Aster Group Limited (202104588)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104588

Aster Group Limited

7 September 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 the resident’s reports of an infestation.
This service has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He lives in a one-bedroom first floor flat.
The resident reported a dead rat found in the communal loft space, above his flat, in November 2017. In October 2018, his flat became infested with pests, which he treated his flat for. He confirmed that the infestation appeared to be coming from another part of the building, which was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve.
The landlord instructed its pest control company, who placed a “fogger” in the loft on 25 October 2018. The resident instructed his own pest control company to treat his flat on 2 and 16 November 2018. He confirmed that during this time he had to throw out his living room carpet, underlay and sofa.
The resident advised the landlord that he felt the loft insulation had been compromised in October 2018, following a water leak which had lasted several months. He thought that the insulation should be replaced, as the damp environment provided an ideal environment for pests.
In December 2018, the landlord’s pest control company placed another “fogger” in the loft, in addition to spraying the floors in the resident’s flat, communal landings, and the ground floor flat. Additionally, the floors in the resident’s flat were sprayed, as well as the communal landings, and flat below. Following a further report in February 2019, the landlord placed a smoke generator in the loft.
The resident expressed concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of the matter, and the communication between himself, the landlord, and its pest control company. He sought specialist pest control advice, who confirmed:
1. The rat’s entry into the attic should have been found and secured. If there had been an infestation of rats, or birds, and faeces able to get in, then a pest infestation was likely to point towards a bird mite.
2. Proactive steps should have been taken to identify the pest.
3. Using only a “fogger” or smoke in the loft would not permeate under the insulation and if not treated properly the infestation would continue.
The evidence confirms that the landlord’s pest control team had made several visits to the property over the last year and confirmed:
1. An inspection of the loft found rat droppings and was treated using rodenticide but did not find any obvious entry points.
2. A flea infestation was reported, which it attended and treated both the residents flat and the flat below.
3. It revisited to look for a bird mite infestation but found no evidence but treated the residents flat as he had requested.

Summary of events

The resident submitted a complaint on 11 March 2019. He said:
1. His flat has been infested with pests for the last six months. Each time it had been treated, it re-infested from the loft.
2. There was a hole in the roof which had not been investigated.
3. He suspected bird mites (carried by rats and birds) in his flat which crawled all over his body, its bite “feels like stabbing with a pin.”
4. It had been a “miserable experience” for six months, he was isolated and unable to have visitors to his flat, or visit others, due to fear of infecting their homes.
5. He had thrown out his bed, sofa, living room carpet, bedding, and clothing.
6. He’d spent hundreds of pounds on sprays, “foggers” and powders, and for professionals to do sprays.
7. He’d suffered a dull headache which he reported was due to “months stuck in an environment that had been repeatedly sprayed with both domestic and professional toxic chemicals.”
8. He was dealing with high levels of stress and anxiety due to feeling that his home was unfit for human habitation. He stated the landlord’s pest control had been ineffective.
Internal records confirm that the landlord sought advice from the environmental health department in March 2019 regarding “mite identification and eradication.” Advice on controls were provided but advised the landlord to seek professional advice from a pest control contractor. It confirmed that it had taken the steps as advised.
In a call to the resident on 20 March 2019 (and in an email) it confirmed:
1. The loft insulation would be removed.
2. Holes would be blocked that week.
3. Rentokil would carry out further fogging treatment.
4. Insulation would be refilled once fogging works completed.
5. Date for planned roofing works was to be confirmed.
The resident responded the same day stating that if the landlord’s pest controller had identified the problem, the source, and a course of action at the beginning, the problem would have been solved within a matter of weeks.
The following day, the landlord advised the resident that it had hoped by carrying out further works, and treatment, he would see that the landlord was doing everything it could to help.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 4 April 2019 which confirmed:
1. It was sorry that despite repeated attempts, the resident was still experiencing skin irritation, reportedly from bites sustained.
2. Two companies had attended the property, one of which was instructed by the resident. As he was unhappy with the service provided by its pest control company, it had instructed Rentokil for a third opinion.
