Peabody Trust (202224901)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224901

Peabody Trust

24 October 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 response to:
1. The resident’s reports of mice in the property.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.

This report has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management as well as its handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
Therefore, where a complaint has not exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, it will not normally be considered by the Ombudsman. This is as it is important for a landlord to first have the opportunity to respond to an issue under its internal complaints procedure before the Ombudsman will investigate and comment on it. Accordingly, this report will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mice in the property, its knowledge and information management and its complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident had a fixed term tenancy agreement with the landlord that started in late 2018. The property is a one-bedroom first floor flat in a block. The landlord was unable to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement. The landlord told this Service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident but was aware she had a young child; the resident had two children at the time of the events complained about – a baby and a young child. The resident told this Service she suffered from anxiety and depression.
The landlord’s pest control policy says that it will assess infestations of various pests, including mice. It goes on to say that the landlord will take “reasonably prompt action” to manage pest infestations for which it is responsible; where it attends to a property for pest infestation, proofing works may be carried out, to prevent future infestation. The policy adds that, for some pest infestation cases, the landlord will work with the appropriate local authority if it deems it suitable.
The pest control policy also sets out the resident’s responsibilities including:
1. Where multiple visits are necessary for baiting or other treatments, the customer will be expected to have taken any measures advised by its colleagues or contractors.
2. Where a case has been reported, the customer is responsible for providing access to the property for colleagues and contractors to assess and treat the infestation.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including mice which are classed as pests. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that this is concerned with protection against infection and includes hazards resulting from access into, and harbourage within, the dwelling for pests. The HHSRS notes that the health effects from pests can include gastro-intestinal disease, asthma and other allergic reactions, stress, infections and nuisance. It notes the causes can include holes around pipes; it also notes preventative measures including the effective sealing of points in the walls of the property that are penetrated by wate, drain or other pipes.
The landlord’s repair policy says that it has a general responsibility to maintain and repair resident’s homes. It gives timescales for repairs including specialist works where the works fall outside of the timeframe of a responsive repair, are complex in nature and therefore require either a specialist contractor and/or a technical lead in diagnosing and managing the works through to completion. Such repairs should be completed within 60 calendar days (with an average target of 33 days).
The landlord has a two–stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond at stage one within ten working days and within twenty working days at stage two. The procedure says that a complaint will not be escalated to stage two in certain circumstances including where the reasons for escalation are unrelated to the original subject matter of the complaint. It explains that, in such instances, a new case should be opened, and it should be agreed with the customer whether they wish to try and resolve it as a service recovery issue or as a new formal complaint.
The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy says that when considering a complaint, it considers whether it has followed its complaints procedure in line with the complaints policy. If it finds it did not manage the complaint effectively through regular communication, proactive management or investigation, it will make an award for poor complaint handling including where there is a severe failure of between £151 and £250. It says this is where there was an extensive failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure, or to investigate a complaint correctly, causing a significant impact on the complainant.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (published in May 2023) explains that vulnerabilities are characteristics that a person resident possesses, either permanently or temporarily, that may mean they need care or support to complete landlord‑tenant transactions. These characteristics may also mean that reasonable adjustments are appropriate to actively prevent harm or distress. These can include recognised physical disabilities or mental health issues. The report found that a resident’s vulnerabilities had not been appropriately recorded by the landlord, even when the landlord had been advised multiple times and the procedures explicitly stated that vulnerabilities would form part of the decision-making process.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out good practice that allows landlords to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. This says that where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant, and the stage one response has not been issued. Where the stage one response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair records that pest control work took place in the neighbouring flat to the resident in February and April 2022 and proofing work took place there in March and May 2022 and February 2023.
The repairs log evidences that on 22 April 2022 the resident reported having an “ongoing issue with mice” throughout the property. A further entry in the log notes that the mice probably came from the neighbouring property which had recently had pest control activity. It noted that pest control had been out already (a reference number but no date was given). It noted that they should “urgently attend for proofing”.
On 28 April 2022 a contractor attended the property. They removed the bath panel and filled all gaps and holes with wire wool.
On 12 May 2022 a follow-on appointment took place where the contractor removed cupboards and worktops in the kitchen to fill the holes behind the units; and in the living room removed the boxing panels around the chimney to fill in holes around all pipework. The operative noted that:

“Mice are getting into the bedroom as well. This issue is in every room in the flat. It’s only a one bed flat with a family of four so there is nowhere they can go to escape this. The tenant has said it is affecting their mental health. The tenant has been catching mice every day, this morning they had one on the worktop. This issue has been going on for the seven years the tenants have lived there. The mice are in the entire building the tenants in the other flats all have the same mouse problem. Two tenants came out of separate flats in the block to tell me they have the same issue in their flat.

