London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202111758)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111758

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

20 April 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:
1. The landlord’s response to repairs to the property.
2. The landlord’s response to pest control issues.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a two-bedroom house. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The landlord’s records showed conversations had taken place with the resident regarding her availability for appointments. The resident advised the landlord that she worked in a school and requested appointments during school holidays.
The landlord’s repairs policy says for routine day to day repairs, the landlord will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its responsibility for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including walls, roofs, windows, external doors, drains, gutters, external pipes and boundaries, fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, heating, and sanitation.
Appendix 2 of the landlord’s repair responsibilities policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for infestations of pests in properties that are managed by the landlord. Rats/mice are included in the list of pests.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. At stage one the landlord will provide a response within ten working days and at stage two within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out when it will pay compensation to a resident. It will consider an offer of compensation when an apology alone is not sufficient. A payment can be made to recognise the impact that service loss or failure had on the resident. This could include failure to follow its policies, procedures, or guidelines. Another example being failure to respond to or process a complaint within its target times.

Summary of events

On 29 January 2018 the landlord recorded a possible leak from the resident’s bathroom. It recorded that the source was unknown but staining had occurred to the resident’s living room ceiling.
On 26 February 2018 the landlord recorded two tiles had fallen off the resident’s roof.
In March 2019 the landlord’s records showed it had arranged to carry out work to the resident’s stained ceiling. However, as the room was full of furniture someone from the landlord needed to explain the scale of the work involved to the resident. If the resident was unable to move the furniture, she would need to sign a disclaimer.
On 8 May 2019 the landlord recorded communication with the resident. She had advised that pests were coming into her house. The resident indicated that the pests were sheltering in overgrown vegetation at the rear of her property. This land was not owned by the landlord. The landlord advised that in this situation it would be her responsibility. It recommended that she should contact a pest control company.
On 7 June 2019 the landlord recorded that the resident’s gate at the front of her property was not closing. It recorded loose brickwork to the resident’s front garden wall and a rotten fence post.
Between 1 July and 12 July 2019 the resident chased the landlord by email to request an update regarding outstanding repairs. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 July 2019. It apologised for the delays. It confirmed the following repairs and dates:
1. Plastering would be completed on 13 August 2019.
2. Paving would be completed on 9 September 2019.
On the same day, the resident advised that she would not be available for the proposed dates. She asked the landlord to complete the outstanding work on 21 August 2019. The landlord advised that as the paving was external did not require access to repair it and it left that appointment as 9 September 2019.
On 6 August 2019 the resident made a stage one complaint about the outstanding repairs. The resident listed the outstanding repairs as:
1. Paving to the front of her house.
2. Paving at the rear of her house.
3. Broken wall at the front of her house.
4. Plastering and decoration to a ceiling and walls in her home.
The landlord’s records showed it emailed the resident the on 7 August 2019. The landlord said:
1. It was sorry to hear that repairs were outstanding.
2. It confirmed the following dates for repairs with its supervisor:
  1. Plastering booked for 13 August 2019.
  2. Painting works to the ceiling booked for 26 September 2019.
  3. It advised that brickwork/fencing and gate works had been agreed with its contractor. It advised that the contractor would contact the resident direct to arrange an appointment.
On 21 August 2019 the resident emailed the landlord. She advised that “no work had yet been completed…” She said that:
1. The landlord had checked the ceiling on 13 August 2019, but she was now waiting for confirmation that plastering could be completed on 22 October 2019 and painting on 23 October 2019.
2. The contractors were still awaiting the landlord’s authorisation to complete the brickwork and gate repair at the front of the house.
3. She needed to reschedule the paving works as she had previously explained to the landlord that she was only available during school holidays.
Between 28 August to 31 August 2019 the resident chased the landlord by email on more than one occasion. The emails were marked as a complaint. The resident requested an update regarding her outstanding repairs. Due to her availability, she sought confirmation that they would be completed as discussed between 22 to 23 October 2019.
On 3 September 2019 the landlord responded by email. It explained that it had booked repairs to be carried out as follows:
1. Plastering to the ceiling 29 October 2019.
2. Painting to the ceiling 30 October 2019.
3. It advised that it did not have availability for 22 or 23 October 2019.
4. It asked if the resident could arrange access to the property for 9 September 2019 so that the paving could be started.
On the same day, the resident responded. She said that she had previously stated her availability and that the proposed dates were not suitable. She said that the ceiling repair was now approaching a year, “which was unacceptable.”
On 6 September 2019 the landlord responded. It advised that its planning team were trying to reschedule the appointments but were unable to offer the 22 to 23 October. The landlord advised:
