The Guinness Partnership Limited (202208756)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208756

The Guinness Partnership Limited

22 April 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of mice and bedbug infestations in his property;
2. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB);
3. associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy that began on 14 June 2010. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat, and is part of a scheme that houses mainly elderly or vulnerable residents.
The resident does not read or write, and regularly attends a day centre. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, and other additional support needs. It said that it liaised with the resident’s sister regarding any matters related to the resident.
The resident’s sister made the complaint to the landlord on the resident’s behalf, and has also acted as his representative in correspondence with this Service.

Pests procedure

The landlord’s procedure stated that it was responsible for dealing with infestations in communal areas, or where the pest was entering the resident’s property via a building defect. It said that where a communal area was infested, it would contact the resident who had reported it within 5 working days, and advise them of its action plan.
The procedure said that residents were responsible for infestations that came from within their home. It said that in those instances the resident should be provided with further advice, and referred to the local authority. It stated that where the resident was vulnerable, and required help with the infestation, it would complete an inspection to decide next steps.

ASB policy

The landlord’s policy stated that reports of ASB will be acknowledged in 2 working days, and that the landlord would then complete a risk assessment that considered whether the resident is vulnerable or needed support. It said that the resident would be updated at regular intervals about the action being taken.

Complaint policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage process. It said that it would aim to provide a full response to complaints with 10 and 20 working days, at stages 1 and 2 respectively. It said that extensions to these dates were only permitted where there was good reason, and it was agreed with the resident.