3. It had discussed concerns raised with pest control companies and environmental health and arranged the following:
  1. To remove loft insulation, and replace, following completion and resolution of the pest issue.
  2. Organic matter would be removed, along with an undertaking of two courses of treatment and disinfecting by Rentokil.
4. It confirmed findings and next steps as:
  1. Following rat baiting in January 2018, two rat carcases were found under the insulation in March 2018, but no live activity was found in the loft.
  2. Rentokil found two small dead insects within the flat, but couldn’t specify what they were, but did confirm they were not fleas or bird mites.
  3. Rentokil had previously found evidence of birds nesting in the loft and carried out fogging treatments as a precautionary measure, in March and April 2019.
  4. Four pest traps were left following the treatments and confirmed no evidence of insects upon inspection.
  5. While it could not evidence any bird mites, it could not rule out that they may have been within the insulation in the loft at some point.
  6. Rentokil would contact the resident within 28 days to agree a convenient time to clear debris from the loft and undertake disinfectant treatment.
  7. Its roofing contractor would contact the resident within 28 days to look in detail at the eaves and undertake any necessary works to prevent access to wildlife.
  8. Its operatives were also booked on 4 April to check the loft for any visible entry points (excluding the eaves), and report back its findings.
5. Its technical assistance had been keeping the resident updated with regards to ongoing works and would contact the resident at regular intervals to monitor the effectiveness of the work.
6. If the resident did not contact by 19 April 2019, it would assume he was happy with the response, and would close the complaint.
In response to the stage 1 letter, the resident confirmed:
1. Bird and rat faeces remained in the loft, providing a source of food for the mites.
2. He did not have a skin irritation, but a sensation of “being crawled on.”
3. It was too early to conclude that the treatments works had resolved the problem, as works were ongoing.
4. The hiring of Rentokil did not represent a third opinion.
5. He lacked confidence in the pest control company the landlord used and insisted that the landlord used a pest control company, affiliated with a professional body.
6. It only engaged Rentokil and agreed major works after he had reported holes in the roof; reported rat faeces; soiled insulation; involved a local councillor; and reported it to environmental health.
7. Rentokil had indicated due to the size of rat faeces, more than one rat had been present and was concerned that rat poison had been left uncovered, in an area that birds had previously entered.
8. The traps were placed in the flat, minutes after extensive vacuuming of floors so would not show anything at the one-week point. He reported the traps were not collected or taken for analysis.
9. Rentokil had not made contact as of 25 April, so the resident contacted the regional manager to arrange a date. The roofing contractor had not contacted him regarding next steps.
10. The landlord’s operatives had not attended to look for entry points or repair any external damage.
11. He concluded that living with an infestation since September 2018 had been “utterly horrible, both physically and mentally and had an adverse effect on my life.”
12. He could not see why the complaint would be closed, until the infestation and related works were completed satisfactorily.
The resident reported a further infestation on 17 April 2019. He requested the bird and rat faeces in the loft were “removed urgently”. He added that he still had no indication of when further works would take place.
On 9 May 2019, the landlord issued a stage 2 response which stated:
1. It was sorry that despite making substantial efforts, it had not satisfactorily resolved the matter.
2. It had not received a positive identification of the type, or source of infestation. It had taken advice from Rentokil and the local council’s Environmental Health team and attempted to remove the most probable sources; followed guidance on timeframes between treatments with Rentokil, but the works had not progressed as quickly as it would have liked.
3. Mites could survive for significant periods, after a food source had been removed (rat carcases, faeces, bird nests and droppings were not food sources), and it would monitor the situation after the planned insecticide treatment.
4. It confirmed the completed and outstanding works:
  1. Removal of loft insulation – completed week commencing 25 March 2019
  2. Disinfectant works raised with Rentokil on 29 March 2019 – Rentokil advised it needed to wait 28 days after carrying out pesticide treatment and therefore completed on 3 May 2019.
  3. Final pesticide treatment – raised with Rentokil on 29 March 2019 which the resident is required to book, 28 days after the disinfectant works. It includes treatment to the loft and residents flat.
