Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202121292)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121292

Sovereign Living Limited

25 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 the resident’s reports of bed bugs at the property and the level of compensation offered for losses incurred.

Background and summary of events

Legal and Policy Context

The landlord has a compensation policy which states that they are a charitable organisation and should offer compensation only if the customer has suffered financial loss due to their failure in delivering a service. Compensation should return the customer back to where they were before the problem happened, and not something that they should profit from.
The landlord’s “dealing with pests” fact sheet, identifies bed bugs in its list of most common pests and states that, residents are responsible for dealing with pest problems within the home and garden.
The landlord has a decant policy, for times when they may need to move a resident out of their home on a temporary or permanent basis, with the intention to return. The aim is that they do not last longer than six months.
When decanted to another property, residents are responsible for the rent on their original home, all charges will continue. The landlord will cover the cost of the temporary accommodation.
Residents moving temporarily due to an emergency are not entitled to home loss or disturbance payments. The landlord may choose to assist with reasonable costs related to the move, such as disconnection and re-connection of appliances, storage of furniture, laundry costs etc.
The landlord is signed up to the Home-Swapper mutual exchange scheme, which allows its residents to swap properties with other social housing residents within the UK. The landlord’s website, states that part of the criteria for a mutual exchange to be agreed, is that the property has no repairs outstanding; the home and garden must be in a clean, tidy, and good condition. Once a mutual exchange application is received, the landlord will inspect all rooms and walls, pictures will need to be removed and large furniture moved away from the walls.
Shelter’s website states that hotel accommodation can be used as interim emergency accommodation when households are homeless. However, government guidelines recommend this should not exceed six weeks for families with children, at which point more suitable alternative accommodation should be found.