Summary of events

On 6 January 2022 the landlord wrote to all tenants of the resident’s scheme with regards to the bedbug issue. The landlord’s letter stated that it had set up a monitoring programme with its pest control contractor. It advised that all flats and communal areas would be inspected on 9 January 2022.
On 18 January 2022 the resident’s sister told the landlord that the resident had mice in his property, but that she was unsure if they were also in the scheme’s communal areas. The landlord advised the resident’s sister to contact the local authority (LA), but to contact it again if the mice were in the communal areas.
On 17 February 2022 the resident’s sister told the landlord that the bedbug infestation in the scheme, which had not previously affected the resident’s property, had now spread inside his flat. The landlord referred the resident’s sister to the LA, to which she expressed her dissatisfaction. The landlord agreed it would call the resident’s sister back.
On 21 February 2022 the LA asked the landlord to provide an update regarding the bedbug, and mice issues at the resident’s property, but did not receive a response.
On 11 March 2022 the landlord and resident’s sister confirmed that the resident’s property had been fumigated for bedbugs that day. On 27 March 2022 the resident’s sister told the landlord that the resident was still staying with her, but that his property was about to be steam cleaned, and that his clothes would then be taken back home.
On 1 April 2022 the landlord attended a multi-agency meeting in response to issues raised by the resident’s sister regarding bedbugs, mice, and ASB being experienced by the resident, and the lack of feedback that the resident’s sister had been getting. The meeting made recommendations involving Social Services, Environmental Health, and the landlord. The landlord completed a ‘HARM assessment’ of the resident, which it appeared to have done during the same month (the copy of the assessment provided to this Service was not dated).
On 7 April 2022 the resident’s sister told the landlord that she had stayed at the resident’s property the previous night, and had been bitten by bedbugs. She also reported that the resident’s neighbour was allowing their dog to defecate in the communal hallway, and that the neighbour’s guests were causing nuisance.
On 12 April 2022 the resident’s sister complained to the landlord about the ongoing bedbug, and mice issue at the resident’s property. The landlord called the resident’s sister the following day to acknowledge the resident’s complaint, and advise her of its 10 day response timescale.
On 13 April 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour, with reference to its recent call to him. It told him that he must immediately cease allowing his dog to roam the communal corridors unsupervised. It referred to the relevant tenancy agreement terms regarding pets, visitors, and noise, and warned of further action being taken if he did not adhere to this.
On 19 April 2022 the landlord’s record referred to its call to the resident’s sister concerning her reports of ASB. The landlord’s record said that it had received no other related ASB reports, and the absence of any supporting evidence limited what further actions it could take. It acknowledged that the resident was unable to keep a diary or use the noise app. It stated that it had told the resident’s sister that it would close the ASB case, but keep her formal complaint open. It said that it had been difficult to explain to the resident’s sister the difference between an ASB case, and a formal complaint. It said that as such, it would not send the resident or his sister its normal ASB case closed letter, as it would likely cause confusion regarding the status of their formal complaint.
On 27 April 2022 the resident’s sister called the landlord to chase a response to her complaint. The following day the landlord called the resident’s sister, and left a voicemail. On 3 May 2022 the landlord left a further voicemail for the resident’s sister, and followed it up with an email inviting her to contact it. It repeated this on 6 May 2022, and recorded that it had closed the case due to the lack of response from the resident’s sister.
On 20 May 2022 the landlord wrote to all tenants of the resident’s scheme with regards to the bedbug issue. It said that it had repeatedly tried to treat the issue, but acknowledged that it had remained persistent. It advised that it had met with the LA, and specialists, and was arranging further treatment. It offered to carry out property inspections for those with specific concerns. On 31 May 2022 the landlord received permission from the resident’s sister for its pest control contractor to access the resident’s property that day.
On 8 June 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident, and referred to its earlier call to the resident’s sister. The landlord’s key points were as follows:
1. It acknowledged that the pest infestation was affecting around half of the flats in the resident’s scheme, including his property.
2. It apologised to the resident for the delays he had experienced with its treatment of bedbugs, which it said had been ongoing since February 2022. It acknowledged that there was also an issue with mice.
3. It stated that the delays had been in part due to its standard bedbug treatment not proving successful. It said that “external factors” had also contributed to the delays, which it had now overcome by liaising with external agencies, and the resident’s neighbours.