  4. Internal works within the loft space scheduled for week commencing 9 May 2019.
  5. External roofing works as part of the planned programme would be carried out the week commencing13 May to investigate and identify if works were required to the roof or fascia.
5. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused and provided reassurance that it was committed to undertaking any works necessary to rectify the issues.
6. The landlord confirmed if the resident remained dissatisfied, the complaint would be considered for review. If it was not reviewed, the resident would be informed to contact this Service.
The resident responded on 22 May 2019 and stated:
1. Pest activity had been reduced and hoped the last treatment had worked.
2. The flat below had become infested and experienced the same crawling sensation and bites. The flats were connected vertically by services, and he was concerned about a continued source of infestation between the two.
3. Roofing works commenced that week, removing redundant flues, and installing barriers to prevent ingress from “wildlife”. However, the loft was covered in organic material and contaminated so required sanitising again.
4. Operatives confirmed there was still rat faeces in the loft and holes in the breeze block wall allowing movement of rodents.
5. He was awaiting confirmation of reimbursement for expenses of sprays, “foggers”, powders, plastic boxes, and liners (to prevent cross-contamination of clothing).
6. He requested the following action as soon as possible:
  1. The flat below needed to be treated.
  2. The roof required sanitising following works.
  3. He requested that his flat was retreated for “maximum effectiveness.”
  4. Removal of faeces and poison from the loft, and holes sealed in the brick work.
7. If the problem was not eradicated soon, he requested to be temporarily rehoused.
Rentokil issued a report to the landlord on 7 June 2019 which confirmed:
1. It surveyed both flats and found no hard evidence of an infestation.
2. The loft had evidence of rat and pest activity, and a bird nest. It required cleaning, insecticide treatment and disinfection.
3. There were inch wide gaps between the ceiling and walls which would enable insect pests such as bird mites, to fall into the communal landing and potentially infest the flats. It was recommended that these gaps were sealed as soon as possible.
4. A three-part treatment and monitoring programme was proposed in both the ground floor and first floor flat.
The landlord approved the works, with treatments commencing on 19 June, for a three-week period. On 25 June, contractors attended to fill holes in the breeze blocks in the loft, and above the stairwell. It arranged for cracks in the external walls to be filled on 3 July 2019.
On 16 July 2019, the landlord confirmed that Rentokil had not been able to identify a sample of pest found on a trap in the residents flat.
On 21 July 2019, the resident emailed the landlord confirming a “surge” in activity and believed pests were entering from the bathroom pipework, which connected the loft from the ground floor flat. He also confirmed following a doctor’s visit that he did not have scabies or lice and therefore could be eliminated as a possibility.
A ‘second’ stage 2 response was issued on 8 August 2019, which confirmed:
1. 10 treatments had been undertaken between 2017 and 2019, in addition to those undertaken by the resident.
2. Pesticide treatments had been undertaken in the ground floor flat to cover fleas and mites, as well as a deep clean and disinfection of the loft.
3. Traps had been left on three occasions and visual inspections undertaken by pest control contractors. No positive indication of a biting insect was identified, but it was not unusual to find the odd insect within a domestic dwelling.
4. No further reports had been made since June 2019 and following the last pesticide, no evidence was found within the traps or witnessed so it did not propose anymore treatments.
5. It thanked the resident for confirming that he had been given all clear regarding a skin condition, which was not related to scabies or lice.
6. A visual inspection of the brick work identified minor cracking/movement within the masonry. It would continue to monitor and undertake remedial works as and when as the cracks were not severe. It had arranged for silicone to be applied to the cracks as a temporary measure.
7. The resident had requested £355.65 reimbursement from the landlord for treatments purchased. Additionally, £80 was paid by the resident for a private pest control company to undertake treatment in the property.
8. While it did not receive a report confirming an infestation, it did recognise that a rat carcass was located under the insulation, following multiple treatments in the loft, which had since been cleared.
9. For that reason, it would reimburse the cost of £80 treatment, and a further £50 was offered as a goodwill payment, therefore £130 in total.
10. The landlord confirmed if the resident remained dissatisfied, the complaint would be considered for review. If it was not reviewed, the resident would be informed to contact this service.
