Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202128553)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128553

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

26 January 2024

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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of a pest infestation within the property.
2. Request to be rehoused.
3. Reports that the landlord’s communication was poor.
4. Request for a compensation payment of £96,814.99
5. Subject Access Request.
6. Disputed tenancy start date in 2014 and the signing of 2 different copies of the tenancy agreement.
This report also looks at the landlord’s complaint handling.

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.
Under Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. The resident’s complaint about the start date of the tenancy and the presence of duplicate copies of the tenancy agreement dates back to 2014 and was not raised with the landlord until 2 March 2022. This element of the resident’s complaint is therefore outside of the jurisdiction of this Service.
Under Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The resident sent a subject access request (SAR) to the landlord on 17 February 2022. The resident later complained that the landlord had not fulfilled the SAR in a complaint she submitted to it on 3 April 2022. The landlord’s handling of SARs is overseen by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and as such this Service is not set up to consider information requests of this type. Consequently this matter is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service.
The resident’s remaining complaints about the landlord’s response to a pest infestation, a request to be rehoused, reports of poor communication and request for compensation are investigated below, along with the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house which is owned and managed by the landlord. The property was let under a 5-year fixed term tenancy in 2014.
The landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident raised stage 1 complaints with the landlord about the affordability of the rent on 31 July 2014 and on 23 April 2015. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints, but they were not escalated.
The landlord administers access to a local authority choice based letting rehousing scheme via an online database called Locata. Locata operates using the local authority’s banding system which categorises applicants based upon their personal circumstances and housing need.
The choice-based lettings scheme and the associated eligibility and banding procedures are administered by the local authority. As such any complaint about these matters is outside the scope of this investigation and would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
It is noted that the resident has stated that she considers that her occupation at the property has exacerbated her household’s medical conditions. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between her reports of pollution from the motorway and the presence of vermin in the property and her household’s medical condition. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her household’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
On 28 March 2020, the Government issued guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidance recommended that “access to a property is only proposed for serious and urgent repairs.”
On 18 May 2020, the Housing Minister sent a letter to all social housing residents saying that “As we start to ease lockdown measures, landlords should be able to carry out routine as well as essential repairs for most households. There will be a backlog of repairs that they will need to address, so it may take longer than normal to carry out more non-essential work…
On 1 June 2020, the Government issued updated guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning 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.”

Relevant policies and procedures

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The tenancy agreement also says the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the premises in good repair including outside walls, internal walls, floors, and ceilings.
The landlord’s transfer policy says transfer applicants are prioritised into one of 4 bands. Residents will not be able to register for a transfer until their rent arrears are less than a week’s rent. In exceptional circumstances customers with a band C or D may be able to register transfer if they have an agreement to repay the arrears in place. If a household member has a medical condition which is being made worse by their current housing they should complete a medical self-assessment (MSA) form. The housing manager will make the final decision on medical priority based upon a medical advisor’s recommendations.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for pest control in communal areas. It also says that residents can report repairs via email, the landlord’s website, or their account. During normal office hours all repairs can be reported via telephone to the customer service centre or an assigned local officer. The policy says that routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s pest control procedure says that the landlord will deal with pest control issues both in an individual’s flat and the communal areas. If the pest problem is new and it is not cockroaches, pharaoh ants or rats the officer will inform the resident that they have to deal with the problem. If the pests entered due to a structural problem, repairs and treatment will need to be arranged. If a pest problem is identified as having originated from public land, the officer must refer the matter to the local Environmental Health Office for action. Where the infestation is on local authority land or in a public space, the local authority is liable to take action to deal with the problem.
The landlord’s complaint procedure says it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and provide a written response to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures procedure says that it will consider financial compensation where it has failed to follow its published policies or there have been unreasonable delays against its service standards. It further says that where distress or inconvenience is experienced following a service failure the landlord can make a discretionary payment of up to £250.
The Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) says:
1. Where resident’s raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated in the stage 1 response if the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or if it would unreasonably delay the response the complaint should be logged as a new complaint (para 5.7).
2. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required for the landlord to respond to the complaint, this should be agreed by both parties (para 5.14).