4. It explained that it had instructed a specialist contractor who would use a heat treatment in the resident’s property on 13 June 2022. It said that it would monitor the results over the following weeks, and that it would then deal with the mice issues.
5. It said that the resident’s sister had reported that the resident had experienced instances of ASB. It explained the reasons that it would handle that as an ASB report, rather than as a formal complaint, and that it would separately contact the resident to this regard.
6. It advised the resident of his right to escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
On 5 August 2022 the landlord arranged access to the resident’s property with the resident’s sister for its pest control contractor to follow up on its bedbug treatment. The following week the resident’s sister complained to the landlord that she had seen bedbug bites on the resident’s arm. The landlord assured the resident’s sister it would take appropriate action.
In September 2022 the resident’s sister contacted this Service regarding the resident’s situation. The resident’s sister said that the resident had stayed with her during February and March 2022, as his property had been uninhabitable with bedbugs. She said that the resident had only returned home as she was struggling to cope, but that the bedbug and mice issues had persisted. She said that both pest issues had been present for years, but that the landlord had not taken any effective action until June 2022, and only after the intervention of the LA. She described extensive ASB that she said was occurring in and around the resident’s scheme, and the impact that it was having on him.
On 6 October 2022 this Service summarised the resident’s complaint to the landlord, and asked that it provide him with a response. The landlord registered the matter as a new complaint.
On 10 October 2022 the landlord recorded that the pest control specialists had recommended that the resident’s reclining chair be disposed of. It said that the resident’s sister had asked for its support in replacing it, and that it had made a referral to this regard. It said that the resident’s sister had also reported that the resident’s neighbour was dealing drugs, and kept the fire door propped open to allow ready access for his customers.
On 18 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s sister. The key points were as follows:
1. It referred to the pest infestation information in its 8 June 2022 stage 1 response. It said that it had carried out, “numerous treatments for both mice and bedbugs”, most recently on 6 October 2022.
2. It stated that it would undertake pest proofing once the treatment cycle was completed, and would advise the resident of an appointment.
3. It explained that it was working with the Police to take legal action against the tenant that had been accused of drug dealing, and other ASB. It said that all residents should continue to report incidents to assist with strengthening the case.
4. It stated that it had received reports of a resident propping the fire door open, but had no evidence to support this. It said that it had confirmed that the fire door was secure, but had no current plans to install CCTV.
5. It said that it had not upheld the resident’s complaint, but advised the resident’s sister how it could be escalated if the resident remained dissatisfied.
On 25 October 2022 the resident’s sister told the landlord that the resident had been disturbed by the neighbour’s late night noise. On 2 November 2022 the landlord recorded that the resident’s sister still believed there to be bedbugs in the resident’s property, and that she was looking for recompense towards the cost of clearing his infested items. On 7 November 2022 the resident’s sister told the landlord that the resident had been disturbed by someone ringing his doorbell in the early hours of the morning.
On 11 November 2022 the landlord’s internal emails referred to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It said that the resident’s sister had stated that the bedbug, and ASB issues were ongoing, and the complaint outcome she was seeking was for both to be resolved. It said the resident’s sister was dissatisfied with its handling of both matters to date. It said the resident’s sister had explained that the resident had incurred expenses totalling £580 from bedbug treatment costs, and needing to dispose of items of furniture.
On 16 November 2022 the landlord’s further internal emails summarised the ASB position at the resident’s scheme. It described the resident’s neighbour and 1 other tenant as being “of concern”, but explained the difficulties it was experiencing in obtaining evidence. It said that it had an estate action plan, and detailed its work with the Police that had culminated in criminal charges being brought. It explained how it had managed resources, particularly since June 2022, so that it had a staff presence at the scheme at least 4 days a week.
During the remainder of November, and the first half of December 2022, the landlord’s internal emails discussed the resident’s complaint, and the access issues it was experiencing in its attempts to complete his mice proofing works. It stated that it had open ASB cases against the resident’s neighbour, with other tenants of the scheme. It said that it was proceeding with legal action, and working with the Police. It explained that the resident did not have a current open ASB case, as the information from the resident’s sister was more “generalised”, and that she had not reported any recent incidents that would allow it to take action.
On 20 December 2022 the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 complaint response. The key points were as follows:

Mice

It accepted that its stage 1 response had lacked a satisfactory explanation, and that there had been communication failings. It said that the resident (or RS) had reported mice issues in January and February 2022. It accepted that it had failed to return calls to the resident’s sister, and had also failed to return calls after it was prompted by the LA later in February 2022.
It said that it had carried out treatment for the mice issue in the resident’s property on 11 March and 26 September 2022, but did not gain access for the latter visit. It apologised for its failure to pre-arrange that visit.
It stated that it had visited the resident in October 2022, and found no evidence of mice, so had agreed to complete proofing works. It described its access issues to the resident’s property during November 2022, and apologised for its lack of communication or attendance on 14 December 2022.
It said that it had upheld this element of the resident’s complaint, and advised that the mice proofing works were due to take place that day.

Bedbugs

It stated that it had completed standard treatment for the bedbugs in March 2022. It said that after that had proved ineffective, it had undertaken more intensive treatments from June to October 2022. It said that it now had a program to monitor the issue until it was satisfied it was resolved.
It said that while it had made efforts to resolve the issue, it appreciated how unpleasant it had been for the resident. It said that it would pay the resident’s £580 costs that the resident’s sister had detailed.

ASB

It recapped its stage 1 findings, and stated that it had an ‘estate action plan’. It described its increased staff presence at the scheme, and evidence gathering work with the Police.
It advised that one of the communal doors would be replaced in January 2023, and that it was considering other measures including CCTV.
It said that it was continuing its investigation and evidence gathering, and that it would take enforcement action once it was able to. It stated that it had found no failings in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports, and had not upheld that element of his complaint.