Filling holes in the flats isn’t going to solve this issue as they’re in the fabric of the building in all void areas and boxing. The tenant’s baby had a mouse in her basket while she was asleep and their other daughter who is four years’ old won’t use the toilet in the flat as she is scared of the mice in there, so she wets herself all the time instead. They can’t keep living like this. I talked to the caretakers who said every flat on the estate has the same issue and to report it to the neighbourhood manger as this is a major issue on the estate.”

The repairs log evidences on 13 May 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident who confirmed that a carpenter carried out proofing works the day before; however, she said she had seen a couple more mice in the flat. It raised a further pest control job. The evidence is not clear that any further action was taken.
On 6 October 2022, almost five months later, the landlord noted a call from the resident in which she said she had just come from her GP as she felt the pest infestation was making her anxiety worse and “she struggles to go into her house due to the pest issue”. It noted the resident had contacted her MP regarding this issue and that she had two young children in the property aged five and an eight-month-old baby. The landlord treated this call as a formal complaint.
While the repairs log nor the evidence provided by the landlord indicate any further reports of mice prior to the resident’s contact on 6 October 2022, the landlord told the resident on 10 October 2022 that it understood the pest control contractors had attended on 20 September 2022 and it was awaiting their follow up report from their visit on 4 October 2022. The landlord added that, if it could be established where the mice were coming from, then it could raise proofing works to stop them entering the property.
The next day the resident told the landlord that the whole block had a problem with mice. She said that mice boxes could not be left due as she had a nine‑month old baby in the flat. The resident explained that she had pictures of 42 mice, as they were everywhere and that she was living at her mum’s home as the property “was inhabitable”. She added that they mice were “coming from everywhere”.
On 12 October 2022 the landlord spoke to its pest control contractor about the scale of the mice problem noting “the problem doesn’t seem that bad because not enough flats have reported an issue”.
On 17 October 2022 the landlord told the resident that it understood this was a very difficult situation for her and her family. It said that, in order to understand the severity of the problem, it would like to get its pest control contractor to reattend and possibly a joint inspection with a supervisor from its repair contractor.
On 24 October 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two. She said that it had been over one month, and it had not solved the mice issue; she added she had not heard anything from the landlord. On the same day she reported mice “throughout the flat” to the repairs team.
On 25 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. The main points were:
1. Proofing works had taken place in May 2022 to cover up holes under the kitchen units and around the waste pipes in the kitchen to stop the mice coming up. Holes were filled under the bath also.
2. It had raised a new job for its pest contractor to attend.
3. It noted the resident’s request to escalate the complaint.
At around this time, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP following an enquiry from him. The evidence suggests that resident provided the landlord with photos of the property which included many of dead mice on glue mats around the property including next to the oven, inside cupboards and next to a child’s bed and cot. The evidence suggests these photos were also shared with the landlord. In response to the MP, the landlord noted that the mice infestation “must be unpleasant for” the resident.
On 31 October 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. It explained it would be reviewing the persistent issues of mice at stage two. It added, if that was incorrect or if it had missed anything, to let it know as soon as possible. It explained that only issues that were raised or covered within the stage one complaint could be reviewed; any new issues that had not been investigated previously could not be reviewed as part of this process.
On 2 November 2022 the pest contractor attended the property. Its report said that on inspection they found “a low-level infestation” of mice within the living room area in the form of droppings and sightings reported by the resident. They noted that, to help with the eradication of the mice, they had been asked to install one bait station within the boiler storage cupboard. They noted that there was a ten-month old baby and a five-year-old living at the property and that the parents were worried for the children’s health and wellbeing. The contractor also noted that the areas pictured (which appeared to be the boiler storage cupboard) needed to be filled with a more permanent fix; the area behind the television needed to be released to allow for a thorough inspection and holes in the kitchen under sink cupboard needed to be filled with a more permanent fix by a builder.
On 21 November 2022 the landlord told the resident that it needed to extend the complaint response date to the maximum extension allowed in its policy (10 working days) to 5 December 2022. It explained it needed more time due to the complexity and amount of information it needed to review, as well as due to an increase in cases it was experiencing.
On 5 December 2022 the landlord told the resident it had hoped to respond to her that day; however, an emergency that it had had to focus on had meant that it was unable to do so. It apologised and said it would consider compensation for the delay.