1. It was hoping that an operative could complete the ceiling work out of hours during a weekend.
2. That it had a high volume of work, and any further cancellations would likely result in further delays.
3. That the operatives arranged for 9 September 2019 would not require access to the property as the works were external.
On 9 September 2019 the landlord’s records showed that:
1. Its groundwork operatives were on site that day and would report back any additional works required to its surveyor.
2. It had arranged for the paving to the rear of the property to be assessed on 18 September 2019. However, as the resident had said she was not available the appointment had been cancelled. It had asked its contractor to provide a quote when it attended the property to carry out work to the resident’s front gate and wall.
3. Its contractor had spoken to the resident directly and arranged to carry out work to her gate and wall during the week commencing 21 October 2019.
4. Although it was unable to clear surrounding private land, it had arranged for its pest contractor to attend. It had “baited and completed proofing works to prevent pest control issues…”
5. It had previously discussed and emailed the resident about the privately owned alleyway and hedges to the rear of her property. It explained that the landlord did not own the land, but it had arranged pest control works [to help address her concerns]. A private owner was responsible for the clearance. The landlord approached two councils, neither were able to easily identify ownership. It also informed Environmental Health (EH) and encouraged the resident to contact EH direct.
On 8 November 2019 the landlord emailed the resident. It confirmed that:
1. It had agreed works with its contractor to reconstruct the residents wall, including the gate posts, and to rehang the existing gate.
2. Its contractor would carry out additional concreting works to the front of the house. The contractor would contact the resident direct to arrange an appointment.
3. It would endeavour to complete the decoration work “on Sunday.” (The specific date was unclear).
On 17 December 2019 the landlord informed the resident that it had a quote from its contractor for paving the rear of the property. The resident’s communication remained ongoing requesting updates on all outstanding external works.
On 29 January 2020 the landlord confirmed that it would carry out the following works to fit with the resident’s availability:
1. The agreed works to both front and rear paving/gardens on 17 February 2020.
2. The painting works on 17 February 2020.
3. It also offered to reimburse carpet cleaning if required upon presentation of a receipt.
4. It hoped that the agreed works would finalise the resident’s complaint.
On 28 March 2020 the Government issued guidance for landlords, tenants, and local authorities about the Covid 19 pandemic. The guidance recommended that access to a property was only allowed for serious and urgent repairs.
On 1 June 2020 the Government issued updated guidance for landlords, tenants, and local authorities about the Covid 19 pandemic. The guidance said that landlords “can now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken in line with public health advice” and that “Where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs, as well as any planned internal works.”
On 25 October 2020 the resident made a complaint regarding incomplete external repairs. She said that she “had waited for almost a year for the repairs to start, then having started, things remained incomplete…” The landlord recorded the resident’s email and requested that the resident be reminded that it was “still only booking critical works…” The resident’s communication remained ongoing.
On 17 December 2020 the landlord’s records state “the leaking roof seems to be ongoing…” It recorded that it its contractor had now visited three times.
On the same day the landlord recorded that the resident advised that she had previously paid for redecoration of the stained ceiling herself. This was during the first lockdown when “she was not keen to wait” for the landlord to resolve the issue. She advised that she was not prepared to do this again.
On 19 February 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that she could hear pests in her property. The landlord acknowledged this concern and advised that its pest control contractor would contact her directly to assist.
On 5 March 2021 the resident made a formal complaint about outstanding repairs. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 8 March 2021. The resident raised the following outstanding repair concerns:
1. Work in the front and back garden of the house.
2. Brick wall in the back garden will soon fall if not repaired.
3. Roof leaking for months causing damage to the wall.
4. Boundary wall partially painted and painted in a different colour of the front of the house.
5. Waste pipe at the back of the house not replaced after concrete path and drainpipe was replaced. “This means waste now sits on the drain attracting rats.”
6. Poor concrete sealant used.
On 24 March 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident by email. In its response the landlord said that:
1. It was unable to provide a time frame for all the outstanding works.
2. It advised that the scaffolding contractor would contact her directly to arrange an appointment to investigate the roof.
3. It explained internal [plastering and painting] damage caused by the roof leak would be rectified once roofing works were completed.
4. It had raised a job to replace the right-hand side timber gate post, re-point gaps between the slabs on the top boundary wall at the front, as well as the gaps between the concrete joints at the back.
5. It had agreed to paint the front boundary wall but would not paint the slabs on top of the wall. It also advised future decoration maintenance was her responsibility.
6. It had booked an all-day appointment for 14 May 2021 between 8am to 5pm for these works to be completed.
7. It explained how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
On 27 March 2021 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage one response. She advised:
1. That the front garden wall had been fully painted previously. Therefore she did not accept the landlord’s proposal to not paint the top slabs on the replacement wall. She explained she would “certainly maintain the wall” once it was painted.