Summary of events

The resident submitted a transfer application request form to the landlord on 8 April 2019. The resident said that her reasons for requesting rehousing were due to pollution and noise from traffic which had caused her sleepless nights and headaches and exacerbated her son’s asthma. She gave further reasons that there had been burglaries in the area, and there had been a rat infestation and epidemic on her road that had not been disclosed when she had moved in. The landlord completed a transfer approval form on 16 April 2019 and placed the resident in a ‘no priority’ transfer band (D).
The landlord filled and blocked holes in the kitchen as a pest control measure on 20 October 2020.
The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 9 March 2021. The resident said that her property and the area in which she lived had been infested with rats from the date that she had moved in on 7 July 2014. The resident said that the landlord had known that there was an infestation and should not have housed her in the property. The resident asked the landlord to explain how it would remedy the problem and said that she would contact her GP about the distress the matter had caused her. She further said that she should be offered compensation for the emotional and mental anguish that it had caused. The resident asked to be transferred to another property.
The landlord’s pest control contractor set vermin traps and baited the property on 11 March 2021.
The landlord emailed the pest control contractor on 15 March 2021 to ask about the treatment plan. The contractor replied the next day to say that it had found signs of mice during the property inspection on 11 March 2021 and would reattend the property on 25 March 2021 and every 2 weeks thereafter “until the numbers subsided”. The contractor also confirmed that it would carry out proofing to the access points that it could reach.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 22 March 2021. The landlord explained the treatment plan that the pest control contractor had provided and said that proofing work would be conducted when the numbers had subsided. It also said that it had been aware that the resident had reported rats at the end of the previous year, but the property would not have been let if there had been sightings of rats. The landlord said that as the property was located close to a main road it was common for there to be sightings of rats externally. The landlord provided a transfer application form to the resident and offered the resident £100 compensation for the distress the matter had caused her. It also said that she could escalate the matter to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident request a copy of the repair history for the property from the landlord by email on 9 April 2021. She also said that she disagreed with landlord’s view that it had not rented her a rat-infested house.
The landlord provided the resident with screen shots of the property repair history on 4 May 2021 and said this was because it could not run a repair report. It also asked the resident if the pest control treatment had been successful.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 May 2021 to say that she would reply to the landlord’s complaint response soon and that it had been “so much” for her.
The resident liaised with the landlord about her rent arears between June 2021 and January 2022 in 11 different emails. During this time, the landlord agreed to a proposal the resident had made for a repayment plan. It also offered to assist her in making an application for a discretionary housing payment and subsequently referred her to a welfare benefit team for further benefits advice and assistance.
The landlord filled and blocked holes in the kitchen as a pest control measure on 15 July 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 January 2022 to ask if it had received any information about a new property. The resident provided information about her household and said that it seemed like she needed a 4-bedroom property but did not want a social housing rent. She also reported a rat infestation in the area and said that she had seen 3 rats digging at the front of the house.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 January 2022 to request a repair to 2 broken plug sockets in the property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 January 2022 to confirm that the pest control contractor had visited the property. She also attached a letter to the email which she said proved that her son was asthmatic as a result of living near an extremely busy motorway.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 January 2022 to refer it to an email she had previously sent in 2014 about a rat infestation in her property. The resident said that the landlord had not addressed the infestation it had been aware of prior to her household moving into the property. The resident said that her daughter had been diagnosed with an aggressive form of blood cancer in 2018 and that her son had respiratory problems that had been caused by living close to a heavily polluted motorway. The resident said that she would not pay her rent until the landlord found her a good home. The resident said that she would draft a stage 2 complaint and raise the matter with this Service.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 February 2022 to report 2 broken plug sockets in the property.
The resident phoned the landlord’s customer service staff on 16 February 2022 to report that she had not received a response from her housing officer about the housing matters she had reported to her.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 February 2022 to say that it had asked the pest control team to report on the findings of its visits to the property during 2022. It also confirmed that it had requested information about the resident’s transfer band and that it would update her when it received further information.
The resident replied to the landlord on 17 February 2022 to say that it had not fully addressed her previous email. The resident said that the landlord had not changed her transfer priority status based upon the evidence she had previously provided that confirmed her son was asthmatic. The resident said that she had waited 19 days for the landlord to reply to her and that it had not responded to the phone calls she had made.