Summary

It apologised for the resident’s overall experience of its services, and the distress caused. It offered the resident £200 compensation broken down as follows:
1. £75 for poor communication.
2. £100 for stress and inconvenience.
3. £25 for its poor stage 1 investigation, and delayed stage 2 response.
It described the learning taken from its communication, and complaint handling failings.
It referred the resident to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

On 22 December 2022 the landlord recorded that the resident’s property and scheme had been thoroughly treated, and was on a monitoring program until March 2023.

Summary of events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 20 February 2023 the resident reported that the bedbugs had returned to his property, for which the landlord arranged an inspection.
The landlord’s record stated the dates, and outcomes of its pest monitoring programme from March 2023. In June 2023 the resident reported that there were mice in his property. The landlord completed an inspection, and laid bait behind the kitchen kickboards. Its records stated that its subsequent inspections did not find any evidence of mice in the resident’s property.
On 5 June 2023 the landlord requested information regarding the resident’s scheme from the Police, which it said that it needed to determine what action it should take at a civil level. The Police replied to the landlord with the latest position of its case.
During this investigation the landlord told this Service that its most recent pest monitoring inspection of the scheme had been on 17 January 2024, and that no evidence of either bedbugs or mice had been found at the resident’s property. It further stated that it had separately visited the resident on 30 January 2024, to follow up on his previous ASB concerns. The landlord said that the resident had advised it that there were no current ASB concerns, and that his “previous reports were historic”.
During this investigation the resident’s sister told this Service that there had been further bedbug issues at the scheme, but confirmed that the resident’s property was currently free of pests. The resident’s sister expressed her doubts about the landlord’s account of its visit to the resident on 30 January 2024. She said that the resident’s learning difficulties would have prevented him understanding the conversation, and described what she said was the ongoing ASB at the scheme. She stated that the same neighbour remained next door to the resident, that issues with noise and other nuisance continued, that the neighbour now had additional dogs, and that she still believed that drug dealing was occurring at the scheme.