2. That she wished to escalate her complaint if it was “the only way for this matter to be resolved…”
3. That she was not available on 14 May 2021. She advised the landlord that she would like the work booked for the morning on 2 June 2021.
4. That she should not be expected to sit home all day “for a small job that started in February 2020.”
On 31 March 2021 the resident informed the landlord that pest noise had increased. She reported that pests were between floors and plasterboard as “she could now hear them in places she didn’t before.”
On 7 April 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. It also informed her that it had changed the repair appointment to 2 June 2021 as requested. It advised it had left it as an all-day appointment between 8am to 5pm to ensure all works were completed.
On 14 April 2021 the resident reported that she continued to be affected by pests. She reported that she had found a rat in her toilet.
On 15 April 2021 the pest control contractor informed the landlord that it had completed three visits “with no sign of activity.” It advised that a burrow had been found in the [private] overgrown vegetation and recommended that it was cut back.
On 20 April 2021 the landlord emailed the resident regarding pest control issues. It explained that its contractor recorded in February 2021 that she “only wanted communal areas treated.” As that job had been actioned and closed, it advised the resident that it had opened a new request. The pest control contractor would contact her directly to book an appointment.
On 28 April 2021 and 10 May 2021 the resident chased the landlord for an update. She had not heard anything since she asked to escalate her complaint.
On 3 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord following works to her property the day before that had been arranged on 7 April 2021. She advised:
1. That its workers had replaced the rotten timber gate post but it was not correctly aligned. Therefore the gate closed at an angle. She requested that its supervisor inspect the work and arrange for it to be fixed.
2. That the roofing contractor had completed work on the roof but no scaffolding had been used as per the previous inspection. She asked it to clarify what work had been completed and asked for reassurance that it was not “partially fixed.”
3. That she would like to arrange for the decorators to come and fix the damage caused by the long-term leak from the roof.
4. That she had not heard back from the landlord regarding the wall in the back garden.
On 18 June 2021 the resident chased the landlord as she had not had a response to her email of 3 June 2021.
On the same day the landlord responded. Its response said:
1. That it thanked the resident for her continued patience while it dealt with her complaint and apologised for any inconvenience the delay might have caused.
2. It explained that a new approach to its stage two review process was taking longer than expected.
3. It explained that one of its customer service officers would be in touch.
On 2 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord under the subject heading of complaint. Her complaint included:
1. An ongoing roof leak. This was now leaving walls damp.
2. The front gate post that had not been fitted correctly. She remained unable to close her gate properly.
3. The decoration required to make good the water staining caused by the roof leak.
4. The ongoing problems with pests.
5. That paint on the front garden wall was peeling. Although it had only recently been painted.
6. That she had concerns regarding a tree in the back garden. It may cause damage if it fell.
On 3 August 2021 the landlord sent the resident a stage one complaint acknowledgement by email. It advised:
1. That it was still having to prioritise critical work at this time [due to covid-19].
2. That it had spoken to its roofing contractor who advised it would be booking her roof repair “within the next few weeks weather depending…”
3. That its property manager would provide her with an update about the back garden wall. This was not owned by the landlord as it was the responsibility of private garage owners.
4. That it would be liaising with its repairs supervisor regarding the other outstanding works.
On 17 August 2021 the resident informed the landlord that the pest controller had last visited on 30 July 2021. It recommended that a camera [in the drains] may help to identify where the pests were coming from. She asked for the matter to be resolved.
On 9 September 2021 the resident reported continued issues with rodents in her home. She reported finding “droppings” on her cooker and kitchen surfaces.
On 11 January 2022 the landlord offered to investigate the repairs on 13 January 2022. The resident advised due to her work she would not be home. The surveyor agreed to inspect the external works in her absence on 17 January 2022. This appointment did not happen due to the surveyor being off work. A second surveyor was arranged for 27 January 2022. The resident was unable to attend at short notice. The visiting surveyor reported that the original surveyor would need to attend again to investigate the issues further.
Extensive communication continued for some weeks to arrange a mutually convenient date for the investigations to continue. The resident was unable to attend an appointment offered by the landlord on 17 February 2022. Therefore both parties agreed on 4 April 2022.
On 1 February 2022 the landlord sent its stage two response. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 5 March 2021 as:
1. The outstanding work to the front and back gardens of the house.
2. A brick wall in the back garden “that will soon fall if not repaired…”
3. The roof was still leaking and causing damage to the wall.
4. The boundary wall only partially painted and painted to a different colour than the front of the house.
5. The waste pipe at the back of the house had not been replaced after the concrete path and drainpipe had been replaced. This meant waste was now sitting on the drain and attracting rodents. Poor concrete sealant had been used.
6. It explained that its investigation identified that it had raised works on 2 June 2021 and the resident had confirmed:
  1. That the rotten timber gate was replaced, however the get did not close properly and hangs at an angle.