Summary of Events

The resident moved into a 3-bedroom semi-detached property with his partner, (who was pregnant at the time of the complaint) and two children. The tenancy was assigned to him through the mutual exchange process on 16 August 2021.
The resident accepted the property, with the understanding that it needed to be extensively redecorated and re-carpeted, which they could achieve with the help of their family. The resident stayed with family until the upstairs rooms were decorated. Within a day of moving in, the resident realised that the property was infested with bed bugs. This was reported to the landlord on 23 August 2021.
The landlord responded by decanting the residents to emergency accommodation, in a hotel for three weeks with a package of £350.00 per week for food, whilst it treated the problem. The landlord acknowledged that it was not the most ideal accommodation, but it was the only accommodation they could secure, so close to a bank holiday and having recently completed a refugee housing project. The landlord also cancelled the weekly charge for the rent at the property.
The landlord commenced treatment with a professional pest control contractor the following day, on 24 August 2021. The infestation was classed as severe by the contractor, who recommended all soft furnishings should be disposed of, for example beds, sofas and mattresses.
Email exchanges of 26 August 2021 and 27 August 2021, between the resident and the landlord, discussed the offer of a “serviced apartment” for the resident. The resident declined the offer as he felt the location was too far away from family support, which they were reliant on at that time.
On 31 August 2021, the remaining items were placed in storage at the landlord’s expense.
On 9 September 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to express their concern at still having to live in a hotel, and complained about not having received an update that they were expecting the previous day. They explained the situation had, had a devastating impact on them, and highlighted the challenges they faced as a family of four, having to live in one hotel room, and to accommodate their dog. The research the resident had done himself on bed bug infestation, suggested treatment could take another four to six weeks. The resident wanted to meet with the landlord to discuss the plans for moving forward and whether they would be awarded compensation for the loss of their belongings.
On 14 September 2021 the landlord offered the family a move from the hotel to a temporary “serviced apartment” which was more suitable for the family and better accommodated the resident’s dog, which the resident accepted. Email conversations at this point between the resident and the landlord, discussed that the resident planned to go back to his home when the treatment was completed.
Sometime between September and December 2021, the resident has advised that he moved again to another property that had a courtyard garden for the dog, which was owned by the same provider of the serviced apartment. This was not in the landlord’s records and the resident is unsure of the date.
On 20 September 2021 the resident made enquiries with the landlord about looking at other vacant properties to move to permanently. The landlord advised the resident that this could be considered. It pointed out that there was a one offer only policy, and it would need to know the area that the family would consider.
The landlord continued to carry out extensive works to resolve the infestation and bring the property up to standard. This included removing skirting boards and spraying the infestation several times, it also included installing a completely new kitchen and bathroom. The work amounted to a cost of £29,000 to the landlord.
A meeting between the resident and the landlord took place on 30 September 2021. It was agreed the resident would respond to the meeting by email which he did the same day. In the email the resident said that the landlord referred several times to the £29,000 it had spent on the property, and they felt they were being blamed for this, when it was down to the previous residents.
The resident also told the landlord in the email that they felt insulted by an offer of £500.00 compensation when they had lost almost all their belongings. They were in a poor financial position, as the resident had not been able to work due to having no garden for the dog, and his pregnant partner not being able to take the dog out. They were expected to move back into the property in eight to 11 days and had no furniture, he provided a list of the minimum furniture he would be prepared to move back in with and the estimated cost which came to £4830.00, this did not cover the cost of everything they had disposed of. He also thought it would be fair for the landlord to consider an offer of personal compensation for the impact on the family including the bites they suffered.
On 30 September 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email and advised a meeting would be arranged to discuss its contents and they would respond the following Monday.
On 6 October 2021, the resident’s partner wrote to the landlord’s Chief Executive asking for help. She set out the history of her case, and advised they were expected to move back into the property in five days, on 11 October 2021, but that day the resident had returned to find 15 live bed bugs. She asked how they could be expected to move back in if it was still infested and they had no belongings and only been offered £500.00 compensation. The correspondence was logged as a stage two complaint to be investigated.
The landlord completed a thorough investigation, which included listening to the residents’ account, reviewing the case file, relevant policies and speaking to the staff involved as well as the pest control specialists directly.
During the investigation it came to light a pre-mutual exchange visit had not been carried out in line with the information on the landlord’s website, the landlord determined there was no negligence, as this did not materially change the situation, as it decided it was unlikely had this visit taken place that it would have picked up the infestation.
The investigation and resulting assessment were recorded. It determined that there was no actual pest control policy within the organisation, but the landlord had a published fact sheet, which stated that it was the resident’s responsibility to treat infestations. It found no service failure on its part, surrounding this issue, and the resulting action taken. However, it acknowledged that by commissioning the remedial work it had accepted liability and responsibility for resolving the problem. The investigation also noted that if the organisation agreed that it was liable then it was liable for the replacement of disposed items.
On 13 October 2021, following its investigation the landlord sent out its stage two response. In summary:
1. It provided an overview of the events that had taken place from the report of the infestation, the emergency decants, the longer term decants, its advice from the specialist pest control contractor and the programme of works carried out.
2. It had arranged for specialist heat treatment for the infestation to be carried out to the property and the residents’ belongings brought out of storage before the family moved back into the property.
3. It determined that compensation through insurance was not something the resident could reasonably have pursued. If the family had contents insurance, a claim would likely to have been excluded for bed bugs, and a claim against the landlord’s public liability insurance would also be likely to have been un-successful, as in its view, there was no evidence of negligence.
4. Its investigation had found no service failures or delays in its handling of the situation once they were notified of the infestation on 23 August 2021.
5. It agreed to compensate the family for theitems they requested as a minimum to move back into the property, which totalled £4,830.00, to enable them to move back into the property. It offered £5,000.00 for the replacement items (including furniture, bedding, towels, curtains and blinds). It also offered an additional £500.00 in recognition of the anxiety and inconvenience suffered by the family. A total of £5,500, was offered in full and final settlement.
The resident accepted the offer of compensation; he has told this service he did not think it was sufficient in relation to what he had lost, but as the landlord was insistent that was the maximum it could offer he was not in a position to turn it down.