Assessment and findings

Infestations

The landlord accepted some of the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of mice in his property, and upheld that element of his complaint. The landlord did not specify whether it had upheld the resident’s complaint concerning its handling of the bedbug infestation, but acknowledged how unpleasant the experience had been for him.
The landlord undertook mice treatment in the resident’s property on 11 March 2022. The landlord’s original stage 1 complaint response was sent to the resident on 8 June 2022, and suggested that it was prioritising his bedbug infestation before dealing further with his mice issues. However, beyond this, the landlord did not provide any other explanation as to why it took no further action regarding the mice until September 2022, despite several reported issues following its March 2022 attendance.
The landlord’s same complaint response to the resident also made vague reference to “external factors”, which it said had contributed to the delays in its bedbug treatments. Its subsequent complaint responses gave no further explanation of what this referred to, and instead suggested that it considered itself to have handled the resident’s reports of bedbugs appropriately. The resident’s sister had stated her belief that the landlord only eventually took decisive action after the intervention of the LA. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that directly supports this but as is considered below, the LA did intervene.
The resident has significant vulnerabilities that would have increased the distress that the pest infestations caused him. This would have been further added to by the landlord’s communication failings to the resident’s sister, upon whom the resident relied upon for information and support.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for some of these failings, and to offer him compensation. However, particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord failed to acknowledge the extent of its failings, and that the redress it offered was not proportionate to their impact on the resident. As such, a finding of maladministration has been made with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice, and bedbug infestations in his property.
The landlord’s records stated that there had been a bedbug issue at the resident’s scheme since 2021, although the resident’s property was not initially affected. The landlord wrote to all tenants of the resident’s scheme on 6 January 2022 to advise of its bedbug monitoring, and inspection programme. While the standard bedbug treatments undertaken in the first half of 2022 subsequently proved unsuccessful, this did demonstrate the landlord’s initial efforts to address the issue.
The resident’s sister reported to the landlord the presence of mice in the resident’s property later in January 2022. The landlord’s attempt to ascertain whether the mice were also in the communal areas, and its referral of the RS to the LA, was in line with its policy. However, the landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s vulnerability was not. The landlord’s policy stated that it would complete an inspection where vulnerable residents were likely to need help with an infestation. The landlord’s failure to evidence that it considered this was unreasonable.
It was further unreasonable that the landlord responded similarly when the resident’s sister reported bedbugs in the resident’s property the following month. In that instance there was no doubt that the issue was communal, and the resident’s sister’s dissatisfaction at again only being referred to the LA was understandable. The landlord then added to the resident’s distress, when it promised to call the resident’s sister back to discuss the matter, but failed to do so.
The landlord compounded this with the further communication failures that followed the intervention of the LA in February 2022. The resident’s sister has described the significant time and trouble that she went to going back and forth between the landlord, and the LA in support of the resident. The landlord’s actions were therefore again unreasonable.
The photographic evidence provided to this Service by the resident’s sister depicted the volume of bedbugs, and the severity of bites that her and the resident suffered. As such, it was understandable that the resident’s sister considered the resident’s property to be uninhabitable, and that he moved in with his sister during parts of February and March 2022. The resident’s sister described what a challenging, and distressing period this was for them both, which was only added to by the landlord’s service and communication failings.
The bedbug treatments of the resident’s property, and scheme proved unsuccessful, and the resident’s sister continued to report infestation issues until she made the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 12 April 2022. The landlord’s complaint handling has been separately assessed below, but the need for the resident’s sister to continue to chase the landlord for updates beyond this point would have added to her and the resident’s frustration, time, and trouble.
The landlord wrote to all residents of the scheme on 20 May 2022. The landlord’s letter acknowledged that its standard bedbug treatments had been unsuccessful, and advised its intentions for more intensive specialist treatments. It was appropriate for the landlord to liaise with the resident’s sister with regards to access to his property, which it did on 31 May 2022.
The landlord began the more intensive bedbug heat treatment of the resident’s property on 13 June 2022, which it followed up with a scheduled monitoring programme. During August and September 2022, the resident’s sister reported further bedbug issues, which the landlord attended, and in October 2022 it was recommended that some of the resident’s furniture be disposed of.
Also during this period, the landlord arranged for its contractor to attend to the mice issues at the resident’s property. As above, it is unclear why the landlord did not act to address this issue between March and September 2022, even though it knew the issue was ongoing. The landlord later acknowledged that the inconvenience to the resident had been further compounded when it failed to pre-arrange its contractor’s attendance for the mice issue on 26 September 2022, which led to the contractor not getting access to the resident’s property.
The contractor’s attendance was rearranged for October 2022, and the landlord’s records stated that, as no evidence of mice was found in the resident’s property, it had agreed to complete proofing works. Over the course of November and December 2022 the landlord experienced various access issues in its attempts to complete the mouse proofing works at the resident’s property. While some instances of no access were beyond the landlord’s control, others were caused by its continuing communication failures.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the last of these when it failed to attend his property on 14 December 2022. The landlord completed the works the following week, and the resident’s sister confirmed that the resident’s property was free of infestations at the time of this investigation. The landlord’s offer of compensation to the resident for some of the failings identified above, has been considered in the ‘complaint handling’ assessment below.

