Birmingham City Council (202221439)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221439

Birmingham City Council

26 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat, in a block of flats.
  2. Between October and November 2020, the resident reported that rats were entering the property, and the landlord’s operatives attended to fill in any holes that may be providing access for the rats. Between May 2021 and August 2021, the resident had reported that there were rats and mice entering the property, and the landlord completed works to remedy the issue, such as fixing a cupboard latch on the larder cupboard and repairing a small hole in a kitchen window.
  3. In September 2021, the landlord completed an inspection of the property, and laid bait. It continued to monitor the bait throughout September 2021, and its operatives reported that there had been no consumption of the bait inside or outside the property. On 27 September 2021, the resident stated that there had been no sightings of mice or rats, but requested that bait be left at the property as a precaution. In October and November 2021, the landlord’s operatives completed works to prevent future access for mice or rats, which included; repointing brickwork and blocking up holes at the front of the property, near the gas meter cupboard and under the kitchen window.
  4. In December 2021, the landlord raised works for the kitchen units and flints to be moved so that its operatives could assess whether there were any further holes which may allow access for rats and mice, and the works were marked as completed on 26 January 2022.
  5. On 9 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that there had been pest activity in the meter box of the property, and she wanted the kitchen plinths to be removed to see if there were holes allowing pests in to the property. The resident requested for this to be raised as a complaint on 12 July 2022.
  6. On 12 July 2022, the landlord raised new works for the kitchen unit and flints to be moved so that it can assess if there are holes.
  7. It provided its stage one complaint response on 13 July 2022, where it stated that an appointment had been arranged for 20 July 2022, where an operative would attend and complete any repair works needed.
  8. Further works were raised on 25 August 2022, as the resident had reported that she believed there were rats climbing through the walls. On 6 September 2022, a representative for the resident contacted the landlord and asked for the appointment to be rearranged, and the landlord rescheduled the appointment for 20 September 2022. An operative attended on the day and reported that the resident was dissatisfied with his attendance, and stated she would be raising a complaint. On 21 October 2022, the landlord’s pest control operative completed a second baiting treatment at the property, and informed the resident that it would contact her directly to make the next appointment.
  9. Appointments were raised for 31 October 2022 and 2 November 2022, which the resident requested to rearrange. The works were completed on 4 November 2022. On 7 November 2022, the landlord raised follow on works for 21 November 2022. An operative attended and stated there were no holes identified under the kitchen cupboards or the bath, however, it identified a hole at the top of the roof joist where the gas cupboard was located, and stated that this may be where pests were entering the property. He stated he was unable to fill the hole on the day, and stated an operative would need to be arranged.
  10. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 9 December 2022. It stated that environmental health officers have visited the property on more than one occasion to lay bait and monitor the situation. It stated that a contractor had attended to seal access points on the ground floor, but acknowledged that the situation had not been fully resolved. It stated that the resident had engaged with a legal representative, but a solicitor had informed it that the case had been withdrawn. It apologised for any inconvenience caused by the rats entering her property, and stated that a job had been raised for the outstanding works.
  11. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint to this Service. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had stated works had been completed when they had not, and stated that the landlord would attend on the day without giving her notice. The resident was seeking for the landlord to move the white goods away from the walls, and to remove the bath panel, and fill in any holes where pests were entering the property.
  12. The landlord raised these works on 5 January 2023, and attempted to attend on 27 January 2023. The resident stated that the operative attended in plain clothes rather than uniform and she was dissatisfied with the operative’s behaviour. She added that she had started a new disrepair claim against the landlord and raised a new complaint about the visit. She informed the landlord that she would like no one to attend until the situation had been dealt with by a court. The landlord attempted to attend on 10 February 2023, 17 March 2023 and 28 March 2023, but was unable to gain access to the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. There are time limits on complaints the Ombudsman can investigate. One of the limits (paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme) requires a complaint to be brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (which would normally be within six months of the matters arising).
