Livv Housing Group (202204806)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204806

Livv Housing Group

20 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:
1. The landlord’s decision not to investigate the resident’s report of a damaged carpet caused by a flood in 2019.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestation.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of inappropriate staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy with the housing association landlord, which began on 31 March 2017. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a residential block.
In 2019, the resident’s home was flooded due to an uncontained leak from above. The landlord repaired this and subsequently sent its operatives to the resident’s property to dry her carpet. The resident said that ever since the flood started, the carpet was damp and, shortly after, attracted pests to the property. Unknown to the landlord at that time, she removed the carpet and disposed of it in 2021.
This did not resolve the infestation, and on 7 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report a pest infestation in her home. She was unsure what type of infestation affected the property. However, she said it started soon after the flood in 2019. The landlord sent its operatives to inspect the property; however, it referred the resident to the local authority’s environmental health team for treatment on 8 June 2022. Environmental Health told the resident it was a mite infestation and referred the resident back to the landlord.
The resident formally complained to the landlord on 22 July 2022 and stated she invited the housing officer to enter her home during a scheduled visit. However, the officer refused because of the pest infestation. The resident explained she felt humiliated by the housing officer’s behaviour which contributed to an argument outside the resident’s doorstep. The resident wanted the landlord to apologise for the behaviour of its staff, treat the infestation, and reimburse her £300, which was the cost she had paid for the carpet to be fitted before the flood occurred in 2019.
The landlord responded on 2 August 2022 and said:
1. It could not investigate the carpet issue as its complaint policy stated that the landlord would not investigate a complaint which occurred over 12 months before the resident brought the complaint to the landlord. It said it recommended all residents to have contents insurance.
2. It has agreed to resolve the infestation issue in the resident’s home.
3. It should have conducted the visit more professionally and failed to diffuse the situation. The landlord advised that it would speak with the staff member privately.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 August 2022. She said she could not stay another winter without subfloor covering as the property gets cold. She asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord sent its final response letter on 7 November 2022 in which it reiterated that it could not investigate the carpet damage. It said the resident did not express dissatisfaction with the drying service in 2019 nor did she notify the landlord before she removed the carpet in 2021. It suggested the resident contact a local carpet supplier and ask for a payment plan so it may be more affordable for her to get a new carpet.
The resident contacted this service on 9 June 2023. She explained that the flood occurred in 2019. However, she did not notice the infestation until 2021, when she disposed of the carpet. She said the pest infestation the landlord promised to solve in its stage 1 response had not been solved. And that the relationship with the housing officer had not improved since the first stage of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of carpet damage caused by a flood in 2019

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, and putting things right. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part has occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If the Ombudsman found that a failure adversely affected the resident, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to put it right and learn from the outcome.
The purpose of the complaint process is to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. Residents are encouraged to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues and reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As issues become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult to unpick the events that took place and how matters were handled.
In this case, the resident sought for the landlord to consider events which occurred in 2019. There is no evidence that the resident expressed her dissatisfaction until 2022. The landlord was not given an opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns. The resident had already removed and disposed of the carpet, unbeknown to the landlord, leaving no carpet to inspect. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord decided not to investigate this aspect of the complaint, and there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision regarding the carpet.
However, the landlord’s tenant handbook says: “We have an extensive selection of affordably priced, quality carpets, laminates and vinyl flooring in many styles, colours and patterns”. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to show the resident its collections.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestation

