attend because of an emergency. On 5 March 2020 the landlord advised that it would take the missed appointment into account when responding to the complaint, which it aimed to do within 5 working days. The landlord’s repair records confirm that the wash hand basin and the vinyl flooring were replaced on 9 March 2020.
20. On 17 March 2020, the landlord sent a response at Stage 1 of its complaint procedure, apologising for the late response which was due to staff absence. It offered the resident £660 in compensation for the length of time and the impact of the works, and to partially cover his loss of earnings.It said that itcould not cover the full amount as the resident had refused a decant whilst works were carried out. The resident stated that he was in discussion with a solicitor but would settle for £2,500. The landlord advised the resident on 14 April 2020 that it was not able to meet his request for additional compensation as it had carried out repairs once identified, and he had refused the decant due to his pets.
21. The resident wrote back on 14 April 2020 and asked for his complaint to be escalated to the next stage. On 27 April 2020, the landlord informed the resident that Stage 2 of its complaint procedure involved a panel meeting. The landlord noted that it was unsure when a meeting could take place given lockdown restrictions; however, if he was amenable to not attending the meeting, it could send the information over to the panel members to consider. It asked the resident to advise how he wished to proceed.
22. On 19 May 2020, the resident sought an update on the progress of the review. The landlord explained that it had been awaiting instructions from him but would treat his email as confirmation that he wanted the review to proceed without attending a meeting. On 22 May 2020 and 4 June 2020, the landlord advised of delays in sending him the Panel information pack due to office closure and the need to remove documents.  On 10 June 2020 the landlord sent the Stage 2 information pack to the Panel members and the resident, asking the resident to provide a written statement for the Panel.  On 16 June 2020, the landlord advised that the Stage 2 Panel meeting would be held on 25 June 2020.
23. On 30 June 2020, the landlord advised the resident of the decision of the Panel (which consisted of a resident, a non-resident, and two senior members of staff). It stated that the Panel had noted that the offer of £660 made at Stage 1 took into account the length of time taken to identify and resolve the issue and for the impact it had on the resident and his family, and that the Panel considered the offer to be fair and reasonable. The resident subsequently informed the landlord that he would be declining the offer and approaching this Service.
24. The landlord has since confirmed to this Service that it “offered £660 due to the loss of earnings the customer experienced when repairs were not carried out and towards cost for food whilst they remained in the property and did not decant. The compensation offer is also for the delays occurred from when the issue was reported.” The resident has advised this Service that he remains concerned about possible damage by rodents to the sound and fire barrier between his flat and flat above, as well as the house next door.

Assessment and findings

25. The resident has periodically reported the presence of vermin in the building and bad smells.  As both issues may be indicative of underlying disrepair and/or a defect in the building, the landlord had a responsibility to investigate to ensure it met its repair obligations. Moreover, it was the landlord’s practice to carry out pest control works if there was a possible defect and/or the rodents were present in more than one property, as was the case here. The landlord took steps to meet its responsibilities by commissioning a pest controller to survey the drains, check for access points and carry out proofing / treatment works following the resident’s reports in 2018.  It was appropriate that the contractor surveyed and jetted the drains as drains can provide an entry route for rodents into buildings. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its expert pest control contractor which at the time could not identify entry points for rodents.
26. The resident made further reports in 2019 of rodents, also advising the landlord that there was a bad smell in his property. Again, the landlord took steps to meet its responsibilities to identify repairs and deal with the rodents by recalling its pest control contractor to investigate.  The contractor made further investigations into drainage issues, which was appropriate as drainage issues could have been related to the bad smell the resident had reported.
27. The contractor ascertained that the kitchen waste pipe was not connected to the waste drainpipe, and this defect caused both the smell from waste kitchen water / debris not draining away, and an entry point for rats. The landlord then remedied the defect and made good the kitchen by ordering the contractor to carry out the necessary remedial works on an urgent basis.
28. The remedial works necessitated disruptive excavatory works and the loss of use of the kitchen.  It was therefore appropriate, and in line with the Decant Policy, that the landlord asked the resident to move out for the duration of the works and offered temporary accommodation in a B&B, which was one of the temporary accommodation options listed in the applicable policy.  That the resident and his family chose to stay in the property and with relatives does not constitute a service failure by the landlord.
29. After completion of the works, the resident complained about the length of time taken to diagnose the root cause of the smell and rodent issue, and the disruption caused by the remedial works. To resolve the complaint the landlord offered compensation. At the time, the landlord did not have a compensation policy. The landlord’s offer has been considered in relation to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, which sets out broad ranges of compensation to recognise the adverse affect of a landlord’s actions, or inaction, on a complainant. The guidance recommends awards of £250 – £700 in cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there is unlikely to have been permanent impact on the complainant.
30. In this case the landlord ultimately offered £660 compensation.  The landlord did not have had a compensation policy in place at the time of the complaint to guide its approach, and it is unclear how the landlord arrived at the sum given the varying explanations provided during the complaint procedure and to this Service, and that the sum was not at any time broken down into relevant categories. The landlord advised in the Stage 1 response that the award was intended to cover some of the resident’s claimed loss in earnings, but it did not clarify how much this amounted to. There was then no reference to loss of earnings in the Stage 2 response. The Stage 2 response referred to a delay – the “length of time it took to identify and resolve the issue” – whereas the Stage 1 response referred simply to the impact of the works completed.
31. The landlord also advised the resident that it would take into account the missed sink repair appointment of 28 February 2020 but there is no evidence that the award of £660 included compensation for this.  Furthermore, the landlord has since advised this Service that the award of £660 incorporated the payment for food whilst the works were being carried out, but it did not say this to the resident when making the award. There is no evidence that the landlord otherwise made the payment.
32. Aside from the lack of clarity and consistency in its explanation, the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable and proportionate to the failings in its handling of the reports of drainage issues and rodent access.  This is because when it received reports, it sought to meet its responsibilities by arranging for its pest controller to attend and when the fault with the kitchen drainage was identified it promptly remedied the situation.  Whilst the resident may consider it could have remedied the situation sooner, the award of £660 is commensurate with the Ombudsman’s range of compensation awards for cases where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there is unlikely to have been permanent impact on the complainant. This range of compensation covers cases where repairs have not been addressed for a considerable period of time. Also, whilst the Ombudsman expects landlords to offer redress for service failures, landlords have no obligation to reimburse lost wages.
33. However, the lack of clarity in the landlord’s explanations of its offers of redress constitutes a service failure. The lack of clarity caused detriment to the resident through the inconvenience of not knowing exactly what failings were recognised by the landlord, and whether redress had been made. As the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord had the opportunity to provide clarification but did not do so.
34. It is noted that the resident has raised concerns to the Service about possible damage caused by rats to the structure and fabric of the building. Although there is no evidence that this was raised as part of his formal complaint to the landlord, in the interest of reaching a resolution to this matter, it is recommended that the landlord investigate these concerns further, liaising with the upstairs neighbour as necessary.