  2. That works to the roof were completed, however scaffolding was not erected and the resident was not certain that the issue [roof leak] had been rectified.
  3. That the resident requested decoration to the area previously damaged by the leak.
  4. That the landlord’s property manager had not responded to the resident’s concerns about the wall in the back garden.
7. Within its stage two response, the landlord also acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 2 August 2021. It recorded the resident’s complaints as:
  1. Leak to roof still ongoing.
  2. Wooden gate post replaced but not fitted properly.
  3. Ongoing issues with rats and mice.
  4. Painted wall in front garden was now peeling.
  5. Concerns regarding a huge tree in the back garden.
8. It acknowledged that its surveyor had attempted to arrange an appointment to inspect the work on 13 January 2022. It noted that the resident was unable to provide access that day. It explained that it had been waiting for a further update from its surveyor, however “due to a combination of both annual and sickness leave” this had not yet happened.
9. It advised that its customer services team arranged for another surveyor to inspect the property on 27 January 2022.
10. Following this inspection, it advised the front gate needed realigning. A job was raised and its maintenance team would contact the resident to book an appointment.
11. The flank wall to the property had some staining. It advised that its original surveyor would investigate to determine causation and would contact her to arrange an appointment.
12. The waste pipe at the rear of the property. It advised that its original surveyor would investigate to determine causation and would contact her to arrange an appointment.
13. Wall a different colour to the rest of the property. It advised that its original surveyor would investigate to determine causation and would contact her to arrange an appointment.
14. Leak to roof still on going. It advised that its original surveyor would investigate to determine causation and would contact her to arrange an appointment.
15. On the ongoing issue with rats and mice. It said that its pest control contractor had attended the property on various occasions, to both inspect and provide pest control treatment. It advised that its original surveyor would contact her to discuss further.
16. Huge tree in back garden. It advised that this required an inspection. It said that its original surveyor would contact her to arrange an appointment.
17. Brick wall in the back garden. It advised that no cause for concern could be found regarding the boundary wall. However, a letter had been sent to the freeholder on 25 January 2022. The letter asked that the wall be inspected to ensure that there were no health and safety issues that could be potentially dangerous.
18. It advised that an email had been sent to the appropriate council and EH on 25 January 2022 to request inspection and clearance of the overgrown alleyway.
19. The landlord advised “we do, fully recognise the time, effort, distress, and inconvenience this matter may have caused.
20. It offered £300 compensation. This was explained as:
  1. £140.00 for the landlord’s delayed complaint handling.
  2. £160.00 for the resident’s time and effort to bring the repairs to the landlord’s attention.
21. The landlord’s stage two response on 1 February 2022 confirmed that the resident’s complaint had exhausted its internal complaints procedure.
On 4 April 2022 the resident called the landlord. Its surveyor had not arrived for the arranged appointment. The landlord identified later that day that its surveyor was off sick. The resident chased the landlord for updates over the next few days.
On the same day the landlord records showed:
1. The resident informed the landlord that the pest concern was getting worse. “Pests can be heard between the walls and on the ceiling in the dining room…” It recorded a pest control job and said that its contractor would contact her to arrange an appointment.
2. The landlord reminded the resident that it did not own the alleyway and had previously written to the freeholder about the overgrown hedges.
On 8 April 2022 the resident informed this Service that despite the landlord’s stage two response on 1 February 2022, it had not completed the outstanding repairs.
On 9 May 2022 the landlord emailed the resident. It confirmed that “all the works have been raised.” It explained that its contractors would contact her directly to arrange appointment dates. On the same day the landlord raised a job for a drain survey. It requested a CCTV survey of the foul drains following the resident’s reports of rats.
In June 2022 the landlord recorded that CCTV had been used to investigate the resident’s drains. The drains were in good condition and no rodent activity seen.
On 27 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She advised she continued to have a problem with rats. The landlord’s pest contractor advised that it had completed four visits, with two more planned. At this stage, it advised that the area was “still very active.” The contractor advised that it would be beneficial for rubbish [in the alleyway] to be cleared as this was providing the rodents with nesting materials.
On 23 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. She advised that the scaffolding to fix the roof leak had been removed. She asked for the internal decoration to be arranged.
On 24 March 2023 the landlord continued to communicate internally and with its pest contractor. It recorded that it had managed to get the council to clear the offending rubbish from the neighbouring land. It also discussed the benefits of proofing the loft after further internal investigation. Its contractor advised that this work was not a guaranteed solution.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
During the investigation the resident informed this Service that she had more recent repairs that she had expressed dissatisfaction about. These did not form part of her complaint on 5 March 2021. Evidence indicated that repairs had been booked and were being undertaken by the landlord. This Service can only consider complaints that have completed a landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As a result, the resident should contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a new complaint so the landlord has an opportunity to investigate and put things right.