ASB

It was unclear from the information provided to this Service when the resident (or his sister) had first reported ASB at the scheme. The earliest relevant evidence seen by the Ombudsman was the record of the multi-agency meeting held on 1 April 2022, which considered the resident’s reports of ASB along with the infestation issues considered above.
It was also unclear which agency had initiated the meeting, but the record stated that it had come about because of “the lack of feedback” that the resident’s sister had been getting with regards to the ASB, and infestation issues. The resident’s sister’s belief that she was only able to make progress by urging the intervention of the LA was therefore understandable.
The resident’s first direct report of ASB to the landlord seen by this Service, was the resident’s sister’s call to it the week after the meeting, on 7 April 2022. Following this the landlord did take appropriate actions, when it discussed the reports with the resident’s neighbour, and followed this up in writing to him on 13 April 2022.
However, from this point onwards there was little evidence that the landlord acted in line with its policy, nor gave appropriate consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities, and their impact on his ability to provide evidence. The landlord closed the resident’s ASB case 6 days later. While it did make some further unsuccessful attempts to contact the resident’s sister, it was understandable that its subsequent communications left her feeling that it was not taking the resident’s fears seriously. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord discussed with the resident’s sister its intention to close the resident’s ASB case on 19 April 2022. Its record stated that it was doing so in the absence of any supporting evidence, but also acknowledged that the resident’s vulnerabilities meant that it was not possible for him to record evidence via the usual methods. It is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord gave any further consideration as to how it could support the resident with obtaining evidence, nor considered alternative methods that would be appropriate to his needs.
The landlord’s record also stated that it had struggled to explain to the RS how it differentiated between a report of ASB, and a formal complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider whether sending the resident’s sister an ASB ‘case closed’ letter, would cause unhelpful confusion on the status of the resident’s formal complaint. However, the landlord’s subsequent communications and records did themselves seem somewhat confused, and left the resident’s sister uncertain of what was happening, and whether the resident would receive any support.
The landlord completed a ‘HARM assessment’ of the resident, which referred to the impact the ASB was having on him. The brief assessment was completed on an otherwise blank undated document, that appeared to also have been done in April 2022. It noted that the ASB was occurring most days, and with increasing frequency. It recorded that the resident felt at risk, and was “open to support”. It is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no other evidence that the landlord considered, or otherwise acted upon, its assessment of the resident.
The resident’s sister chased the landlord for an update on 27 April 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to make efforts over the following days to return the resident’s sister’s call, and to email her when this proved unsuccessful. However, the last of these contact attempts, on 6 May 2022, noted that it would now close the resident’s ASB case due to the resident’s sister’s lack of response. This appeared to contradict the landlord’s earlier record, that stated it had already closed the resident’s ASB case 2 weeks earlier.
The landlord did then have further contact with the resident’s sister later the same month. The record of that contact seen by the Ombudsman only referred to discussions regarding the attendance of the landlord’s pest control contractor at the resident’s property. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident’s sister had again also raised her concerns regarding the impact of the ASB on the resident, as the landlord referred to it in the complaint response it sent to the resident 1 week later.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint has been separately assessed below. However, its first complaint response concluded with the advice that it would separately contact the resident, and his sister regarding the ASB they had reported. It is again unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this promised contact, or other records relevant to the resident’s reports, until the resident’s sister described the extent and impact of the ASB to this Service in September 2022.
This Service contacted the landlord in October 2022, and shortly after the resident’s sister again reported ASB at the resident’s scheme, including drug dealing, and its impact on her vulnerable brother. The landlord issued the resident a further complaint response on 18 October 2022. The response did provide details of the landlord’s work with the Police regarding the ASB, and alleged drug dealing at the resident’s scheme. However, there was again no reference to any action or support specifically for the resident. It was unreasonable that this continued to be the case even after the resident’s sister’s further ASB and noise reports later the same month, and in early November 2022.
The landlord’s internal communications during its stage 2 investigation of the resident’s formal complaint provided detail of its work with the Police, and the actions it was taking to address the ASB at the resident’s scheme. It explained that it had open ASB cases with other residents of the scheme regarding 2 tenants ‘of concern’, including the resident’s neighbour.
While this record of the landlord’s internal discussions has been considered as contemporaneous evidence, the Ombudsman has seen no other evidence of the landlord’s efforts to address the ASB, or its ‘estate action plan’. It is reasonable to conclude that this is because that information is not held within the resident’s ASB case file, as it was closed after only 6 days, and around 6 weeks before the landlord stepped up its relevant efforts at the scheme in June 2022. The actions taken by the landlord in response to the ASB at the scheme may have been appropriate. It may also have been the case that maintaining an additional open ASB case for the resident, would not have allowed the landlord to take any further actions beyond what it was already taking with the cases of other tenants at the scheme.
Nevertheless, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider keeping open, or reopening, the resident’s ASB case in response to the ongoing reports from the resident’s sister. Had it done so, the landlord would have been obliged to keep the resident’s sister “updated at regular intervals about the action being taken”, in line with its policy. This would have allowed her to give ongoing reassurance to the resident, and could have provided them both with confidence that the resident’s fears and concerns were being taken seriously. Instead, the resident’s sister was left to feel that her brother’s ASB concerns, and vulnerabilities were not being considered by the landlord.
During this investigation the resident’s sister, and a Specialist Support Worker (SSW) who supports both the resident and his sister, described to this Service the current ASB and associated issues at the scheme, which are impacting the resident. They described their more recent requests for information, and meetings with the landlord, which they said had either gone unanswered or otherwise led to no action. They further described how the resident’s vulnerabilities prevent him from reporting incidents to the Police or collecting evidence, and the landlord’s unwillingness to support evidence collection with methods such as CCTV or noise recording equipment. The Ombudsman has made an order to this regard.

