Clarion Housing Association Limited (202117029)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117029

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 June 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a bed bug infestation at the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident has uncontrolled epilepsy.
3. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 25 October 2021. He stated that there have been ongoing issues with bed bugs since he first moved into the property. The resident also stated that his son had been bitten by bed bugs. He also stated that he has uncontrolled epilepsy and the stress of the bed bug infestation resulted in an increased number of seizures. The resident also explained that he had to purchase new clothing, bedding, and rugs due to the bed bugs.
4. On 12 November 2021, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. It explained that the resident raised the issue regarding bed bugs in April 2021. The landlord also stated it had scheduled a visit for 19 November 2021 to locate the source of the issue and carry out treatment. It also offered the resident £400 compensation because the initial pest treatments failed to eliminate the infestation.
5. On 15 December 2021, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response. It stated it believed the compensation that had already been awarded was an appropriate amount based on the complaint. The landlord also explained that there was a programme of work in place to treat the whole block and all residents had been written to with the details of the proposed work. It also stated in its response that it would only consider moving the resident to an alternative property if the ongoing pest treatment was not effective.
6. The landlord completed a peer review and issued its final response to the complaint on 19 April 2022. It stated that it had located the source of the bed bug infestation. The landlord also explained when the pest control contractor last visited the block on 6 April 2022, the infestation within the block was low and there was no bed bug activity at the resident’s property. It also requested a list of the resident’s damaged items and their value to pass the information on to its liability insurance company.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted his complaint to the Ombudsman. He stated that his desired outcome was to receive further compensation and to have all the furniture replaced. He also stated that he would like the bed bugs to be eradicated or, alternatively, to be moved to another property if the bed bugs cannot be eradicated.
8. The landlord has confirmed in its file submission to the Ombudsman there was no sign of bed bugs at the resident’s property since April 2022. The resident has also confirmed that the bed bug issue is now resolved. However, the resident has confirmed this was resolved in August 2022.

Assessment and findings

9. The resident has stated, as part of his complaint, he would like to receive compensation for the furniture and belongings he had to dispose of due to the bed bug infestation. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the claim to its insurer as landlords are entitled to use liability insurance as a means of managing the costs of liability claims. The landlord would not be expected to cover the cost of liability claims outside the insurance process. The Ombudsman is not able to assess this aspect of the complaint because it is outside our role to investigate liability insurance claims. We cannot look at the actions of insurers, we can only look at the landlord’s actions.
10. The resident has mentioned as part of his complaint that his son was bitten by bed bugs within the property. The resident has also stated that he has uncontrolled epilepsy, and the stress of the bed bug infestation has resulted in him having more seizures. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about these injuries. However, it would be more appropriately suited for a court or liability insurer to investigate a personal injury claim. As they can award damages in a different way and review medical evidence. But this service can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his and his son’s health.

11. The resident stated that there had been an ongoing issue with bed bugs since he moved into the property in January 2017. The resident submitted his complaint to the landlord in October 2021; therefore, this report will focus on events from approximately six months prior to October 2021 and onwards. This report will not investigate the bed bug issues prior to this date. This is because paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme explains that this Service cannot investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within six months of the matters arising.
12. The landlord’s tenancy management policy states that the responsibility for preventing and eradicating pests is shared between the landlord, the residents and the local authority. The policy states that the term “pest” includes bed bugs. It also states that the landlord is not responsible for damage caused by pests to residents’ belongings. In this case, the landlord agreed to resolve the bed bug issues, as the bed bug infestation started in the communal areas of the property.
13. The landlord stated in its stage one complaint response that the resident reported the bed bug issue in April 2021. The landlord’s pest control contractor carried out inspections and treatments of the resident’s block or property approximately 13 times between June 2021 and April 2022. Therefore, it is evident that the landlord took appropriate steps to treat and eliminate the bed bug infestation, although it is acknowledged that it took some time to resolve the problem and repeated treatments were needed.
14. The landlord has stated that the bed bug infestation was eradicated within the resident’s property in April 2022. Therefore, it took approximately one year for the issue to be resolved. The Ombudsman recognises that it would have been difficult and distressing for the resident living in his property with bed bugs for this period. However, the Ombudsman also recognises that it can be difficult to eradicate a bed bug infestation, particularly when it is impacting multiple properties within the same block of flats. Therefore, it is acknowledged in some instances that multiple inspections and treatments may be required to eradicate a bed bug infestation. This would not be seen as a failing by the landlord, provided it was carrying out treatments in a timely manner and keeping residents updated.
15. The landlord acted in line with the advice from its qualified pest control contractor to eradicate the bed bug infestation. It also explained in its stage two complaint response that it would only consider moving the resident to an alternative property if the ongoing treatment was unsuccessful. The Ombudsman believes the landlord acted reasonably in this instance. A landlord would be expected to move residents temporarily if their property is uninhabitable. The presence of pests within a property, while understandably distressing would not automatically mean the property would be uninhabitable. The property would only be uninhabitable if there was evidence that the presence of the pests made it unsafe to live in. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the property was unsafe to live in due to the bed bugs and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord not to move the resident.
16. The landlord acknowledged in its stage one complaint response that the initial pest treatments failed to eliminate the bed bug infestation. To recognise the delay and inconvenience, it offered the resident £400 compensation. The compensation offered to the resident was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it awards compensation of between £250 to £700 for cases where it finds a considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact on the resident. The compensation offered was also compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. Although the resident experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of the time taken to resolve the bed bug issue, there was no permanent impact as the bed bug infestation was ultimately resolved. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation proportionately reflected the initial ineffective pest treatments and delay in resolving the issue, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case.

Determination (decision)

17. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of bed bug infestation at the resident’s property.

Recommendations

18. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer in its stage one complaint response of £400 in compensation within four weeks if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.