The landlord’s response to repairs to the property

Work in the front and back garden

The resident raised several repair issues and subsequent complaints relating to works in her front and rear garden. The landlord’s records first recorded an issue with the resident’s front garden fence post and loose brickwork to the garden wall on 7 June 2019. Although some works commenced in late 2019, the resident remained dissatisfied that works remained incomplete. This resulted in her making complaints in August and October 2020 due to the lack of progress.
Although it was evident that some delays could be attributed to the landlord’s explanation that it was prioritising critical repairs following the covid-19 restrictions, other delays occurred whilst agreeing a mutually convenient time for the resident. However, work to paint and repair the residents garden wall and fence post were not arranged until March 2021. This was more than 18 months later and promoted a further complaint on 5 March 2021. This was not reasonable.
Following the works in March 2021 the resident reported that the front garden gate would not close. She reported the workmanship and requested an inspection to put things right. The landlord’s records showed that the work to correct and rehang the gate was not completed until 26 July 2022. This was an unreasonable delay.
Furthermore, the resident informed the landlord on 23 January 2022 that the new paint to the garden wall was already peeling. This remained unresolved and the resident included it in her complaint on 2 August 2022.

Huge tree in back garden

The resident first brought this to the attention of the landlord within her complaint on 2 August 2021. This was a new service request. However the landlord included it within its stage two response on 1 February 2022. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns. The landlord arranged for the tree to be inspected by a tree surgeon and approved the quote for its removal in June 2022. Although it was evident that the landlord’s complaint handling caused delays to the resident’s repairs, the landlord’s response to this request was reasonable.

Brick wall in the back garden

The resident first reported safety concerns regarding the back garden wall on 22 July 2020. The landlord’s records showed that it raised a repair but informed the resident that it would not be able to fix it if it did not own the wall and guttering leaking onto it. It informed the resident it would inform its property manager if this was the case. This was reasonable.
On 17 December 2020 internal communication evidenced that the resident continued to be affected by the repair issue. The property manager was asked to contact the private owner to advise that it may be “representing a health and safety risk” to its resident. Although this was reasonable, no evidence was seen to confirm that any communication took place with the private owner. The resident further raised her concerns regarding this ongoing matter in her complaint of 3 August 2021.
On 7 January 2022 the landlord inspected the wall. Its internal communication advised that it “couldn’t see much wrong with the wall.” However it agreed to write to the freeholder to request an investigation. It was recorded that a letter was sent on 25 January 2022.
Although it was reasonable that the landlord could not repair property that it did not own, it was not reasonable that the resident had to report a potential health and safety concern on multiple occasions. No evidence prior to 25 January 2022 was recorded that the landlord attempted to contact with the freeholder. This was an unacceptable period of 510 working days from the resident’s report in July 2020.