The landlord’s pest control contractor attended the resident’s property on 28 February 2022 but did not record any sightings of vermin.
The landlord emailed the pest control contractor on 1 March 2022 to obtain information about its findings at the resident’s address. The contractor replied later the same day to say it was unsure why the resident had complained as there had been no more issues inside the resident’s property. The contractor confirmed that it had not recorded any sightings during its recent visit to the property on 28 February 2022 and had closed the works order.
The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 2 March 2022 about a rat infestation, her son’s respiratory problems due to living near a motorway, her rehousing band, and a poor response from her housing officer.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in a voicemail message it left for the resident on 4 March 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 March 2022 to say that the electric repairs had not been fully completed and to ask for the contractor to return.
The resident phoned the landlord on 31 March 2022 to report that she had not received a response from her housing officer about the outstanding repair matters she had previously raised with her.
The resident sent a stage 2 escalation request to the landlord on 3 April 2022. The resident restated the concerns she had previously raised about pest control and her request to transfer from her home. The resident also said:
1. When she had viewed her property in 2014 she seen a metal thing attached to the front wall of the house which she later learned was a pest control measure.
2. She had seen rat droppings in the cupboards when she was unpacking her belongings on the day she moved into the property and the landlord had subsequently arranged for a contractor to patch up holes in the property 3 times.
3. The property still had a rat problem 7 years later which along with the pollution from the nearby main road was causing respiratory problems for the family.
4. She had emailed a medical letter to the landlord on January 27 2022, but her transfer application band had not been updated and she remained in band D with no priority.
5. Her housing officer had not responded to her phone calls and emails since 27 January 2022 which was when the resident had forwarded a previous email that the housing officer had been copied into which had chased her “like a pack of wolves to take this unsanitary house”.
6. She had not received a response to her previous complaint of 2 March 2022 about the motorway pollution and her son’s asthma, despite receiving a voicemail 2 days later that said it had been received.
7. The communication from her housing officer had been poor and many of her emails and complaints had not been addressed.
8. She requested compensation of £96,814.99 which was the rent she had paid to live in “absolute misery”. The resident said that this was due to living in an unsafe and unsanitary property, medical matters that had affected the household due to pollution from a nearby motorway, and a rat infestation.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 April 2022 to say that it had received her complaint. The landlord asked the resident if there were any other repairs that needed to be raised. The resident forwarded details of the outstanding repairs she had previously emailed to the landlord on 23 March 2022. The resident also said that the landlord had not acknowledged her complaint of 3 April 2022 until it had received a paper copy which was 10 days after she had initially emailed the complaint. The resident said that this was not acceptable.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 May 2022 to complain that the landlord had not responded to her complaint which she had made 38 working days previously on 3 April 2022. The resident requested a response from the landlord that explained why it had not adhered to its complaint policy timescale.
The landlord emailed the resident on 31 May 2022 to say that it had arranged for the pest control contractor to attend the property in February 2022 but that it had previously confirmed that there had been no internal pest control issues. The landlord confirmed that the resident was registered under transfer band D and provided a medical form for the resident to complete if she believed the banding should be higher due to her son’s medical condition. The landlord explained that a medical examiner would complete an assessment and decide if the band should be increased. The landlord referred the resident to homeswapper as an alternative rehousing option which it said might be quicker but that all rehousing options would not proceed while her rent arrears were increasing.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 June 2022 to say that the pest control contractor had visited and found rat droppings in the kitchen and a hole in front of the house under the door as well as in other areas around the base of the house. The resident emailed the landlord later the same day to say that it had been 42 working days since she had submitted her complaint which had remained outstanding. The resident said that this was 22 working days later that the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord replied to the resident later the same day to apologise for the complaint response delays which it said were unacceptable. The landlord said it would acknowledge the delay as a service failure in its complaint response and provide an offer of compensation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 June 2022 to say that a contractor had visited to remedy the hole in the front of the house which the landlord had previously said had been fixed. The resident said that additional holes had been identified that required a repair.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 14 June 2022 to ask it to provide a response to the resident’s complaint on or before 28 June 2022.