On 22 August 2019, the resident confirmed he was dissatisfied with the response. He stated that the problem had not been solved and said:
1. Most of the treatments had taken place before the clearance of the insulation, faeces, dead rats, bird nests, and before the roof ingress was repaired.
2. A full intensive fumigation of the building had not taken place.
3. Liaison between the landlord and Rentokil was “non-existent”.
4. There was no involvement with “a proper entomologist”.
5. There were entry points from the cavity walls, the brick pointing had eroded and subsidence cracks which could provide entry points.
6. He requested to be fully reimbursed for the expenses incurred.
On 17 September 2019, the landlord acknowledged that the resident remained dissatisfied. Two holding letters were sent on 30 September and on 11 October 2019. The landlord confirmed that its Head of Operations would contact the resident, in the hope of reaching an agreement. If he remained unhappy following the discussion, he could request a director’s review.
Internal emails on 21 October 2019 confirmed a meeting was arranged with the resident, at his home on 22 October 2019 to finalise the complaint. During the visit, the resident was asked if he would consider a move, to which he confirmed he would not. The landlord acknowledged that it did not remove the insulation from the loft space quickly enough, had it done so, it would have found evidence of the rat carcass and birds’ nest sooner. However, it believed it had gone above and beyond in trying to treat the problem, that was ultimately the resident’s responsibility.
On 7 November 2019, the landlord issued a ‘third’ stage 2 response which confirmed:
1. The ground floor neighbour confirmed he was not experiencing any issues with insects.
2. It had siliconed several cracks which it continued to monitor.
3. It would arrange for a tradesman to seal around redundant service entry points in the external brickwork.
4. It sought further advice from Rentokil who felt the landlord had exhausted all avenues and would not complete further treatments.
5. While it was the resident’s responsibility to arrange for treatment of insects within their home, it had undertaken several fogging/spraying treatments to aid the resident. This was extended to the ground floor and communal roof space, which it felt was right to do as it had initially failed to identify a rat carcass in a timely manner.
6. For that reason, it would reimburse the full amount of £459.32 for the treatments paid for by the resident. It would not reimburse any further treatment products should he wish to purchase more.
7. The resident was advised if he remained dissatisfied, he could request a review of the decision.
The resident emailed on 13 November 2019 to “disagree strongly” with the conclusions made by the landlord. He added that he was confused as to the complaint stage he was at, and asked if the previous response was “in-lieu of the director stage, or in addition?”. He accepted the reimbursement but did not consider it be as “compensation.” The landlord confirmed that its response was a “further stage 2” response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 December 2019 confirming that he had sent in 2 DVD’s which contained photos relating to the pests in his flat. He “begged” the landlord to fumigate the building urgently, including all wall cavities, service ducts, both flats, and the loft space. He requested a fumigation treatment that would “permeate every nook and cranny.”
In March 2020, the resident sent further receipts for infestation treatments he had purchased, for which he requested to be reimbursed. The landlord’s internal communication confirmed that it had not agreed any further reimbursements at that stage.
The resident sent further correspondence on 13 March 2020 stating that he thought he had a carpet moth, or beetle, entering from a cavity behind his kitchen unit. He stated until the cavity was treated, and ingress points sealed, he would continue to have bugs.
In correspondence with its building surveyor, it was advised that if there were ongoing issues in the cavity, then making sure the outside was sealed to prevent further water ingress would allow the cavity to dry out of its own accord. It did not know of any treatment to treat the inside of a cavity, and if there was it would not benefit the building in any way.
On 18 March 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had instructed the following work to start as soon as possible:
1. Deep clean and treatment to his flat as well as the neighbouring property.
2. Remedial repairs to the external walls to let the cavities dry out.
3. Block any holes behind the kitchen units, including sealing around pipes.
4. A payment of £250 was raised to cover the costs of insecticides.
On 31 March 2020, following works to temporary fill the cracks, the resident believed the holes and cracks had not been filled enough to prevent pests entering. The landlord confirmed to the resident during this time that it was providing an essential-only repairs service due to Covid-19. At that time, it would inspect the wall and ensure no remaining cracks in the cavity.