Post Complaint Process

On 21 October 2021, a specialist heat treatment was carried out on the property, which was considered to be the most effective treatment following failure of the spray treatments. The following day the resident arranged to have his carpets laid, ready to move in over the weekend. The resident contacted the landlord out of hours on 24 October 2021 to inform it that live bed bugs were still in the property behind the skirting board and in the plug sockets.
On 4 November 2021, the resident reported that a second heat treatment had been completed that day, with skirting boards removed and holes made in the floors, a five-hour process with additional spray treatments.
The week commencing 7 November 2021, the landlord arranged an internal meeting to discuss how to progress. At this point the property had, had 25 spray treatments and two heat treatments in the period the resident had been decanted. The pest control specialist advised the landlord that the bugs could lie dormant for six months to a year even after treatment. The landlord made the decision to leave the property empty for up to a year and offer the resident a like for like property for that period.,
On 10 November 2021, the landlord offered the resident an alternative property to move to permanently, the landlord noted that the resident did not take the property because his existing home had a very large garden and a drive and was not overlooked, so the resident preferred to wait and return to the original property.
The following day the landlord offered the resident a further two properties. One was in the same road as the residents existing property. He was offered as either temporary accommodation for the year, or as a permanent home if he wished, but he could make that decision once he had moved in.
The landlord set out the agreed plan of action to the resident in an email on 25 November 2021, in summary it said:
1. Their stay in the current apartment had been extended to 10 January 2022, when the temporary properties offered would be ready.
2. Two properties had been offered, one in the same road as the existing house, which would be available to the resident for one year from 10 January 2022, until he could return to his original property.
3. It would spray any of the residents’ belongings that had been put back in the original house, before they moved to the alternative temporary accommodation, and storage would be arranged for items they had stored there.
4. They agree to pay the resident £200.00 for the decorating that had been done in the house and requested a receipt for the underlay to re-imburse him.
5. Extensive work would be carried out to the original house, removing the floors to trace the infestation, a full re-wire and making good of any plasterwork.
6. With regards to compensation, it explained they do not compensate for loss of earnings and the resident had already accepted a sum of £5,500.00 in full and final settlement.
The resident agreed to move into the temporary house in the same road as his existing house for one year.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The Ombudsman does not usually consider matters made prior to exhausting the members complaints procedure, which in this case would include events that occurred after the date of the landlord’s final stage response, which was 13 October 2021. However, part of the agreed complaint resolution, was to eliminate the infestation with a specialist heat treatment at the resident’s property. Within a week of the final complaint response it was known that this treatment had failed to solve the problem. With this changed outcome the resident remained dissatisfied, and the landlord continued to act to resolve the situation. The ongoing actions and decisions taken, that relate to the original complaint, have therefore been included in this investigation.
Part of the resident’s complaint to this service was about the landlord’s decision to re-charge the resident for pest control treatment carried out when transference of bed bugs occurred at the temporary accommodation. This was not part of the resident’s original complaint, regarding the landlord’s handling of the bed bug infestation at the resident’s permanent home. This is a separate complaint and cannot be included as part of this investigation, however, a recommendation has been made regarding this matter below.