The landlord provided a response to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of the complaint procedure on 17 June 2022. The landlord explained that this was because she had raised additional matters that had not previously been addressed by the landlord in its previous complaint response. The landlord said:
1. It had not received an escalation request in response to its previous stage 1 response dated March 2021 but that it would honour the £100 compensation that it had previously offered, as credit on her rent account.
2. It understood that the noise and pollution from the main road was disturbing and that she hadn’t known the property was on a main road when she accepted it because it was dark when she had viewed the property.
3. The resident’s transfer application was registered under band D but if she had a medical need the priority could be increased.
4. It would provide information about the pest control treatment by the end of the week when the contractor returned the information it had requested.
5. It acknowledged its communication failings and its delay in responding to her complaint and offered the resident £100 as compensation.
6. It would not provide compensation for the full amount of rent that had been paid because the property had met its lettable standards and the resident had signed the tenancy after viewing the property.
The resident emailed a completed MSA form to the landlord on 20 June 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 June 2022 to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The resident said:
1. The pest control contractor had visited on 6 June and 13 June 2022 and was due to return to the property on 24 June 2022.
2. Her previous complaint had been reverted to a stage 1 complaint instead of being addressed as a stage 2 complaint which was a manipulation and falsification of systems and policies.
3. Previous advice that the resident had viewed the property in the dark was untrue as she had viewed the property at 11am on a sunny day.
4. The resident’s complaint about rat infestation had not been addressed in the previous complaint response and no compensation had been considered in recognition of the difficulties the matter had caused her and her family.
5. No explanation had been provided about why it had taken 50 working days to issue a reply to her complaint.
6. She would like to be moved immediately because of her son’s breathing problems.
7. She would like compensation for the rat infestation that had lasted 7 years and 11 months.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 June 2022 to ask it to confirm that it had received her stage 2 compliant. The landlord replied to her to confirm that her complaint had been received. The resident emailed the landlord the next day to say that her transfer had not been handled correctly from the outset and that the rat infestation was depressing her. The resident said that she did not want a home visit and would be happy to have a conversation at the office.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 June 2022 to ask if it was possible for her to move to alternative counties and to different parts of London.
The pest control contractor emailed the landlord on an undisclosed date in July 2022 to say that it had carried out a full bating and tracking programme and it had observed very little evidence that would suggest a significant infestation. The contractor said that it had sighted droppings under the kitchen cabinets but that this did not suggest a huge issue. The contractor had baited externally for rats and found the bait to have been taken on its second visit which had suggested some external activity related to rats. The contractor said that its technicians had recommended proofing the property for an extra layer of protection where it had sealed entry points.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 July 2022 to ask if she was available to meet it on 7 July 2022. The resident replied to the landlord later the same day to say that she was unavailable on the date it had proposed and to put whatever it had to say in writing. The resident asked the landlord to confirm whether she would receive a response to her stage 2 complaint on the 7 July 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 July 2022 to say that when the resident cleared her arrears it would explore all the rehousing options it could for her.
The landlord received a response from the medical assessor on 6 July 2022. The assessor stated there was nothing to suggest that the disclosed asthma condition was severe or unstable and that there had been no other current or relevant medical issues to assess. The assessor said that no additional information had been provided to confirm why the property was unsuitable and therefore given the medical information that had been provided no medical priority applied.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 31 July 2022. The landlord said:
1. It had received the complaint escalation request on 23 June 2022 and acknowledged its overdue stage 2 complaint was a service failure and it offered £25 compensation.
2. It had previously offered the resident £100 for its acknowledged service failure related to its response to her pest control reports. It had agreed to proof the resident’s property, despite mice treatments in the home being a resident’s responsibility and offered her an additional £30 as compensation.
3. It had handled the resident’s transfer request in line with the transfer policy and had denied it due to her rent arrears and no medical information being provided to confirm that the property was unsuitable.
4. Its communication had not been acceptable because she had had to chase for responses to her emails and because its complaint responses had been provided late.
5. It would increase its previous compensation offer of £100 to £200 as compensation for poor communication and complaint delays.
6. It upheld it’s previous decision not to refund the resident £94,814.99 because the property had met its letting standards when she had moved in.
7. It apologised and offered to meet the resident to discuss ways to improve its services.
8. The letter was its final complaint response and confirmed that the resident could refer the matter to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
This Service accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 24 September 2022.