On 7 December 2022 the landlord told the resident that it was still awaiting information from its contractors that would enable it to finish its stage two complaint response. It again apologised and said it would factor in these delays when considering compensation. Later that day it noted three pest control appointments on 2, 16 and 30 November 2022.
In response, the resident told the landlord that she had reported repairs since September 2022 and the problems had not been resolved. She added that only the day before it had dealt with mould in the bedroom. The resident added that the mice issues were “still a big problem. I don’t understand how this is not an urgent matter for you. I have a baby, 11 months [and] crawling, picking up droppings from the mice and putting these in his mouth. I am already stressed, my anxiety has gone worse I am on the medication…”. She asked the landlord to contact her urgently.
On the same day the landlord noted that the pest contractor could not gain access to the property for a follow-up appointment on 16 November 2022 and, having tried to contact her, had sent her a contact letter that day.
On 23 December 2022 the landlord issued its final complaint response under its formal complaint procedures. The main points were:
1. It would not consider her mention of mould in one of her emails as it could only consider matters that were logged at stage one which was pest control.
2. It outlined the content of its stage one response.
3. A course of treatments was preliminary scheduled for 2, 16 and 30 November 2022. It said the contractor’s reports show that they carried out the initial treatment on 2 November 2022 but were unable to gain access on 16 November 2022. The contractors reported they had been trying to contact the resident a number of times to re-arrange and that a contact letter was sent to her on 8 December 2022. As no contact was made, the order was cancelled. Given that, the resident would need to re-raise the order for pest control. It noted it was important that she tried to complete the three visits if possible as that was part of the course of treatment.
4. In response to the resident’s assertion that she had had pest control issues across seven years, the landlord said that it could see gaps in this being reported. It noted that its complaints policy says that it will look back six months prior so would not look in detail at what happened in those seven years. It explained that it was a very different organisation now having completed one large scale merger and with another underway. It added that its procedures and staff changes reflected that, as well as having different IT systems¸ and that added to the rationale of not being able to review in detail that far back.
5. It noted the resident’s concerns about the bait boxes and her small child having access to them. However, it noted that removing and disturbing the bait boxes meant she was disrupting the course of treatment which could affect the take up of the bait and therefore affect the chances of resolving the infestation. It added that, once she had re-raised the works order, it hoped she would continue to work with it and follow the prescribed treatment plan and instructions fully to ensure the success of the treatment. It added that, if further proofing works were found to be needed, then it would carry them out too.
6. It apologised for the delay in issuing the response and explained this was due to time required to review the case. It offered compensation of £200 for the inconvenience caused by this delay.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
The resident made further reports of mice on 8 June 2023. When the contractor attended on 3 July 2023, they noted various sealing work that was required in the kitchen, living room and bathroom. However, it noted further “all holes and gaps around the house need to be repaired. Kitchen needs to be pulled out; bath needs to be pulled out; and in the living room and fireplace and around the cupboards need to be pulled out as there are holes and gaps everywhere”.
In June 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had been dealing with mice for the last nine years. She said proofing works had been carried out, but this had not resolved matters. She said they were catching about three mice a day. The resident added that her one years old baby had eaten mice droppings and they had had to go to hospital; she had seen mice climbing her baby’s cot; she had evidence of mice in her wardrobe and the mice had chewed her sofa. She added that she was taking medication for anxiety. She said the compensation of £200 offered “was unacceptable”.
In mid-July 2023 the resident ended her tenancy agreement and moved out of the property.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said she had experienced mice the whole time that she and her family had been living in the flat but had tolerated them. She said, however, that in January 2022 the number of mice increased to about five a day. She said that her baby kept eating mouse droppings from the floor and she had to take them to GP/hospital on a couple of occasions; they were also in her children’s beds. The resident said that she suffered anxiety and depression and, ultimately, they had to move out of the property. She would like compensation for the distress caused to her and her family.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Therefore, while the resident notes a long-standing problem with mice in the property since she moved in, this report has focussed on events since her report in April 2022.
The resident mentions that she suffered from anxiety and depression which is relevant to the complaint. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments regarding their health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