Waste pipe / poor concrete sealant

Following paving works by the landlord at her property, the resident raised concerns about a waste pipe within her complaint on 5 March 2021. She described that waste was sitting on the drain and attracting rats. Although the landlord responded to the residents reports of pests, there was no progress to repair the waste pipe satisfactorily. The issue remained outstanding and was included in the resident’s complaint on 2 August 2021. The landlord’s records indicate that the repair was completed on 8 August 2022. This was an unreasonable delay.

Roof leak

There was evidence that the resident’s ceiling had been water damaged as early as 29 January 2018 and required plastering and redecoration. Whilst the landlord carried out some work to the roof and ceiling in 2018 and arranged for the ceiling to be repaired in March 2019, this was an unreasonable delay.
It was evident that the repair to the resident’s ceiling in March 2019 was affected by the amount of furniture in her room. A delay to ensure that the resident was informed of the risks to her furniture was reasonable. However, it was unclear why having waited a further five months, that the appointment on 13 August 2019 did not complete the repair at that stage. The resident advised that she paid to have the have the ceiling redecorated around early 2020.
There is evidence that the resident experienced further water damage to both her ceiling and wall. This was attributed to an ongoing roof leak.
1. On 17 December 2020 the landlord recorded its contractor had been out on three occasions at that stage.
2. The leaking roof was still a concern in 2022 and mentioned as part of the landlord’s stage two response on 1 February 2022.
3. Evidence indicated that the leak remained an ongoing issue in 2023. The resident referred to the roof repair nearing completion in her email to the landlord on 23 February 2023.

This was an unreasonable delay that resulted in the resident’s ceiling and walls suffering further water staining and requiring redecoration.

Throughout the investigation, evidence showed that the landlord made some effort to arrange mutually convenient times to accommodate the resident’s availability for each of her repairs. Although the landlord’s repairs policy does not specify response times for non-emergency repairs, this investigation considered whether the actions of the landlord were fair in the circumstances. Generally, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s requests. This was reasonable as it showed that the landlord was attempting to be flexible. However, this often resulted in significant delays as the landlord’s work pattern often clashed with the resident’s availability. It was therefore unclear why the landlord did not consider an alternative solution such as using another surveyor. As was the case on 27 January 2022.
It was evident that planned works to progress the outstanding repairs in September 2019 and February 2020 were only partially completed. It was also apparent that further prearranged appointments on 13 January 2022 and 4 April 2022 to investigate the outstanding repairs did not take place. The resident believed that works would be completed on these dates. This was not reasonable and did not display that the landlord had applied any learning outcomes to its attempts to progress and resolve the residents long standing repair issues.
It was evident that the landlord informed the resident that it was prioritising critical works and explained that this was due to the covid-19 pandemic. This continued within its communications during early 2021. Although it is acknowledged that the national restrictions impacted landlord’s workforce and resources, the investigation considered whether the delay was reasonable. The original restrictions were set out in government guidance issued on 28 March 2020 and were lifted by 1 June 2020. Therefore just over two months of the delay can be explained by the pandemic restrictions.
Considering each of the repair issues discussed, there was multiple examples of service failure by the landlord. The resident was required to chase the landlord to make progress and experienced significant delays before they were resolved. This was not reasonable.
When there are failings by a landlord, as there is in this situation, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers 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.
The landlord’s stage two response on 1 February 2022 offered an apology and £300 compensation. Of which £160 was to recognise the time and effort that the resident used to bring the repairs to the landlord’s attention. This offer was not considered proportionate to recognise the landlord’s failure to complete the repairs since 2019. The resident experienced a significant delay that required her to chase the landlord for progress. Progress was only made after several complaints.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, there was maladministration, and the landlord has not made redress to the resident which resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s response to pest control issues