The landlord’s pest control policy says that when residents report pests or insects within their home, they will be advised to contact the local authority’s environmental health department or a pest control company. The landlord will visit all residents who report an infestation within 10 working days to offer advice and support. Where infestations can be directly attributed to a resident’s living conditions or habits, it would advise how best to address the problem to ensure it does not reoccur.
According to its repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for: “Sealing openings that allow pests into your home and removing pests following the work”. According to the same policy, the resident is responsible for: “Removing pests from your home once the landlord identified and sealed any potential points of entry, and to preventing further infestations”.
There is a contradiction in the landlord’s policy, and it is unclear how the responsibilities are divided between the resident and the landlord. An order has been made below for the landlord to review its policy and ensure it is clear and easy to understand.
In this case, the resident reported the issue to the landlord on 7 May 2022. The landlord sent its operatives to visit the property. The exact date is unclear, but from the evidence, this took place sometime in early June, meaning it was not within the timescale set in its pest control policy.
The landlord referred the resident to the local authority’s environmental health department on 8 June 2022. The landlord acted reasonably here and in accordance with its pest control policy. The resident told the landlord she could not afford to treat the property and she kept pursuing the landlord for assistance.
On 2 August 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and on the same day, it purchased pest smoke bombs and delivered them to the resident. This was not an effective treatment, and the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 August 2022. Following the escalation, the landlord sent its pest control operatives to treat the resident’s property for the first time. This was a treatment for bedbugs. There is a gap in the evidence, and the exact date is unclear. The landlord’s record-keeping will be referred to later on in this assessment.
Although it is acknowledged that the landlord offered the resident support, this process was slow-moving. It took the landlord 3 months to initiate the treatment for bedbugs following the resident’s report of infestation. This was an unnecessary delay which had aggravated the relationship between the landlord and the resident.
In September 2022, the landlord recalled its operatives to the resident’s home for another treatment of bedbugs. When the operatives arrived at the property, it was reported that “after careful inspection”, it was found the infestation was of plaster mites and not bedbugs as previously thought. The British Pest Control Association says plaster mites or beetles can be found in old properties with damp plaster. This should have triggered the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s claims that the infestation occurred shortly after the flood. At the very least, the landlord should have investigated, if only to rule out a causal link between the flood, damp plaster, and the infestation at the resident’s property.
It is unclear whether treatment for plaster mites is the same as that for bed bugs, but it is clear that despite treating the resident’s home, the infestation was still ongoing. This is reinforced by the landlord’s records that its operatives returned twice more in October to treat the resident’s property. There is another gap in the evidence, and the scope of the work undertaken is unclear.
Overall, although there is evidence that the landlord has offered some assistance to the resident, there is also evidence that the assistance provided was not effective at eradicating the infestation. The landlord did not take appropriate steps to investigate the root cause of the infestation and establish why its previous treatments had not been effective. This was not appropriate.
In summary, in its stage 1 response, the landlord gave a commitment to the resident to eradicate pests from her home. Despite reports in September 2022 that its contractor identified the source of the infestation, there is little evidence that the landlord had taken appropriate action to address the issue. This amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of inappropriate staff conduct

On 22 July 2022, the landlord was due to visit the resident’s home for a matter unrelated to the complaint. The landlord refused to enter the property due to the infestation. The resident explained to this service that there was a remarkable disparity between the standards the landlord accepts for its residents and the standards it has for itself. This insulted the resident, caused distress, and led to a heated conversation outside the resident’s home.
From the evidence available to this service, following the resident’s complaint, the landlord had taken appropriate steps to investigate the allegations. It interviewed both staff members present at the event. It considered how these situations could be better managed in the future, and it said it was going to address its findings with the member of staff at their next meeting.
The landlord acknowledged within its complaint responses that there were failings on its part. As such, it was obliged to take action to ‘put things right’ for the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. However, the landlord stopped short of apologising to the resident. Landlords should not underestimate the value of an apology. A sincere apology helps to demonstrate that the landlord accepted responsibility for its failures and acknowledged the impact on the resident. The landlord had failed to take appropriate steps to apologise for its shortcomings, it did not offer a remedy to redress and therefore it left the issue unresolved for the resident. This was not appropriate. An order has been made below to address this for the resident.
There is no indication that the landlord had ‘learned from outcomes’ in this case or detailed any actions it would take to prevent similar issues from recurring in the future. A further order has been made below for the landlord to address this.

