Magenta Living (202220432)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220432

Magenta Living

26 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice infestation.
   2. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a one-bedroom flat in a low-rise block.The resident suffers with mental health issues which the landlord has recorded on the resident’s file.
3. The landlord notes that the resident had reported he could hear mice in the shared loft space in March 2021. On 14 July 2021, the landlord’s records show that the resident reported that he had now seen mice inside his property. Pest control contractors conducted a two-part riddance programme in the resident’s property and in the shared loft space that began on 19 August 2021. This found high pest activity (mice) internally but no obvious ingress points. The second part of the riddance programme was completed on 6 September 2021, concluding that pest activity was now considered low with no new signs of activity.
4. The next record of a report of mice ingress in the resident’s property was on 28 March 2022. An inspection of the resident’s property on 12 April 2022 concluded that the risk of pests entering the property was high due to multiple holes found in the property and therefore recommended filling these to reduce the risk. Pest-proofing works were completed on 28 April 2022 and 31 May 2022. Pest control attended on 14 July 2022 to complete the riddance programme, but found that the proofing works had not been completed properly, and the resident was still having issues with mice ingress. A pest-proofing survey was completed on 16 August 2022, which concluded that there were multiple holes and gaps in the property that needed sealing and, as a result, the risk of pest infiltration was high.
5. On 19 August 2022 the landlord informed the resident that pest control would complete a further two-part riddance programme. The resident chased the landlord for confirmation of the date the works would commence on 31 August 2022, and 1, 2 and 5 September 2022. And when, on 5 September 2022, he was told that the appointment would not be undertaken until 23 September 2022, a formal complaint was raised as he was unhappy with the amount of time it was taking to resolve the matter, the amount of time spent chasing a resolution and with the number of calls he had made in relation to the mice infestation. He felt his concerns were not being taken seriously and he was being given contradictory information each time he made contact. He explained that he could not use the back room of the property and was struggling to cook due to mice faeces in the kitchen. He affirmed that he could no longer stay in the property and requested a move as he was feeling unwell due to the mice.
6. On 15 September 2022 pest control attended to complete proofing works and the first part of the riddance programme. On 30 September 2022 pest control attended and completed extra proofing. However, it was established on that visit that the mice were also within the shared loft space of the block. The landlord informed the resident on 5 October 2022 that it would be arranging to visit the block with the housing officer, the landlord’s property surveyor and pest control, to agree the best way forward and ensure it was dealt with as quickly as possible. On 28 October 2022 the first part of a three-part riddance programme began at three properties in the block.
7. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, dated 31 October 2022, it upheld the complaint in recognition of the time the resident had spent calling and having to be home for appointments. It acknowledged that the resident had been reporting this for ‘some time’, and acknowledged that, despite pest control attending on a number of occasions, the work completed had not yet resolved the matter. The landlord explained that during a recent visit by pest control, they had inspected the loft space and found that mice ingress appeared to be a bigger issue than just the resident’s property. As a result, the whole block was inspected by pest control and a property surveyor, which concluded that nine out of the twelve flats reported that they were experiencing some issues with mice. It thanked the resident for highlighting the issue as it said that its records only showed that the resident and one other tenant had reported the issue and therefore it had not realised the true extent of the matter.
8. To resolve the mice infestation, it said that the best course of action would be to proof all the external fabric of the block, to stop any mice being able to get in or out, and it had requested that all twelve flats were treated with a three-part riddance programme. It confirmed that, on 28 October 2022, pest control attended and had proofed the outside of the three blocks and commenced the riddance programme in six of the flats. It confirmed that this was a big project, but one that would be closely monitored, to ensure it was dealt with as swiftly as possible.
9. In recognition of the inconvenience caused during this time (number of calls and visits), it apologised and offered £200.00 compensation. In addition, it explained that, as this complaint had highlighted several areas where it needed to improve, it would be monitoring the work its contractors completed, to minimise the number of call outs and to ensure matters were resolved as quickly as possible for its tenants.
10. On 11 November 2022, the pest control record showed that mice activity was found internally, everywhere throughout the property. An internal landlord email, dated 15 November 2022, stated that the third visit of the three-part riddance programme showed high activity in all flats.
11. The resident escalated his complaint on 15 November 2022 as he was not happy with the resolution proposed nor with the compensation amount offered, explaining that he had been reporting the mice issue for two years which had severely affected his mental health. He also said that he felt unsafe in the property and his dog was unwell due to poisoning. As a resolution, he wished to move properties as he was struggling to cope with the situation.
12. The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 1 December 2022. However, the version provided did not include an outcome. Instead, it contained a second page that had not been amended from the template it used. This Service asked for clarification on this matter, but did not receive a response.
13. An internal landlord email, dated 1 December 2022, confirmed that it was still dealing with the pest issue at the three blocks and thus remained unresolved.
14. The resident brought his complaint to this Service on 12 December 2022 because he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the issue and the compensation offered. As an outcome he wanted the works completed to resolve the matter.
15. The landlord has confirmed that the resident was successfully rehoused via an internally managed move on 20 February 2023.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