Events that took place after completion of the internal complaint procedure

The pest control contractor emailed the landlord on 4 October 2022 to say that it had completed its pest control treatment at the property which it believed had been successful. The contractor recommended proofing the property as a long-term solution.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 October 2022 to confirm that further works to block 8 access points into the property had been completed on 15 October 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation within the property.

The resident first reported concerns about vermin in the property when she took up occupation at the property in 2014. The resident explained in her 2 March 2022 complaint that the landlord had subsequently completed a treatment and blocked 3 holes in the property. It was appropriate for the landlord to have inspected the property and secured any access points related to the structure of the property to comply with its repair and pest control policies.
It is the resident’s view that the landlord should not have let the property to her if it was aware of an infestation of vermin. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had been aware of an internal vermin problem when it let the property. The landlord confirmed to the resident in its complaint responses that the property had met its lettings standard prior to letting. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to have let the property and for it to have completed subsequent internal treatment and proofing when the matter was reported by the resident.
The resident referred to the presence of vermin again when she requested a transfer in April 2019. However there is no evidence to confirm that the landlord took any action to address the matter internally until 16 October 2020. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have responded to the resident’s reports of vermin in the property by inspecting and treating the property. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the household for an unreasonable amount of time. However it is recognised that delays between March 2020 and June 2020 would have been due to the Government restrictions that had been imposed on the landlord during the COVID-19 pandemic.
From 11 March 2021 onwards the landlord recognised that the pest control issues were not new and addressed the matter in line with its repair and pest control policies. The landlord completed fortnightly inspections, a series of treatment measures and a follow-up treatment on 15 July 2021 to fill internal holes in the kitchen. It was appropriate for the landlord to have sought to address the presence of vermin so as to limit the detriment the matter caused the household. The landlord also provided information about the treatment plan to the resident and appropriately enquired about the progress of the treatment with her. This was a reasonable response for the landlord to have taken to respond to the matter and provide good customer care.
There was a resurgence of the pest control matter again in January 2022 when the resident sighted 3 rats digging at the front of the house. The landlord arranged for a further pest control inspection to be undertaken and requested a report from the contractor. The contractor subsequently advised the landlord that no signs of vermin had been found when it had attended on 28 February 2022, and that it had closed the works order. Referring the matter to its pest control contractor for further investigation was an appropriate response for the landlord to have taken. Furthermore it was reasonable for the landlord to have relied on the determination and expertise of the pest control contractor.
The landlord notified the resident that it had arranged for a further inspection of the property in an email it sent to her on 31 May 2022. The landlord subsequently arranged a baiting and tracking programme and proofing of the property until the contractor confirmed there was no longer any evidence of a significant infestation in July 2022. The landlord subsequently addressed the matters in its final complaint response and offered the resident £130 as compensation for the distress and inconvenience the matter had caused. It was appropriate for the landlord to have considered the inconvenience the matter had caused to the resident and for it to have offered her a compensation payment. However, given the amount of time the resident had experienced recurring vermin issues the level of compensation it issued was not proportionate to the detriment the matter had caused. An increased award of compensation is therefore ordered below.
It is evident that there have been a series of pest control matters affecting the resident over a number of years that, despite the landlord’s attempts to address the matter, do not appear to have been resolved in any long-lasting way. The landlord attempted at its own cost to address the problem when resurgences were reported. However, the landlord’s pest control policy outlines that where pest control issues originate from public land it should have referred the matter to the local authority and environmental health. This Service has not seen any evidence to suggest that the landlord did so, despite advising the resident that is was common for the sighting of rats to be found near busy roads.
Since the landlord issued its final complaint response in July 2022 this Service is aware that it has been required to undertake further property treatment work. The cumulative detriment caused to the resident therefore appears to be ongoing.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the residents reports of pest infestation in the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