Complaint handling

The resident’s sister expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s property infestations in February 2022. If the landlord had kept its promise to call the resident’s sister back to discuss the matter, it would have been appropriate for it to advise her of her right to make a complaint on the resident’s behalf. The landlord’s failure to call the resident’s sister back deprived her, and the resident of this opportunity.
The landlord did appropriately recognise the resident’s sister’s call on 12 April 2022 as a formal complaint, and it was reasonable for it to call her the following day to acknowledge and discuss it. However, the landlord then took almost 2 months to issue the resident its first stage 1 complaint response, which was 37 working days longer than the 10 working day timeframe stated in its policy.
The resident’s second associated complaint came about following the intervention of this Service, and there were then further failures in the landlord’s handling of it. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer redress, and apologise to the resident for some of those failings in its final complaint response, which it sent to him on 20 December 2022.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether its subsequent actions and offer of redress were fair and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account our Remedies Guidance, and whether the landlord acted in line with its own policies and the Dispute Resolution Principles; Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) details the timescales the landlord’s complaint process should operate to. The Code further details how landlords should consider putting things right to resolve complaints, and how this should consider a resident’s vulnerabilities. As above, the resident’s vulnerabilities would have worsened the distress caused to him by the substantive issues of his complaint. In this instance the landlord failed to appropriately use the resident’s complaint as an effective means to address this, and instead compounded his distress with its complaint handling failures. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
The landlord did appropriately contact the resident’s sister over the days following its receipt of the resident’s complaint on 12 April 2022. The landlord also made further unsuccessful attempts to contact the resident’s sister after she chased it for a response to the resident’s complaint, on 27 April 2022. Nevertheless, it is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord advised that its stage 1 complaint response would be delayed, nor attempted to agree an extension with the resident’s sister, in line with its own policy.
The landlord issued the resident its first stage 1 response on 8 June 2022, 47 working days after his complaint was made. It was appropriate for the landlord’s response to apologise to the resident for the impact and delays in its handling of the bedbug issues. The landlord also made efforts to put things right by providing the resident clear advice of its intended actions to resolve the bedbug infestation.
However, the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the significant delay in it issuing its stage 1 response to the resident. The landlord’s reference to “external factors” was a vague explanation, but it did acknowledge, and apologise that the resident had experienced delays in its handling of the bedbug issue. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident an apology, explanation, and offer of redress for the delays with both matters. The landlord’s failure to do so was neither reasonable, nor in line with the Code, and Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord’s stage 1 response explained why it would handle the resident’s reports of ASB as a separate matter. This may have been reasonable had the landlord followed up on its commitment to contact the resident to this regard. However, as above, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord took further appropriate action until the resident’s sister contacted this Service 3 months later.
Following the contact from this Service the landlord registered the resident’s second stage 1 complaint, which it responded to in line with the timeframes of its policy, and the Code, on 18 October 2022. As the landlord later acknowledged at stage 2 of its complaint process, its stage 1 response lacked any meaningful explanation or acknowledgement of its failings, and was therefore again unreasonable.
The RS expressed the resident’s continued dissatisfaction to the landlord on 2 November 2022. She asked that the landlord consider the financial costs the resident had incurred as a result of the infestations. It is unclear precisely when the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process, but the resident’s sister’s contact on 2 November 2022 would have been the appropriate time to do so. The first reference to the resident’s stage 2 complaint seen by this Service was in the landlord’s internal communications, which began 9 days later, and formed a part of its stage 2 investigation.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 20 December 2022 which, as it acknowledged, was outside of the timeframe stated in its policy. The landlord’s stage 2 response was more comprehensive than its stage 1 responses, and explained and accepted some of the failings identified in the assessments above. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to cover the £580 of costs that the resident had incurred because of the infestations, and its stage 2 response was, in the main, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
Nevertheless, and as above, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the extent or impact of its failings. The landlord stated that its £200 offer was for its delayed stage 2 response, its poor stage 1 investigation and communications, and the resident’s stress, and inconvenience. The Ombudsman has considered all the failings identified above against our Remedies Guidance.
Our Remedies Guidance recognises the fact that ‘aggravating factors’ will make the emotional impact experienced by an individual resident unique to them. This was particularly relevant in this instance, as the resident’s significant vulnerabilities would have severely increased the time, trouble, and distress experienced by him and his sister. This is considered in the Ombudsman compensation award below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of mice and bedbug infestations in his property;
2. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB);
3. associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord accepted some of its failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of mice in his property, and its original complaint response also accepted the delays in its handling of his reports of a bedbug infestation. Those delays, combined with the landlord’s repeated communication failings, would have increased the already significant time, trouble, and distress experienced by the resident and his sister.
The evidence of the multi-agency meeting suggested that the resident had been reporting ASB prior to the first report seen by the Ombudsman. The landlord did initially respond to that report appropriately, in terms of the actions it took with the resident’s neighbour. However, it failed to evidence that it had considered sound recording equipment, or any other support it could offer the resident in light of his inability to use diary sheets, or the noise app.
The landlord was quick to close the resident’s ASB case, but it is reasonable to conclude that it received similar reports from other tenants shortly after, as within 6 weeks it had stepped up its actions at the scheme. The landlord subsequently failed to evidence that it kept the resident and his sister appropriately informed of its actions, which left them feeling that it was not taking their fears and concerns seriously.
There were significant delays in the landlord issuing 2 of its 3 complaint responses to the resident. The landlord accepted that its stage 1 investigation, and response had been poor. Its final complaint response to the resident was mainly in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, but its offer of redress was not proportionate to the extent or impact of its failings.
The resident’s sister and SSW have described to this Service the current ASB, noise, and associated issues that are impacting the resident, further issues with a broken fire door, and their difficulty with getting a response from the landlord. The Ombudsman has made an order to this regard.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident (via his sister) to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Offers the resident (via his sister and SSW) a meeting to discuss the ongoing ASB, and associated concerns at the scheme. Following the meeting, it should write to this Service, and the resident (via his sister) within 2 weeks to:
  1. Confirm its action plan for each of the points raised at the meeting.
  2. Advise the resident’s sister of the resident’s right to make a further complaint if they remain dissatisfied.
3. Pays the resident £800 compensation, made up of:
  1. £400 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s infestation reports;
  2. £200 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports;
  3. £200 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
4. This amount is separate from the £580 costs that the landlord agreed to reimburse the resident, and replaces its own compensation award of £200 (if the £200 award was paid to the resident, it should be deducted from the £800).
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman further orders that within 6 weeks the landlord reviews its process for supporting vulnerable residents with the gathering of ASB evidence, where their vulnerabilities prevent their use of regular methods, and writes to this Service with its findings.
The landlord should evidence compliance with this order to this Service within 6 weeks of the date of this report.