  2. In this case, although the resident reported that rats were entering the property in October 2020, and the landlord’s operatives attended to fill in any holes in November 2020, there is no evidence of any further reports until May 2021. Therefore, in line with 42(c) the time that had passed means that this investigation centres on the events raised after May 2021, which led up to the resident’s complaint in July 2022. References to matters in 2020 are included for context and clarity only.
  3. In addition, the resident has informed this Service that she was dissatisfied that a contractor attended her property without the correct notice or tools. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. It is noted that the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about this matter on 27 January 2023. Once it has completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, if the resident may be able to escalate it to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s ‘Pests and Vermin – policy statement 2017’ classifies both rats and mice as a pest. It also states that residents are expected to take reasonable steps to keep a property free from mice and rats. However, it states that the landlord may deal with pest reports in a variety of ways, including: providing advice and visiting the property to assess and diagnose the problem. It also states that its environmental service offers a free pest control service for rats and it will continue to monitor the situation if it is ongoing.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that residents must allow access for inspections and repairs work to be completed. It states that repairs will be categorised as Emergency, Urgent, Routine or Responsive. It states that urgent repairs will be completed within one, three or seven days, and routine repairs will be completed within 30 days.

The resident’s reports of a pest infestation.

  1. Although the resident is responsible for keeping their own property free from pests, including rats, the landlord offers a free pest service for rat infestations. Therefore, following any reports of a pest infestation, the landlord should visit the property to assess the situation and locate the cause of the infestation and, if the situation is ongoing, it should continue to monitor the property in line with its policy. Although the landlord’s policies do not specifically reference expected timescales for the completion of work following an infestation of mice, it would be expected to provide the resident with reasonable expected timescales of such work and evidence of its continued monitoring of the matter.
  2. In this case, the resident reported rodent issues again on 6 May 2021, and it is not disputed that further appointments to resolve the issue were needed following the stage two complaint response being issued on 9 December 2022. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as pest infestations as it can be difficult to identify the source of the infestation at the outset and in some cases a series of treatments may need to be completed before the matter is resolved, which would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. The landlord would be expected to take reasonable action to progress any repairs and pest control treatments in a timely manner and to keep the resident updated.
  3. Throughout this period, there were several occasions where the landlord failed to attend within the appropriate timeframe listed in its repairs policy. For example, the works which were raised on 12 May 2021 and completed by 14 June 2021 and the works raised on 12 August 2021 which were completed on 14 September 2021. Both of these works were completed within a total of 33 days. As the landlord had raised these works as routine repairs, they should have been completed within 30 days as per the landlord’s repairs policy. Although any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, delays of three days would not be considered excessive.
  4. In addition, the landlord had raised further works on 19 October 2021 which were completed on 2 November 2021, which is a total of 14 days. The landlord had raised these works as a seven-day repair, and this is further evidence that it had not completed works within the appropriate timeframe as listed in its repairs policy. Where a delay may occur, the landlord would be expected to inform the resident and provide an update on when it hoped the works would be completed. Although these delays are not excessive in length, there is no evidence to show that the landlord was communicating with the resident throughout this process in order to manage her expectations appropriately. This is evidence of a lack of communication by the landlord which would have led to distress and inconvenience for the resident, due to her concerns about the infestation.
  5. Likewise, there was a further delay between 20 July 2022, when an operative inspected the property, and 25 August 2022, when the landlord raised further works. From the evidence provided, it is not entirely clear why there was no further progress in these works until 25 August 2022, but the delay would have caused further distress and inconvenience for the resident, that would have been exacerbated by the landlord’s lack of communication.
  6. Nevertheless, there were times when the landlord attended in line with its policies and obligations, such as when its environmental operatives completed an inspection of the property on 13 September 2021, completed a survey and set bait traps. The operatives continued to monitor the bait traps within the property, such as on 20 September 2021 and 27 September 2021 and reported that no bait had been taken. Furthermore, on 27 September 2021, the resident reported that there had been no sightings or evidence of rodents in the property. This is evidence of the landlord acting in line with its pest and vermin policy, as it had inspected the property and continued to monitor the situation to ensure it had been resolved.
