Aster Group Limited (202010147)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010147

Aster Group Limited

31 March 2021

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

1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a pest problem in her property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. Parts of this complaint have been raised by the resident, the resident’s partner, and a representative. For the purposes of this investigation all parties will be referred to jointly as ‘the resident’.
4. On 27 August 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that a rat had entered her property as she opened the front door. She was initially advised by the landlord that this issue was her responsibility to deal with. She then said that the pest had come from the communal bin storage which was located near her home. A work order was subsequently raised on 28 August for pest control operatives (PCO) to attend and investigate the communal bin storage, and the resident’s property on 3 September.
5. On 3 September 2020, PCO investigated and baited the resident’s property. They discovered an open pipe in the kitchen which may have been a potential access point for pests; this was temporarily sealed until the following day when it was permanently sealed. They also investigated the communal bin storage for any signs of activity and placed baits in the area. They advised the resident that they would be able to assess whether the treatment had worked in 7-10 days.
6. PCO advised the landlord that there was a large amount of rubbish and food waste behind various restaurants (near the resident’s property) and this was attracting pests. On 4 September 2020 the landlord contacted the local authority to make it aware of this issue, as the area behind the restaurants fell under the local authority’s remit. It asked them to “ensure that discarded refuse is more effectively managed”.
7. On 4 September 2020 in a phone conversation between the resident and the landlord, she explained that, due to the pest problem, she was uncomfortable cooking in the kitchen and had instead bought takeaway food. She also said that she should have been decanted (temporarily moved) by now due to this issue.
8. PCO placed new baiting stations on 10 September 2020 in the resident’s property. However, they did not detect any pests.
9. The resident made a formal complaint on 10 September 2020. She complained that the landlord had not assisted her and that she had been “forced to live in a rat infested” property. She said that there had been several reports made to the landlord of rats in the communal bin cupboard, but it did not take any action. She said that since 27 August 2020, other rats had entered her property through an “uncapped, unused drain pipe” and had “taken residence in the kitchen”. She raised concerns about hygiene due to the pests in the kitchen and being unable to prepare food in there.
10. The resident explained the occasions she had contacted the landlord in order to find out when PCO would attend, and whether she could be decanted from the property until the “rat infestation” was resolved. She said that the property was “uninhabitable due to health and hygiene reasons” and asked to be decanted until the issue had been resolved.
11. CCTV footage provided by the resident made the landlord aware that the pest prevention treatment had been ineffective. PCO then recommended the removal of several kitchen cupboards in order to ensure that all possible entry points were sealed. The resident was therefore temporarily decanted on 11 September 2020 until 17 September.
12. On 15 September 2020 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It confirmed that it had not received any reports of rats prior to 27 August. It said that the rat had entered her property due to “poor environmental management” from the local authority. It said that it had “consistently sought to provide support” to the resident by arranging PCO to visit her property, giving cleaning advice, and arranging temporary accommodation in order to carry out work in her kitchen. It therefore said that it did not uphold her complaint as it had offered her assistance.
13. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint to the next stage if she was dissatisfied with the outcome.
14. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 September 2020. She said that she had lived in a “dangerous environment for over a week” before PCO attended the property. She said that the landlord had not considered how the family survived without a useable kitchen (in terms of her health and finance). She said that there had been “disgraceful and crass negligence” from the landlord by putting her physical and mental health at such a high risk.
15. PCO attended the resident’s property on 15 September 2020 to place various pest traps. Then, on 16 September 2020, they confirmed that no pest had been caught. They believed that the pest may have been trapped in the wall and suggested potential access to the lofts of the building to set more traps.
16. On 17 September 2020 PCO suggested a four week “rodent riddance program baiting within the communal lofts” in order to resolve the pest problem.  This was approved by the landlord.
17. On 21 September 2020 external operatives deep cleaned the resident’s kitchen and then cleaned the lounge.
18. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 30 September 2020. It said that there had been no delay in action on its behalf as the first report was made on 27 August and the pest control operative attended on 3 September. It said that it was not responsible for a rat entering the property and could not have prevented this from happening; it did, however, take action once it was made aware. It said that it had considered the resident’s health by moving her into temporary accommodation and had provided food for her during the decant.
19. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint to the next stage if she was dissatisfied with the outcome.
20. On 2 October 2020 the resident escalated her complaint. She said that there had been a “distinct delay in action” from 27 August 2020 until 3 September and a further delay until 11 September. She said that the landlord was responsible for keeping its residents safe and that she had to stay in a “rat-infested flat” for 14 days until she was decanted. She said that the landlord did not act “in a timely or responsible manner” and believed that there were grounds for compensation because of that.
21. The landlord issued its stage three complaint response on 14 October 2020. It said that it would not review the resident’s complaint as it had not been provided with any new evidence to indicate that it should have dealt with it differently in its stage one or two response. It summarised that its response to her reports of a pest infestation was dealt with in “a timely and proportionate way in what [had] clearly been difficult circumstances”.
22. The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