In May 2020, the resident advised that the infestation had not been resolved, and he thought the landlord should target treatment of the cavity wall, as well as other areas of ingress.
On 21 May 2020, the landlord sent the resident a comprehensive list of works to be completed to the resident’s property. It confirmed:
1. Appointing a project manager, to oversee the works.
2. A new kitchen and bathroom would be installed between August and September 2020. This included sealing all areas for gaps, and full redecoration.
3. Survey all elevations and identify areas of cracks.
4. The cavity to each elevation would be inspected using a borescope prior to any pointing works being undertaken.
5. It anticipated works to take place between September and October 2020.
6. Rentokil would undertake a further visit to his flat and the ground floor flat between July and August 2020.
On 21 August 2020, the resident sent further expense receipts for £166.38 for pest treatments.
It is unclear In September 2020 the landlord checked the wall cavity which was found to have collapsed. The landlord refilled the cavity with “polyball” insulation.
On 12 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord after a “distressing few days”, after he described “surviving insects scuttle away from the treatment on mass into my flat”. He could only conclude that the bugs had reinfested the loft. The resident sent further receipts for pest treatments totalling £279.37. The resident sent a chaser email on 16 October 2020 regarding his email.
On 21 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that he had not received responses to his emails sent on 12 or 16 October. He confirmed that the cavity wall was first treated on 7 October 2020, despite being a source, and as such, all previous treatments were irrelevant due to the source not being treated, and infestation being allowed to take hold. He asked what the landlord was going to do to illuminate the pests once and for all.
A report was sent by a doctor of the Royal Entomological Society, who had been instructed by both the landlord and the resident to assess the situation. In his report he confirmed:
1. There was no evidence of insect infestation by household pests.
2. There was no evidence of medical condition caused by insect infestation.
3. There was therefore no evidence of association between mites and mould at the premises and mites do not feed on mould.
4. There was no evidence of infestation by mites (one or two individuals is not an infestation and may be considered ‘normal’).
5. There was no conclusive evidence that insects or mites are the cause of the effects felt on the skin.
The Doctor also emailed the resident on 10 November 2020 and stated that he could “confidently rule out so call mould mites, as these are not a household pest.” He confirmed that he stood by his opinion that there was no insect related issue and that it seemed most of the resident’s need was to do with building maintenance.
In a response the same day, the landlord apologised that it had not responded to his earlier emails. However, it had received the entomologist report and would be writing within the next few days with the outcome.
A stage 4 response was issued on 23 December 2020 which confirmed:
1. All the required work to the flat and building structure had been completed. The landlord listed the works which included: treatments; walls sealed in kitchen and bathroom; renewed kitchen and bathroom; old fibre insulation removed from cavities, fogged, and filled with poly bead insulation.
2. Despite the residents’ concerns regarding his health, the photographs submitted of insects had been analysed by Rentokil and an Entomologist and were found to contain little evidence of insects, and no indication of an infestation.
3. All invoices had been paid, barring one payment of £297.37 for treatment, which the landlord was happy to reimburse. It further offered £250 to compensate the resident for the inconvenience and distress caused by the situation and was therefore offering £547.37 as a final offer.
4. It concluded its internal complaints process, and the resident was advised to contact the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 January 2021 in response to the stage 4 letter he confirmed:
1. It was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the building was fit for purpose and human habitation and therefore the complaint should not be closed until the nuisance had stopped coming into his flat from the building infrastructure. Although considerably reduced, it had not been eliminated.
2. The landlord and Rentokil have “never been interested in finding a source” despite him repeatedly saying that it was coming from the wall cavity.
3. The old insulation was removed two years after he told the landlord that it was a source of the problem.
4. New bead insulation was installed prior to major repair and repointing of the external brick work, which resulted in water ingress into the cavity, risking “transmission.”
5. Rentokil were happy to use dangerous chemical treatments several times, without investigating the cavity.
6. He would submit further receipts for products purchased, however these were nothing to do with “settlement.” He noted that £250 was “pretty paltry” for over two years of what he had endured, and did not cover the cost of two sofas, carpet, and mattress.