The landlord’s record–keeping

Clear record-keeping is a core function of housing management. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good oversight of whether it has fulfilled its commitments. In this case, the commitment the landlord gave the resident in its stage 1 response to eradicate pests from the resident’s home was not properly recorded or followed up.
There were inconsistencies in the landlord’s records throughout. The call centre log had different information from its repair log and contradicted information the landlord recorded on other systems. In December 2022, the landlord said it treated the resident’s home three times, but in 2023, it said that overall, it treated the resident’s home twice, which was in October 2022. In December 2022, it said it did not have evidence of infestation, and it asked the resident to capture a sample of the pest so it could send it for analysis. This was despite having confirmation from its operatives in September 2022 that the infestation type was already identified. In this case, the landlord’s record-keeping has undermined its efforts to resolve the complaint.
The escalation request from the resident was received on 13 August 2022 and documented on one of the landlord’s systems. However, another record shows the date was 13 October 2022, yet its response letter said the escalation date was 21 October 2022. As a result, the landlord failed to consider the adverse impact on the resident, caused by this extended delay.
An order has been made below for the landlord to put this right for and to learn from the outcome by familiarising itself with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and take appropriate actions subsequently.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident escalated her complaint on 13 August 2022. The landlord responded on 7 November 2022. Against a target response of 20 working days, the landlord’s final response took 60 working days, 40 working days late. The delay has added to the resident’s frustration and damaged the relationship between the landlord and the resident. This was not appropriate.
The landlord did not address all aspects of the complaints in its final response letter. The pest infestation was ongoing when the resident escalated her complaint, but the landlord failed to address this. The day before the resident escalated her complaint about the carpet, she called the landlord and said the pest treatment had not helped ‘once or ever’. The resident asked that the landlord call her back to discuss further action to solve the infestation.
Clearly, this issue had not been resolved for the resident, but the landlord treated the matter as closed. This was not appropriate. As a result, the infestation has been ongoing, causing prolonged distress and mounting frustration to the resident. An order has been made below to put it right for the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which can be found on this service’s website.
The landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint to the resident at the earliest opportunity. It further missed an opportunity to use its internal complaint process as a tool of reflection and as a driver for improvement. A further order has been made below for the landlord to address this and learn from the outcome.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision not to investigate the resident’s report of a damaged carpet caused by a flood in 2019.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of inappropriate staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must write to the resident and apologise for the delay in completing the pest control treatment. It must also outline what it had learnt from the case and what action it has taken, or would take, to ensure delays such as these are minimised in the future. A copy of this letter must be sent to this service.
Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £450, broken down as follows:
1. £275 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of pest infestation.
2. £100 in compensation for the distress and upset caused by its staff conduct.
3. £75 in compensation for the distress and frustration caused by its handling of the associated complaint.
Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Review the failings identified in this report. The landlord should write to this service, outlining the actions it has taken or would take to learn from the outcome and minimise the repeat of these failings.
2. Work with its pest control specialist to inspect the property and create an action plan to address any identified pest issues. This action plan must include timescales for action (to be adhered to) and be shared with the resident. As part of the action plan, the landlord should consider whether a full survey of the property would be beneficial and, if so, arrange for this to be undertaken. If it is not felt that this would be beneficial, it should outline the rationale in the action plan. At the end of the action plan, the landlord must confirm with the resident that the infestation has been resolved. A copy of the action plan must be sent to this service.
3. Read the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and review whether its policies and procedures need updating in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report. If it is not felt that this would be beneficial, it should outline the rationale in its review. The outcome of this review must be sent to this service.
4. Read the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and review whether its staff would benefit from refresher training. If it is not felt that this would be beneficial, it should outline the rationale in its review. A copy of the review must be sent to this service.
5. Review and amend the wording of the pest control section in its repair policy to ensure the responsibilities are free of contradictions and easy to understand.

Recommendations

The landlord should show the resident its collections and prices of carpets and flooring as detailed in paragraph 14 of this report.