The resident’s transfer application status was assessed and approved by the landlord as a band D applicant with no priority in April 2019. The landlord assessed the resident based upon the information she had provided in the application form and awarded the appropriate band based upon the council’s lettings policy.
The landlord sent a further transfer application form to the resident in March 2021 in response to her request to be transferred to another property. It is not clear to this Service why the landlord issued a new transfer application to the resident. However it was appropriate for the landlord to ensure the resident could register an application if her previous application had been withdrawn or closed.
The resident submitted a letter to the landlord on 27 January 2022 about her son’s respiratory problems and asthma diagnosis. The landlord advised the resident that the medical information she had provided had not been sufficient to change her transfer band. It was appropriate for the landlord to have explained this to the resident, however the information was provided to her 16 working days after she had submitted the information which was not in keeping with reasonable customer care principles.
In an email the landlord sent to the resident on 31 May 2022 it explained that the transfer application would not progress whilst she was not paying her rent and rent arrears were increasing on her rent account. This was an appropriate response for the landlord to have provided in line with the transfer procedure. It is evident that the landlord had sought to assist the resident in reducing her rent arrears by agreeing to the repayment plan the resident had proposed and by suggesting she could apply for a discretionary housing payment. Keeping to a payment plan may have allowed the resident to submit a transfer application in line with the transfer policy.
The landlord provided the resident with a MSA form on 31 May 2022. The landlord accepted the completed MSA form and evidence from the resident on 20 June 2022 and submitted it to a medical examiner in line with the lettings policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to obtain an independent medical examiner’s assessment of the medical needs of the family. Furthermore for it to have for enabled the resident to submit the relevant evidence and supporting statement herself. It is not clear to this Service when the medical form was sent to the medical examiner, but a response was received from it on 6 July 2022 indicating that the assessment was completed within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord provided an update to the resident about the medical examiner’s determination and further stated in its final stage 2 complaint response that it had handled the resident’s transfer request in line with the council’s transfer policy. The landlord explained that no medical information had been provided to confirm that the property was unsuitable for the household. Furthermore that her transfer application would not progress whilst there were arrears on the rent account. The landlord appropriately confirmed that a change to the resident’s rehousing band could therefore not be completed.
Taking all matters into consideration this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the landlord’s communication was poor.

The resident first reported concerns that she had not received a response from her housing officer on 16 February 2022. The resident raised the matter with the landlord’s customer services staff 16 working days after she had requested information from her housing officer about her transfer and pest control and 15 working days after she had submitted a repair request to her. The landlord’s repair policy says that repairs can be reported via a local officer, therefore it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have responded to the resident’s request for a repair within this timescale. The landlord responded to the resident the next day and provided information about pest control and about her transfer banding. However this timescale was not in keeping with reasonable customer care principles.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 2 March 2022 and on 3 April 2022 in which she said that her housing officer had stopped responding to her phone calls and emails on 27 January 2022. The landlord responded to the matter specifically in its complaint response in which it recognised the service failure. The landlord clearly stated that the communication from the housing officer had been poor and that many of the resident’s emails and complaints had not been addressed. It was appropriate for the landlord to have recognised its own service failures and to offer an apology to the resident. However the landlord did not provide any information to explain the reason for the communication failings or address the resident’s view that the email that she had forwarded had been the cause. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to set out that it had completed an appropriate investigation into the matter. Furthermore for it to evidence that it had learned from the matter and what it would do prevent the matter from recurring.
The landlord offered the resident £100 for its communication failures in its stage 1 complaint response and increased the offer to £200 in its final stage 2 response. The compensation it offered for its communication failures is in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy and with the awards set out in this Service’s remedies guidance. The award offered is therefore considered proportionate to the time and trouble the communication failures had caused to the resident.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the landlord’s communication was poor.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a compensation payment of £96,814.99.