23. While the landlord has response timeframes for repairs, the report of a rat entering the resident’s home would not usually be considered under such timeframes, or the repair policy. Nonetheless, in the absence of specific deadlines for pest problems, the repair response times provide a useful benchmark for the landlord’s actions in this case.
24. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend to an emergency (when the health, safety or security of an individual is at immediate risk) within 24 hours of it being reported. Whereas it will attend to urgent matters (non-emergency repairs which are likely to cause further issues if left) within five working days. In this case the resident reported a rat in her property on 27 August 2020. PCO then attended to investigate her concerns that it had come from the communal bin storage on 3 September, within five working days. The landlord therefore acted within reasonable timeframes. Although this was undoubtedly a stressful issue for the resident, the landlord had not been provided with any evidence to indicate that this was an emergency situation, as there had only been a sighting of one pest. It was therefore reasonable that PCO attended within the timeframe for an urgent repair.
25. The landlord explained to the resident that it was not responsible for the pest entering her property despite her belief that it had come from the communal bin storage. It is not uncommon practice for a landlord to have a section in its repair policy or in the tenancy agreement which explains who is responsible for pests inside the resident’s property. No such information has been provided for this investigation. According to the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for taking “reasonable care” of communal areas. The landlord therefore acted in line with its policy by investigating this area to determine if it needed to take further action. It carried out preventative treatment and relevant repair work in the resident’s property to ensure that there were no possible entry points for such pests. The landlord organised for the building to undergo block treatment following the advice of PCO. It is not apparent from the evidence provided whether there was a pest infestation within the building, or whether this was a singular incident. Nonetheless, the landlord took reasonable steps to ensure that there were no structural faults within the property which would facilitate the entry of such pests in the future, as it was aware of the potential nearby activity of pests in a nearby, off-site, build-up of rubbish.
26. PCO suggested that this build-up of rubbish behind nearby restaurants had attracted the pests. The landlord contacted the local authority to make it aware of this problem, and to ask them to take action in light of this. This was an appropriate response from the landlord as while it did not have jurisdiction over this area, it made the relevant party aware and urged action. The landlord acted fairly in response to the resident’s concerns by communicating with relevant external parties, and taking advice from its specialists to resolve the issue.
27. The resident remained dissatisfied as she believed that she should have been decanted before 11 September 2020 rather than living in a “dangerous home environment”. The resident made the landlord aware that she wanted to be moved to alternative accommodation shortly after reporting the problem, as she was concerned about the hygiene in the kitchen and felt uncomfortable cooking there. The landlord did not initially approve of a decant and instead arranged for PCO to attend the property and investigate the issue. In general, a landlord would not be expected to decant a resident until a problem had been confirmed by itself or specialists and the property had been deemed uninhabitable. Therefore, although the resident wanted an immediate decant, the landlord’s decision to investigate the problem first and carry out relevant preventative treatment was reasonable. It is also what the Ombudsman would expect in such circumstances as the resident’s kitchen was not actually unusable, and no infestation had been found. The resident’s tenancy agreement states, as most such agreements do, that the resident is responsible for “keeping the interior of the premises in good and clean condition”. This includes the kitchen. In light of that, and given that the pests were not due to any apparent failing by the landlord, the landlord’s decision to arrange a deep clean of the kitchen by external operatives was a reasonable response from the landlord. It demonstrated that it had acknowledged the resident’s concerns and gone beyond its specific obligations to try to allay her concerns.
28. Ultimately, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to indicate that the landlord could or should have taken any further action to resolve the reported pest issue. The landlord explained that it was not responsible for the pest entering the property and that it had not received any similar reports prior to 27 August 2020. Once it was aware of the issue, it took steps to investigate and prevent it from happening again. It liaised with relevant parties and ensured that the resident’s property was free from any possible access points. Therefore, its responses and actions taken following the resident’s report on 27 August were reasonable.

Determination (decision)

29. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a pest problem in her property.