The landlord arranged for its pest control contractor to investigate and treat the grounds of the resident’s property when she reported pest concerns between May and September 2019. This was appropriate and in keeping with its repairs policy. The landlord acted in treating the pest issue whilst it investigated the ownership of the private land where it believed the rodents to be coming from.
Evidence showed that the landlord searched the land registry to identify who was responsible for private land at the rear of the property. The landlord contacted the council and EH about the issue. The land had been identified as the source of the pests. This was reasonable. The landlord was not legally responsible for the land and it was therefore limited in the actions it could take. The landlord informed the resident that the land was privately owned and encouraged her to also contact the council and EH.
In February 2021 the landlord arranged further pest control works following the resident’s reports that she could hear pests in her walls and ceilings. This was a reasonable response. The contractor investigated and laid bait traps externally. No pest activity was recorded.
Following further reports from the resident in April 2021 the landlord raised another pest control job. This was reasonable. It advised the resident that its contractor had recorded that it had only baited externally in February 2021. This was at the resident’s request.
In June 2022 the landlord’s contractor completed a CCTV investigation of the resident’s foul drains. This was a reasonable action to eliminate a potential source of the reported pest issue. No rodents were observed and the drains were reported to be in good condition.
Furthermore, evidence of the landlord’s actions continued during July and August 2022. Its contractor reported that after four recent visits, pests were “very active” in the area. It advised that piles of rubbish [on the private land] would not be helping the situation. It suggested the rodents were using the rubbish as nesting materials. It was a reasonable conclusion that it would be beneficial for this rubbish to be removed. Unfortunately the land and responsibility remained with a private owner. Baiting continued. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s records in March 2023 showed that it had authorised its pest control contractor to investigate the resident’s loft. Having attempted to resolve the pest concern externally, it sought to identify any work that could be done to prevent rodent’s accessing the property. This was reasonable.
The presence of pests was clearly distressing for the resident. It was evident that the landlord and its pest contractor continued to work with the resident to minimise the impact on her. It was however apparent that the private land and rubbish was recognised as the source of the resident’s problem. The landlord was therefore limited in the actions it could take. It was reasonable that it continued to contact the appropriate council to request that action was taken to clear the vegetation and rubbish. These actions were reasonable and there was no maladministration.

Complaint handling.

On 5 March 2021 the landlord recorded a new complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. Although this was appropriate under the landlord’s complaints policy, its stage one response on 24 March 2021 was three days outside of its ten working day complaint response time frame. The landlord did not recognise or apologise for the delay within its communication to the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint on 27 March 2021. It was therefore not appropriate that the landlord’s stage two response was not sent until 1 February 2022. This response was 215 working days after her complaint was escalated and 195 working days over the 20-working day response timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
From 27 March 2021 the resident continued to seek updates unsuccessfully from the landlord for several months. This was not reasonable. She was compelled to make a further complaint on 2 August 2021. Her complaint was in part simply chasing the landlord for a response.
Within the complaint of 2 August 2021 the resident included a new issue about a tree in her back garden. This was a new service request and could have been treated as such. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord included this in its stage two response and advised the resident that it would arrange an appointment to investigate.
The stage two response acknowledged and addressed the resident’s concerns individually. This was in keeping with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, much of the response advised the resident that further inspections were required to many of the outstanding repairs. Therefore the landlord’s remedy did not clearly set out what would happen or by when. Considering both the delays to completing the resident’s repairs and her request for appointments within school holidays, it would have been beneficial for the landlord to have contacted the resident prior to its stage two response to agree her availability. This would have provided a time frame that the landlord could monitor to ensure the residents complaint was progressed and resolved satisfactorily.
In its stage two response, the landlord offered the resident a total of £300 compensation. £140 of this offer was specifically for the delay in sending its stage two response. When assessing offers of redress, this Service will consider whether the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint. Under the circumstances, the landlord was right to apologise for the significant delay however it failed to acknowledge its service failure at stage one and the resident’s complaint continued to remain unresolved. Therefore the offer of compensation was not proportionate to address the impact on the resident. The landlord’s complaint handling and delays throughout were inappropriate and caused the resident to incur avoidable time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. Therefore, there was maladministration and an order for further compensation has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response of pest control issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The resident had repairs that remained outstanding from late 2018. The delays were not appropriate and required considerable effort by the resident to ensure progress was made.
The landlord commenced external pest control appropriately in 2019 and continued to respond to resident’s reports of pests. It baited communal areas, made efforts to proof the property, and used CCTV to investigate the foul drains. The situation was hindered by private land that the landlord had no legal responsibility for.
There were significant delays in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report, in person (or in writing if preferred by the resident) within four weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £890 in compensation within four weeks of the date of this report. The compensation comprises:
1. £300 previously offered by the landlord if this has not already been paid.
2. A further £440 compensation for the time and trouble and, distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
3. A further £150 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this determination to inspect the property. It should within two weeks of its inspection confirm in writing to the resident, and to this Service:
1. What repairs remain outstanding.
2. The timetable for completing any outstanding repairs.