7. It did not bring a conclusion to his complaint and its attempts to close the complaint was unjustified.
8. He confirmed that if the landlord insisted on closing the complaint, he would have no choice but to go to the Ombudsman, which would entail further stress and time.
9. The resident put forward three scenarios and suggested that the landlord investigated the single skimmed area behind the external cladding as a possible ingress.
On 2 March 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord:
1. The re-pointing had remained incomplete.
2. External cladding needed repairing and replacing as it allowed pest ingress.
3. Water ingress on the bathroom and kitchen ceiling from external area around the sink pipe had not been dealt with.
4. He had not received communication from the landlord since 23 December 2020 regarding the matters, despite sending letters on 19 and 25 January.
5. He stated that until the situation was resolved, he was “unable to move on with his life” or replace curtains.
On 1 June 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it would reimburse all the resident’s expenses and would like to agree a compensation amount and requested a time convenient for the resident to call.
The landlord issued a further stage 4 response (final review) on 14 June 2021 (two letters on file, and one has a date of 14 July 2021) which reiterated the points made in its response sent in December 2020. It added:
1. There was discussion following the report from the Entomologist around microscopic mould spores causing health problems. Claims for personal injury were not covered by its complaints process but it would refer him to its insurers.
2. The insulation that the resident considered to be the source of spores in the flat was removed when the cavities were cleared, fogged, and modern bead insulation injected.
3. It was happy to reimburse for costs associated with treating the property for infestation, as well as costs associated with replacing personal items which the resident valued at £564.26. It was offering an additional £1000 compensation for disruption, distress and inconvenience experienced during the repair work. The total amount offered was £2070.15 which also included a further payment of £505.89 for treating the infestation.
The resident accepted the offer but considered a further reimbursement of 30% of his rent, equivalent to two and a half years to be “fair and measured” compensation. The landlord did not accept his request.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This service acknowledges that the resident has explained how the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation significantly impacted his health, both physically and mentally. This provides context for the complaint; however, this service is unable to make findings of damage or injury to physical or mental health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. This service has considered the overall distress and inconvenience within the assessment.
The landlord’s published information confirms that residents “must make sure that pest infesting the property are properly destroyed. If you [the resident’ do not deal with this type of problem and neighbouring properties, communal areas or structure are affected we may carry out the treatment and repair and charge you [the resident] for doing this.”
It further confirms that if the pests are in a shared area, the resident will need to contact the repairs department to deal with it. If there is a defect in the property, or building, which is allowing a pest to ingress, it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair.
The resident initially reported a dead rat in the loft space in November 2017. The evidence confirms that the landlord delayed in removing the rat carcass until March 2018, some five months later. While this was an unreasonable delay, the landlord has acknowledged that it should have acted sooner. For its failing in the matter, it reimbursed the resident’s pest treatment expenses, for the entirety of the complaint. This was a reasonable response to its failing, which ensured that the resident was not at a financial loss due to its delay in responding.
Following the residents reports of an infestation in October 2018, the landlord took swift action in instructing its pest control company to evaluate the situation. “Foggers” were placed in the loft in October and December 2018, in addition to the spraying of all floors in the resident’s property, the ground floor flat, communal hallway and loft. It was appropriate that the landlord instructed its pest control company, in response to the reports received. It carried out treatments to all communal areas, in line with its obligations. Its actions following the reports demonstrate that it took the concerns of the resident seriously and acted accordingly.
After the landlord was made aware that the resident “lacked confidence” in its pest control company, it instructed a third company, Rentokil to be a “third opinion”. It is noted that the resident did not feel the landlord’s appointment represented a third opinion, however this service is unclear why. The landlord has evidenced that the company was procured from its contractor database and that it followed correct procedure in procuring its service. The landlord had hoped that it would ease the concerns expressed by the resident, provide additional reassurance that it was doing all it could, and placate the situation.
The action that the landlord took up until this point was appropriate, however, the matter persisted. The resident noted in October 2018 that the loft insulation had been “compromised” following a water leak, and it was his opinion that this could provide an area for pests to infest. The landlord agreed in March 2019 to remove the loft insulation and carry out further treatments. The resident felt that the landlord should have removed the insulation at an earlier point, but the actions it had taken were reasonable and proportionate to the reports it had received. At that point, it had no evidence of an infestation, or any link to the insulation being a source to a potential infestation.