Assessment

On receiving the report from the resident on 23 August 2021, that the property had a bed bug infestation, the landlord acted quickly and appropriately. It decanted the resident and his family to an emergency hotel that day, so that pest control treatment could safely take place. It started treatment using a pest control specialist the next day. The landlord also allocated the family £350.00 per week for food, as there were no cooking facilities available which reasonably addressed any additional cost the resident would have incurred as a result.
The landlord acknowledged that the hotel accommodation was not ideal for the family, but has explained this was outside of its control, as accommodation was in short supply at the time, as it was the height of the summer season, and a project to house refugees had just been carried out in the area.
It was reasonable for the landlord to place the family in a hotel; hotel accommodation can be used for families with children as “emergency accommodation” but should not usually be used for longer than six weeks. When the landlord concluded the infestation was severe and the situation was not going to be as short-term as they had expected, they moved the family to a self-contained apartment; this was within three weeks, which was within the recommended guidelines.
The previous resident of the property had not reported the infestation to the landlord and as the property had been let through the mutual exchange scheme, and not as a direct let from the landlord (i.e., where it would have been responsible for bringing the property up to a re-lettable standard), the landlord could not have reasonably known the property was infested.
The landlord usually classed pest infestations as the tenant’s responsibility, which is set out in its pest control fact sheet. On this occasion the landlord recognised the residents were new to the property and could not be the cause of the infestation. Even though the landlord was not at fault either, it reasonably took responsibility to resolve the problem.
The landlord’s stage two investigation identified that a pre mutual exchange visit was not carried out, as per the landlord’s guidelines, publicised on its website. It determined however that this failing was unlikely to have materially changed the outcome, as had the visit been done, it was unlikely the infestation would have been detected. This is a reasonable assessment with regards to the infestation, as these can be difficult to detect during a one off inspection. The residents had visited the property prior to moving in and completed decorating work without detecting the infestation.
The landlord states as a charitable organisation its compensation policy only allows them to compensate, for any financial loss suffered by a resident, if the loss is down to a failure in delivery of the landlord’s service. The infestation in the resident’s property was not because of a service failure by the landlord, so under the landlord’s compensation policy, it was not required to compensate the resident for the loss of his belongings.
The landlord however, did make an offer of compensation in its stage two response; it provided the resident with £5000.00 to compensate for beds, sofas, bedding, towels curtains and blinds and an additional £500.00 compensation for the anxiety and inconvenience experienced by the family. If the infestation had been the result of the landlord’s service failure, its policy would require it to compensate for all financial loss to return the resident “back to the position they were in before the problem occurred”. As the infestation was not down to a service failing by the landlord, the offer of compensation, which exceeded the resident’s estimate to replace these belongings, was reasonable.
There is evidence that the landlord took all the appropriate action possible to eliminate the infestation of bed bugs, (25 spray treatments and two heat treatments), and whilst they were unsuccessful, the landlord continued to take steps to resolve the problem. There is no evidence though, that the landlord made the appropriate checks that the infestation had been eliminated after treatment, before requesting that the resident moved back. Ultimately the advice was that the infestation had been so severe the property needed to be left empty for six months to a year. This advice should have been considered by the landlord before the resident was invited to make preparations to move back in.
As a result, the resident endured more stress and inconvenience and incurred further unnecessary financial cost. The landlord reasonably covered the extra decorating costs incurred and was willing to pay for the carpet and underlay, but it was not satisfied with the handwritten receipt provided by the resident.
It is appropriate for the landlord to use caution in the handling of its budgets and ensure it is paying for genuine goods and service.The landlord did not dispute that the resident had purchased carpets and underlay as it had seen them in the property. Whilst business headed invoices and receipts have been the recognised method to prove payment,more people are using cheaper alternative suppliers who do not always provide this type of receipt, making it more difficult to sufficiently evidence payment. In this situation the landlord could have secured an estimate to quantify the loss, for examplefor carpet the landlord could have calculated an amount based on price per metre for a reasonably priced equivalent carpet/underlay and paid the nominal sum.
Once it was established that the only course of action left was to leave the property empty for a further year, the landlord acted appropriately in making the decision to do that, and offered the resident the option of alternative permanent accommodation, as in its decant policy, temporary decants are usually only for six months.
The landlord also acted reasonably when it accepted the resident’s refusal of its offer of permanent accommodation, even though it operates a one offer only policy. The landlord went on to offer the resident a choice of two more properties, one which was in the same road as his original home with the choice of accepting it permanently or temporarily for a year, until he could return to his original home, which was more than fair.
The resident agreed to take the temporary accommodation and return to his original home after the year. This service understands that the offer from the landlord, to allow the family to accept the temporary accommodation as a permanent home after the year, still stands which again is more than reasonable.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code encourages landlords to use complaints positively, to identify gaps in service and introduce positive change to service delivery. The landlord has demonstrated that it has taken learning from this case complaint and has committed to amending its mutual exchange information on the website and reviewing its pest and infestation policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the residents’ reports, of bed bugs at the property and the level of compensation offered for losses incurred.

Reasons

The landlord acted impeccably in much of its handling of the resident’s complaint; it accepted responsibility for the issue, responded quickly, decanted the resident to emergency accommodation followed up with more appropriate long-term temporary housing and alternative permanent housing. It took all the action it could have, to eliminate an unprecedented, severe, and embedded infestation, through spraying, heat treatment and ultimately leaving it empty for a year. Unfortunately, it failed to properly check if the infestation had been eliminated before advising the resident to move back in. This caused further detriment to the resident, for which it did not apologise for or offer appropriate redress.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord should compensate the resident within four weeks, for his carpet and underlay. This can be done by either accepting and paying the amount on the resident’s receipt for the carpets and underlay purchased or obtain a reasonable quote from a supplier for the cost of the equivalent quality and quantity of carpet and underlay and pay the resident the total of that amount.
The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pays the resident a further £200.00 for the stress and inconvenience of starting to move into the home and then not being able to.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord provides its final position to the resident on the re-charge of the pest-control treatment at the temporary accommodation if the dispute on this issue has not been resolved.