16. The landlord’s pest control policy states that it will treat pests that are found in communal areas of flatted accommodation. If it is identified that there is a point of entry for pests from an external opening, the landlord will rectify and close off identified entry points such as air vents, brick work, roofing, skirting boards and floorboards. The pest policy stipulates that it will initiate treatment within five working days.

Scope of investigation

17. It is noted the resident has stated that he considers the issue has severely impacted his mental health. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a causal link between the mice infestation and the exacerbation of the resident’s medical condition. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if he considers that his health has been affected by its actions or lack thereof. That said, this report has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mice infestation

18. In accordance with the landlord’s pest policy, the landlord was responsible to treat the pests within the resident’s property, with the aim to initiate treatment within five working days. It was also responsible for rectifying and closing off any identified entry points within the property. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve pest infestations, as it can be difficult to identify the root cause of the issue at the outset and in some cases different repairs and treatments may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. Nevertheless, the landlord is ultimately responsible for the overall management of resolving the issue and had an obligation to manage the resolution effectively, ensuring that treatments were completed within a reasonable timeframe, that communication regarding next steps and expectations were clear, and that the resident was kept updated with the progress.
19. In this case, however, it is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the reports of a mice infestation, which caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident as the issue was unnecessarily prolonged. In short, having first reported hearing mice in the shared loft space in March 2021 and then later, on 14 July 2021, reporting the mice were now within his property, the issue remained unresolved as of December 2022, despite the numerous amounts of visits conducted and proofing works undertaken.
20. The landlord did acknowledge its failings during its internal complaint procedure. Thus, where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that, while the landlord did put some matters right and did show some learning, this was only in part, in light of the specific circumstances of this case.
21. While we do not have details whether the mice issue was indeed resolved, the landlord facilitated a resolution by granting the resident an internally managed property move on 20 February 2023, which permanently resolved the matter for the resident.
22. Moreover, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, the landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from the outcome of this complaint and as a result it concluded the need to implement specific actions to manage this case to a reasonable resolution. This was important to recognise given that the landlord and its contractors had not realised the extent of the issue until much later in the process.
23. As mentioned previously, taking a trial-and-error approach to pest infestations would not necessarily mean the landlord had failed in any way. In this case, however, the landlord had been made aware that the mice infestation may have been a wider issue back in March 2021 when the resident informed the landlord that he could hear mice in the shared loft space. When, on 14 July 2021, the resident informed the landlord that the mice were now inside his property, the landlord was also aware that the issue was affecting other flats in the block, indicating that a more holistic approach was required.  A riddance programme commenced on 19 August 2021 that included the loft space. But when the resident reported that the mice had returned to his property in March 2022, it was not until 30 September 2022 that the pest control contractors inspected the shared loft space again. In short, because the landlord and its contractors had not proactively initiated an inspection of the loft space following the resident’s subsequent report in March 2022, the prospect of resolving the matter at the earliest opportunity was missed. Consequently, despite a number of treatments and visits throughout this period (March 2022 to December 2022), the mice ingress continued, causing considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
24. There were also delays in initiating treatment in line with its pest policy (five working days), which caused further disruption and inconvenience to the resident. For example, the resident made the landlord aware that the mice were now inside his property on 14 July 2021, yet it was not until 19 August 2021 that treatment began. Similarly, when the resident informed the landlord subsequently, on 28 March 2022, that the mice had returned following the initial treatment, there were delays caused due to proofing works not being completed properly, which meant that the resident had to endure a number of appointments over a protracted period of time, culminating in the discovery of mice in the loft space on 30 September 2022 and the continuation of further treatment throughout October and November 2022.