The resident was unhappy that most of the treatment works had taken place, before the loft insulation and faeces had been removed, leading him to believe that his property was still infested. The evidence confirms that a pest treatment was carried out, following the removal of the insulation in April 2019, works in the loft commenced on 9 May 2019, and a three-part treatment was started on 19 June 2019. In its response to the resident in 2019, it confirmed that it had carried out the necessary remedial works, to further seal redundant service entry points, and fill cracks, however, it would not carry out further treatments, on the advice of Rentokil that it had explored “all avenues”. Pest infestations can take time to resolve due to the repeated treatments needed. The Protection of Animals Act 1911 states that the presence of pests needs to be identified before a pesticide treatment can take place. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident that it would not carry out further treatments.
Throughout the complaint, the landlord has shown an eagerness to resolve the issue and find a resolution, despite the evidence indicating that there was no infestation. The action it took included: 10 pest treatments, pesticides, deep cleans to both flats and communal areas, disinfectants, and laid traps. The landlord appropriately sought expert advice from the start of the report by contacting its pest control company, requesting advice from EH, instructing a third opinion, and employing an Entomologist. This demonstrates a proactive approach, that was measured and reasonable. Both the Entomologist and pest control confirmed there was no evidence of an infestation, and the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of qualified experts in the matter.
The landlord considered the impact that the issue was having on the resident throughout the complaint period. In addition to the action it had taken, in October 2019, the landlord offered the resident a temporary move, which he declined. The landlord appropriately considered that the situation was detrimentally impacting the resident and was willing to offer a resolution that could have relieved the distress he was being caused.
In March 2020, the resident thought the infestation was a carpet moth, or carpet beetle, entering his property from a cavity behind the kitchen cupboard. Appropriately, the landlord obtained advice from its building surveyor and undertook works to repair the external walls, allowing the cavities to dry out. Its response to the matter was again swift, and reasonable given the reports.
In March 2020, the landlord advised the resident that due to the lockdown restrictions, it was not carrying out non-essential repairs, which included repairs to the external parts of the residents building until mid-June. These delays were outside of the landlord’s control. It resumed its repairs programme in June 2020 and in September 2020 replaced the cavity insulation with bead insulation, following the previous collapse of the insulation. Although this service can understand that the delay in completing this work caused significant frustration and distress to the resident, the landlord acted in accordance with government guidelines, which will have impacted its work schedule.
The landlord compiled an extensive list of works, which was shared with the resident in May 2020, confirming the extensive works it would complete between August and October 2020. The landlord went above and beyond in the works it completed, including renewing the kitchen and bathroom completely, which included stripping the rooms of all unit, removing skirtings, fillings all holes and entry points, plastering works, new flooring, and redecorating, which were renewed earlier than planned.
This service understands that the infestation had an adverse effect on the resident, as detailed in his complaints, and correspondence with the landlord. The landlord has shown that it acted to ‘put things right’ via its complaints process. It provided considered, and detailed responses to the complaint, and detailed steps it would take to address the infestation, while offering apologies that it had been unable to resolve the matter satisfactorily.
Overall, there is no indication that the infestation occurred due to any failing on the part of the landlord. The evidence available shows a comprehensive record of multiple attempts to resolve the matter, outside of its obligations. Therefore, this service has found no maladministration on the part of the landlord.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 11 March 2019 and received a response on 4 April 2019. The landlord did not set out the stage of the response in its reply and confirmed that it would close the complaint if the resident did not make contact by the 19 April 2019. Its complaints process confirms that the complaint will only be close if the resident is happy with the resolution, or that contact is not mad within seven working days. While this was the process it had in place at the time, it is understandable that the resident was perplexed as to why the complaint would be closed without reaching a resolution. However, the evidence confirms that the landlord-maintained contact with the resident between sending complaint responses, and updated the resident with schedule works and treatments.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the response in April 2019, and the landlord subsequently issued a stage 2 response on 9 May 2019. As the resident remained dissatisfied, the landlord provided a second stage 2 response on 8 August 2019. In line with its procedure, in place at the time of the complaint, the investigating manager should have discussed the complaint with the resident, before it sent a further stage 2 response, to try and reach an agreement. This service is unclear why the landlord deviated from its process and arranged a meeting with its Service Head in October 2019, after it had issued a second stage 2 response. While this was a shortcoming in its service, the Ombudsman does not think that the resident was detrimentally impacted as a result.