Provision of information by the landlord to the Ombudsman

35. On 29 January 2021, the landlord was asked to provide information to this Service by 19 February 2021 to enable investigation of the complaint.  The landlord failed to provide this information despite several prompts, and, on 29 April 2021, the Ombudsman issued a Complaints Handling Failure Order requiring the landlord to provide all information by 4 May 2021.  The landlord submitted information on 10 May 2021, nearly three months after the initial deadline.
36. In the early stages of the investigation, it was found that further information was required, including some which had not been provided in response to the initial request of 29 January. This was requested on 8 June 2021, with an initial deadline of 15 June 2021. Two extensions to this deadline were granted to the landlord, the second because the landlord gave reasons for not being able to provide the information on time. These reasons related to personnel/employment matters which will not be disclosed in this report. All information was provided on 7 July 2021.
37. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is obliged to provide copies of any information requested which is relevant to the complaint. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requires landlords to provide information within 15 working days of a request, and this was far exceeded in this case. The landlord’s extensive delay in providing information was also inappropriate given that the information requested should have been readily available, particularly as much of it would have been relied upon when the landlord considered the resident’s complaint.  Significant efforts have been made by this Service to obtain sufficient information for a fair investigation of the resident’s complaint.
38. For these reasons, a recommendation has been made to the landlord to review its processes for obtaining and sending information to this Service, with a focus on ensuring that all items requested are provided within the timeframe stipulated within part 3.20 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Determination (decision)

39. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

40. When the landlord received reports, it sought to meet its responsibilities by arranging for its pest control contractor to attend and when the fault with the kitchen drainage was identified it promptly remedied the situation.  It also offered compensation that was reasonable and proportionate to its handling of the reports of drainage and rodents.  However, the landlord was not clear and consistent when explaining how the compensation was calculated and what it was for, causing uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

41. The landlord within the next four weeks pays the resident £50 for the inconvenience caused by the lack of clarity of its compensation award.
42. The landlord within the next four weeks identifies steps to it can take to improve its assessment and explanation/transparency in deciding awards of compensation.

Recommendations

43. The landlord pay the resident the £660 that was offered within the complaints procedure as the Ombudsman has taken into account this offer when investigation this complaint and arriving at the determination.
44. The landlord ensures that when offering compensation to residents, it keeps an audit trail of its decision-making process and makes clear to the resident about what the compensation offer is intended to provide redress for.
45. The landlord arranges with the resident (and his upstairs neighbour, as necessary) to investigate his concerns about possible damage to the structure of the building.
46. The landlord should review its processes for obtaining and sending information to this Service, with a focus on ensuring that all items requested are provided within the timeframe stipulated within part 3.20 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
47. Within the next four weeks the landlord should advise the Ombudsman of its intentions to complete the above recommendations.