  7. Moreover, it took precautionary measures to prevent future access for any rats, such as repointing brickwork at the front of the property, and sealing a hole near the gas meter cupboard of the property, and under the kitchen window. Similarly, the landlord raised further routine works on 31 December 2021, to remove kitchen units and flints to assess whether there were any holes that may allow rodents to enter the property, and these works show as completed on 26 January 2022, and on 25 August 2022 the landlord raised a further inspection, which was completed on 20 September 2022. Both of these works were completed within a total of 26 days. This shows that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously, and wanted to ensure it had been fully resolved for her, and it had attended to the works within the appropriate timeframes listed in its repairs policy.
  8. Nonetheless, the landlord completed a further baiting treatment on 21 October 2022, and although it arranged a number of follow-on appointments to complete rodent-proofing works, the resident requested for them to be rescheduled as she wanted her solicitor to deal with the situation first. For similar reasons, following an operative attending on 21 November 2022, where holes at the top of the roof joist were identified, the landlord’s operatives made appointments to attend on 27 January 2023, 5 January 2023, 17 March 2023 and 28 March 2023, but were unable to gain access to the property. While this Service does not question the resident’s decision to reschedule the appointments, however the landlord would not be at fault for delays in works being completed caused by it being unable to access the property.
  9. The resident has informed this Service that she is seeking for the landlord to attend the property and fill any holes where pests may gain access to the property in the bathroom and kitchen. For this reason, it is recommended below that the landlord contacts the resident to arrange an appointment to inspect the property.
  10. Within the stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been an ongoing problem with rats entering the resident’s property, which it recognised had been inconvenient for her. 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.
  11. In this case, although the landlord had attempted to put things right for the resident by stating it was committed to completing any rodent-proofing works needed in the property, and it had apologised, it failed to consider or offer any redress to the resident in view of the impact the situation had on her. There had, at times, been delays in its service, and a lack of communication which caused the resident distress and inconvenience. When considering this, the omission of a fair and reasonable consideration of compensation was a service failure.
  12. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, compensation of £150 would provide adequate redress for the failings identified throughout this investigation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range for cases where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact from the failure.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time this complaint was raised stated that a stage one complaint response would be issued within 15 working days, and a stage two complaint response would be issued within 20 working days. It should be noted that since this complaint it has amended its complaints policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out This Service’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices.
  2. The resident raised a stage one complaint on 12 July 2022, and the landlord issued its stage one response on 13 July 2022. Therefore, the landlord had replied to the complaint promptly, and in line with the appropriate timeframe listed in its complaints policy.
  3. Although this Service does not have evidence of the resident’s complaint escalation, the landlord has stated in its stage two response that the complaint was escalated on 22 July 2022. However, the landlord did not issue its stage two complaint response until 9 December 2022, which is a total of 99 working days later. This had significantly exceeded the appropriate timeframe within the landlord’s complaints policy, and from the evidence provided, it had not provided the resident with an update on her complaint during this time. Where delays are expected, the landlord would be expected to communicate with the resident and provide an update on when it expected the complaint to be completed. The landlord’s failure to do this impacted the resident, as it delayed her ability to escalate her complaint to this Service for independent adjudication.
  4. While the landlord recognised that there had been a delay within its stage two response, and it acted fairly by apologising for this, it failed to offer the resident redress for the delay. The landlord’s omission to consider a fair and reasonable level of redress constitutes a service failure on its behalf. When considering the above factors, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation of £100 would provide adequate redress. This is in line with Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance for cases where there has been a failure by the landlord and it failed to fully recognise the failure or put it right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation within the next four weeks. This is made up of:
    1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays and the landlord’s lack of communication regarding the pest control.
    2. £100 for the landlord’s poor complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident within the next four weeks, to try and arrange an appointment for the property to be inspected, to determine whether there any further rodent-proofing works which need to be completed.