Flagship Housing Group Limited (202123819)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123819

Victory Housing Trust

22 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents reports of body lice being brought into the close by the Estates Officer.

Background

2. In December 2021, the landlord arranged for a sofa to be removed from the garden of the resident’s neighbour by a member of its estates team. As a result of this, the resident believes that she was infected with body lice. The resident believes that the member of staff gave lice to her neighbour, who then passed it to her via a Christmas card they posted through her door. The resident states that she has an allergy to the enzymes secreted by body lice.
3. The resident contacted this service to state that she had logged a complaint with the landlord but had not received a formal response. This Service contacted the landlord on 31 January 2022. On 2 February 2022, the landlord responded stating that they had not received a complaint from the resident. The landlord confirmed it would investigate the complaint under its complaint process.
4. The resident stated that she did not have a medical letter to confirm she has body lice, but that she was speaking to her doctor about it. The resident stated that she has no immunity against lice and was worried about the effects this would have on her. She was also concerned as she stated that all the residents in the close had body lice.
5. The landlord provided a stage one response to the resident on 11 February 2022. It stated that:
   1. It had investigated the concerns and that there was no evidence in terms of a medical report to confirm the resident had lice.
   2. There had been no other reports to suggest anyone else had body lice in the close.
   3. There was no evidence to suggest the member of staff that attended to remove the sofa in December 2021 was carrying body lice and passed it to the resident’s neighbour.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. She was not happy that the landlord could not confirm or deny that a member of staff had passed body lice to her neighbour. She felt the landlord should take responsibility and investigate further, as well as help her with the treatment.
7. The landlord provided a stage two response on 24 February 2022. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding her allergy to the enzymes secreted by body lice but stated that it was not a landlord service. It advised that it had investigated the concerns and found no evidence of body lice in the close. It also provided some research regarding body lice and how it was spread. It advised the resident that she would need to seek medical advice for treatment of the body lice.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to this Service. The resident states that the information the landlord gave regarding body lice was incorrect and disputes what the landlord said about how it can be transferred. She also disagreed with the landlord’s suggestion that body lice can be washed away. The outcome the resident is seeking is for this Service to review her complaint and for compensation to be considered.

Assessment and findings

9. The tenancy agreement advises that the landlord will respond to serious pest infestations that are causing damage to the home such as bed bugs, or rats but that it is up to the resident to keep on top of any household pests in the home and garden.
10. The landlord stated that the resident had not logged a formal complaint about body lice. On receiving notification from this Service on 31 January 2022, it logged the complaint and advised it would investigate the concerns under its complaints process. This was reasonable.
11. The landlord attempted to contact the resident within 24 hours as per its policy. It was unable to speak to the resident and left a voice message. The landlord did get to speak to the resident on 7 February 2022 to discuss the details of the complaint. As part of its investigation, the landlord:
    1. spoke to members of staff that had attended the close to remove the couch.
    2. checked to see if anyone else in the close had reported body lice.
    3. checked if there had been any reports of an infestation.
    4. asked the resident to provide evidence that she had body lice.
    5. researched body lice, what it is, how it is spread and how to treat it.
12. Following its investigation, the landlord states it was unable to find any evidence to suggest that a staff member was responsible for bringing body lice into the close. It responded to the resident on 11 February 2022 and explained this to her. This was in line with its complaints policy, and this Service considers the landlord’s actions to be fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
13. The resident remained dissatisfied and wanted the complaint to be reviewed. The landlord did so, and the complaint was reviewed by a senior manager. It responded to the resident on 24 February 2022. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about her allergy to the enzyme secreted by body lice. It sympathised that this was distressing for her and advised the resident to seek medical advice on how best to treat it. It also provided the resident with some research it had found on body lice, in terms of how it is transferred. This Service considers the actions taken by the landlord were fair. Managing and treating body lice are matters for which a landlord would ordinarily not be responsible.
14. The landlord stated that it had not found any evidence that body lice were in the close, and no other residents had reported any issues and it provided the resident with her options to appeal the decision. The Ombudsman is not able to fault the landlord’s findings.
15. In summary, the landlord took the concerns raised by the resident seriously, despite it not being a landlord responsibility to address body lice. It investigated the concerns under its complaint policy, and it complied with the timescales and its process. It took the time to speak to members of staff, determine if any other residents had reported any concerns, and carried out some research into body lice, all to enable them to support the resident with her concerns. It sympathised with her fears regarding her allergy to the enzyme secreted and did not dismiss her concerns about a possible infestation on the close. This demonstrates good practice on the part of the landlord, and a demonstration of supporting a resident who was genuinely concerned for her health.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the residents reports of body lice being brought into the close by the Estates Officer.