Response to the resident’s reports of mice

The landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s reports of mice in April 2022 by engaging pest control and carrying out proofing works.
However, by mid-May 2022 the landlord had an independent view of the pest infestation in the property and the block. The operative essentially said that the work carried out was not going to resolve the issue as the problem was more widespread and further work would be required. The operative also described the considerable impact on the family including a baby. This independent view should have been given weight by the landlord and explored further. There is no evidence that the landlord did so or that any further work undertaken at that time; that is a significant service failure.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have undertaken a survey of at that time to identify what further proofing work could be undertaken to try to resolve the mice infestation. The evidence demonstrates that further proofing was recommended in November 2022 and July 2023, when the contractor recommended that more substantial proofing should be undertaken. It is not clear what, if any, proofing works were carried out in late 2022; however, the survey from June 2023 suggests that previous proofing work had not been adequate to resolve the mice infestation.
The resident reported mice again in October 2022, by which time the landlord was aware of her vulnerabilities. There is conflicting evidence about the scale of the problem at that time – the resident’s view was that the mice were everywhere, while in early November 2022 the pest contractor noted “a low-level infestation” at the same time as suggesting the problem had been under-reported by residents in the block. Given this conflicting information, the photos that the resident appears to have provided as well as her vulnerabilities, it would have been good customer service for the landlord to have visited the property to see the situation for itself. While a joint visit with the pest control contractor had been proposed prior to the inspection by the contractor in early November 2022, there is no evidence that this took place.
The resident missed a pest control treatment visit in November 2022; in its complaint handling the landlord stressed the importance of allowing pest control access to carry out three visits to finish the pest treatment. However, the recent survey also recommended that more permanent proofing works were required; there is no evidence that that work was carried out (that is backed up by the findings of the inspection in June 2023). Overall, the complaint responses give the impression of blaming the resident for the ongoing mice infestation when concurrent work by the landlord was also required to stop the mice entering the property as well as exterminating the mice already inside it. It was unreasonable to attribute blame to the resident because, even if the full course of treatment had taken place, the absence of further proofing at that time would have allowed new mice to enter the property.
Given specialist works were required to eradicate the mice, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed adequate proofing works to prevent the mice entering the property within 60 calendar days of the report in line with its repair policy, that is by 24 June 2022. The repairs to prevent mice entering the property were still unresolved when the resident left the property in July 2023 over one year later. There were significant failings by the landlord in this instance which amount to maladministration.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman recognises that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s physical and mental health) could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
It is evident that the resident and her family have been caused significant inconvenience and distress as a result of the failings in this case in particular as a result of having young children in the property and concern about their wellbeing. Financial compensation of £2,200 is appropriate in this instance to reflect the delay in carrying out adequate proofing in the property to prevent mice entering.

Knowledge and Information Management

It is clear that information was missing from the evidence provided to the Ombudsman particularly reports of mice from before October 2022 which appears to have led to some pest control action in September 2022. In response to a further evidence request, the landlord provided further pest control information however this did not include details of any pest control from September 2022. The landlord should take steps to ensure that it keeps records of maintain an audit trail of all action taken to resolve reports of pest control, repairs etc. Clear record keeping is core to a repair/pest control service and assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. Accurate, complete, and accessible records ensure that the landlord can understand what action is required and monitor outstanding issues. The landlord should take steps to improve its record keeping to give assurance that it is fulfilling its obligations to residents. Landlord staff should be aware of a its knowledge and information management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
Further, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not update any vulnerabilities for the resident on its system when it became aware of her anxiety and depression. Such information would have helped inform the landlord about the more tailored action it should have taken in this case (such as the joint inspection with pest control). Landlord staff should be aware of a its knowledge and information management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
For the reasons set out above, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s knowledge and information management and an order has been made for the landlord to review its record keeping practices.

Complaint handling

As the landlord acknowledged in its complaint handling, there were delays in its issuing of the stage two response; the Ombudsman notes also a slight delay with the stage one response. The landlord offered £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
In its stage two response the landlord noted that it would only consider matters that were logged at stage one (pest control) and therefore would not consider the issue of mould that she had raised. That was reasonable; however, in line with the Code and its own complaints procedure, the landlord should have raised a new complaint about its response to the resident’s reports of mould and damp in the property. Its failure to do so was a service failing.
While the resident no longer lives at the property, it is clear through her contact with this Service that this issue remains of great concern to her. An order has been made, below, for the landlord to consider this issue as a formal complaint now.
In light of this additional failing and the impact on the resident, the compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate. Additional compensation of £150 is appropriate to reflect that impact (total £350).

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of mice in the property.
2. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its knowledge and information management.
in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord did not ensure that adequate proofing working took place after the extent of the problem had been brought to its attention. It did not take steps to inspect the property itself when there was conflicting evidence about the scale of the problem. It also sought to apportion blame on the resident when, without adequate proofing works, any pest control treatment would have been inadequate.
There were knowledge and information management failures as the resident’s vulnerabilities were not updated. The evidence suggests that the landlord did not keep full details of the actions taken in relation to pest control.
While the landlord acknowledged its delay in issuing the stage two response and offered compensation. It failed to raise her concerns about damp and mould as a new complaint in line with its complaint procedures and the Code.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £2,550 for the impact of those failings made up of:
  1. £2,200 for the impact of the landlord’s handling of the reports of mice; and
  2. £350 for the impact of its complaint handling failure (minus any sum already paid).
3. Give the Ombudsman an update on what further proofing has taken place since the recommendations in June 2023. If not completed, please provide a date for completion.
4. The landlord should review its Knowledge and Information Management systems to ensure that all information relating to repairs/pest control are captured and that staff are aware of how to update a resident’s vulnerabilities on its systems.
5. Raise a stage one complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.