In her 2 March 2022 complaint the resident asked the landlord to provide her with a compensation payment of £96,819.99 which represented her calculation of the rent she had paid since she took up occupation of the property. The resident said that the compensation was owed to her due to the location and condition of the property and the effect that it had on the wellbeing and health of her household. The landlord considered the resident’s compensation request under its complaint and compensation procedures and rejected it at both stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaint procedure. The landlord provided the resident with a reasonable explanation for rejecting the resident’s request by setting out that the property had met its lettable standards when it was let and because the resident had signed the tenancy agreement after she had completed a viewing of the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer to the condition of the property at the time the property was let when declining her request for compensation.
The landlord subsequently considered the resident’s request for compensation in separate elements of its complaint response and recognised that some compensation was due for its service failures This resulted in the landlord offering the resident a final compensation offer of £505. The reasonableness of the landlord’s individual compensation awards are addressed in the separate sub-sections of this report.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds no maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents request for a compensation payment of £96,819.99.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints.

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint escalation of 2 March 2022.
2. Did not provide a response to the resident’s complaint escalation of 2 March 2022 which resulted in the resident resubmitting it on 3 April 2022.
3. Did not acknowledge the resident’s resubmitted complaint escalation request of 3 April 2022 until 13 April 2022 which was 6 working days later that its policy timescale.
4. Did not agree a new timescale with the resident for providing a response to the resident’s complaint when it recognised it would not meet its policy timescale.
5. Did not provide a holding response or explain why there had been a delay in issuing a response to the resident’s complaint.
6. Did not respond to the resident’s email of 30 May 2022 in which she asks the landlord to explain why it had not responded to her complaint which she said had been made 38 working days previously.
7. Provided a response to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 17 June 2022 which was 41 working days later that its 10-day response target. It was appropriate for the landlord to re-categorise the complaint as a stage 1 complaint as a result of the additional complaints that had been added. However the landlord should have communicated this decision to the resident prior to providing its response so as to manage her expectations.
8. Did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalation request of 23 June 2022 until 27 July 2022 after the resident had emailed it to request confirmation that her complaint had been received.
9. Provided a stage 2 complaint response on 31 July 2022 which was 8 working days later that its 20-day policy timescale.
When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord did not dispute its own complaint handling failures. It apologised to the resident in advance of providing its complaint response and indicated that it would provide her with a compensation payment for its recognised failings. In its final complaint response the landlord offered the resident an award of £25 for its late stage 2 complaint response and an additional compensation award of £200 for both its complaint handling failures and the communication failures of the housing officer.
It is the view of this Service that the £200 compensation award was reasonable redress for the communication failings of the housing officer which was addressed previously in this report. Consequently, the award was not sufficient compensation for the landlord’s complaint handling failures, which, as set out above, were significant. An increased award of compensation is therefore awarded below in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing a response to her complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation within the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the landlord’s communication was poor.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a compensation payment of £96,814.99.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord sought to address the resurgence of ongoing pest control issues via use if a specialist contractor and treatment and repair programmes. However it did not address the pest control matters when they were reported in 2019 or work with the local authority and environmental health to address the external pest control issues it had been aware of.
The landlord assessed the resident’s eligibility for rehousing and placed her in an appropriate rehousing band. The landlord provided the resident with the relevant paperwork for a medical assessment to be completed and complied with the determination of the medical assessor.
The landlord recognised its own communication handling failures and apologised to the resident in its complaint responses. The landlord provided the resident with a proportionate award of compensation for the time and trouble that had been caused to her in pursuing a response to her phone calls and emails.
The landlord considered the resident’s compensation request at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaint policy. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation for rejecting the compensation request but awarded separate compensation payment for the individual service failings it recognised.
The landlord recognised its own communication and complaint handling failures and apologised to the resident in advance of issuing its complaint response as well as within its complaint responses. However, the landlord did not provide a proportionate award of compensation to the resident for the time and trouble that had been caused in pursuing a response to her complaints.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in managing the pest control matters and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
In addition to the previous £505 compensation the landlord had agreed to issue to the resident and within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £905 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £505 previously offered if this has not already been paid to the resident.
2. £200 for time, trouble, and inconvenience associated with the completion of repairs to address pest control at the resident’s property.
3. £200 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

This compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to inspect the property to assess if any outstanding pest control repairs are required. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and this Service details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.