The landlord’s complaints policy suggests that in the instance the landlord is unable to complete a full response within 10 working days, it will send a written update providing details of the progress and a date when the full response will be provided. This is good practice. It is clear, however, while the landlord sent holding letters on 30 September and 11 October, no specific date was offered in which the resident could expect the response. The landlord therefore failed to manage this delay, and the resident’s expectation, in line with its policy.
It is clear at this point that the resident was unclear as to where he was in the complaints process, and queried if the response was in-lieu of the Director’s stage response, or in addition. While it was admirable that the landlord provided additional, comprehensive responses, it did not follow its complaints process, and confused the matter for the resident.
On 23 December 2020, the landlord issued a “stage 4” response. From reviewing the information provided by the landlord, its complaints process does not evidence a stage 4 in its process and therefore this service is unclear why it corresponded this way, or what policy/procedure it followed when issuing stage 4 responses. Third and fourth stages of a complaint unnecessarily delay the complaint process and would have been inconvenient for the resident, delaying his ability to escalate his complaint to this service.
This service does not consider any complaints process with more than three stages to be acceptable. This prevents complainants from promptly achieving resolution and can also discourage them from pursuing the issue due to the lengths in which they are required to go to. It would be disproportionate, however, to make an order on this basis as the Ombudsman has accepted that the landlord’s responses at each stage were fair. What’s more, the landlord has since updated its complaints policy in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code, to provide a more efficient and acceptable complaint handling service.
It is noted that the resident was advised in the stage 4 response that if he remained unhappy, he should contact this service. The resident was reluctant to contact this service and stated that if the landlord “insisted” on closing the complaint, contacting this service would cause him further stress and time.
The landlord reviewed the complaint in June 2021, in the hope of reaching a resolution, and to close the matter satisfactorily. The landlord contacted the resident, in the hope of reaching an agreement and put things right. It increased the compensation offer to £2070.15, made up of: £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused; £564.26 for personal items and £505.89 for expenses incurred for pest treatments. The landlord was not obliged to reimburse pest treatments, or pay for the replacement of personal belongings, that it did, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, puts things right.
While this delay and additional stage responses were inappropriate, the Ombudsman cannot see that this would have had a significant adverse impact on the resident, given his reluctance for the landlord to close the case. However, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation below to ensure that the landlord observes the timeframes and the recommended action set out in its complaints policy, and better manages resident expectations where future complaints are concerned.
In summary, there were some failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, which caused confusion, despite the landlord’s good intentions. Nevertheless, the total compensation offered as part of the overall complaint was sufficient to provide the resident with reasonable redress for both its failings with regards to the substantive issue and its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to this investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint relating to its response to the resident’s reports of a bug infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to this investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily in relation to the complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord demonstrated that it made reasonable steps to remedy the resident’s concerns of an infestation. The landlord showed a willingness to put things right by reimbursing costs associated with pest control treatments, personal items which it was not obliged to do. There is no evidence to confirm that the landlord was responsible for the infestation, or that it failed to respond appropriately to his reports. It acknowledged that it could have acted quicker in removing the rat carcass, however, it offered sufficient remedy for this failing.
While the landlord’s complaints process did not reflect best practice, the landlord offered detailed, reasonable responses which addressed the matters raised, offered comprehensive explanations, and clarified its position. The landlord has since updated its policy.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that when a complaint is made, the timeframes set out under each stage of its complaints process (or which are agreed with the resident) are honoured. Where the landlord is unable to do so, it should contact the resident (before the deadline elapses) to explain why it will be unable to meet the deadline and to offer a new timescale in which the resident can expect a response.