25. It was important, therefore, that the landlord took the opportunity during its internal complaint procedure to recognise that action needed to be taken to effectively manage the matter to a suitable resolution, in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles. It acknowledged that it needed to improve how it monitored pest control issues as it did not pick up on the number of visits. It noted it would be monitoring the work its contractors completed, to minimise the number of call outs and to ensure resolution as quickly as possible. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that, in light of the above failings, this was reasonable and demonstrated its willingness to learn from its mistakes, with the intention to lessen and even mitigate any future issues.
26. However, while the landlord did apologise to the resident and did offer £200 compensation, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that, when we consider the circumstances of the case, this amount does not provide adequate redress to satisfactorily resolve the matter. If we take into consideration the time taken to resolve the matter fully, the time and trouble reporting the issue to the landlord, having to be available for numerous appointments, the likely loss of the use of his kitchen and other rooms due to the mice infestation, as well as in view of the distress and inconvenience of the situation, which ultimately culminated in the resident leaving the property, the landlord’s offer did not reflect the circumstance the resident had endured. Put simply, the omission of a fair and proportionate compensation amount was a failing on the landlord’s behalf.
27. A more proportionate amount of compensation, in light of the circumstances, would be £600, which is calculated in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website), where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. For clarity, this amount is reflective of the period from March 2021 to December 2022, with consideration that at some points within this period there were no reports of mice infestation in the property.
28. An overall finding of maladministration has therefore been found because, although the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, it has failed to fully address the detriment caused to the resident and the compensation offered was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint handling

29. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), published in July 2020, sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. Section 3.6 of the Code states that a landlord’s complaints procedure shall comprise of two stages. This ensures that a resident has the opportunity to challenge any decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns via an appeal process. Accordingly, the landlord’s complaint policy provides for a two-stage process. And the landlord, during its complaint process, did provide two separate complaint responses, one at stage one on 31 October 2022, and the other at stage two on 1 December 2022.
30. However, the landlord’s stage two complaint response did not state the outcome of the complaint, the reasons for any decision made, the details of any remedy offered to put things right, and details of any outstanding actions. In fact, the majority of the stage two response comprised of a templated version of a complaint response. This is not in accordance with section 3.15 of the Code (available on our website) which states that “At the completion of each stage of the complaints process the landlord should write to the resident advising them of the following:
    1. the complaint stage
    2. the outcome of the complaint
    3. the reasons for any decisions made
    4. the details of any remedy offered to put things right
    5. details of any outstanding actions
    6. details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied.
31. In short, the landlord has failed to adhere to the Code. This was a failing on the landlord’s behalf and while the Ombudsman sought clarification from the landlord, it was not forthcoming. As way of redress, therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, as there was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a mice infestation.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

34. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £700 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report. This is inclusive of the £200 previously offered and is broken down as follows:
    1. £600 for the failings identified in relation to the handling of the mice infestation.
    2. £100 for the complaint handling failures.
    3. If the previously offered £200 has already been paid to the resident, the landlord should deduct this from the amount noted above.
35. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.