Nottingham City Homes Limited (202230378)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230378

Nottingham City Homes Limited

25 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of maggots in the property, including the associated electrical work and request to be moved.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord’s records note the resident has mental health issues. The resident told this service that she has post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD).
3. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 September 2022. She said her neighbour had died and maggots had entered her property. She said the maggots were coming through the electric plug socket and had covered the carpets. She asked the landlord to replace the carpets and underlay. An electrician attended to check the electrics on the same day. They reported back that the electrics were still tripping after the sockets had been cleaned and asked for the issue to be investigated further.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 September 2022 to report there was no electrics in the bedroom and living room. She said she had to use an electric extension lead and this was a fire hazard. She asked the landlord for help and to be rehoused. The landlord visited on the same day and an emergency appointment was booked to repair the electrics. A job was also raised for a specialist cleaning company to carryout a deep clean of her property. It said the property would be cleaned once it received the keys for the flat upstairs and that someone would be in contact within the next 24 hours to provide an update. It also gave the resident an insurance claim form for the carpets. An electrician attended to repair the electrics.
5. The landlord told the resident on 6 September 2022 that the specialist cleaning company would attend on the following day. It also said the flat above was cleaned on 4 September 2022 and she should not experience any further problems with maggots. The resident responded on 7 September 2022 and noted the electric socket in the living room was still not working and the specialist cleaning company had not been in contact. She also said the flat above was not cleaned and maggots were still entering her flat through the light fittings. The resident’s property was cleaned on 9 September 2022. She told the landlord on 13 September 2022 that she had removed the carpets.
6. The resident made a complaint on 26 September 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 October 2022. The complaint was not upheld. It said it acted swiftly to resolve the situation, maintained regular contact with the resident and arranged for works to be completed. This included checking the electrics and arranging for a specialist cleaner to attend. It also said it did not receive any information stating she needed to be moved and she did not meet the threshold for emergency accommodation.
7. The resident asked to be rehoused on 4 November 2022 given the trauma associated with the incident. She asked for her complaint to be escalated on 14 November 2022. She said the landlord failed to answer the questions she had raised. She also noted the complaint was handled by someone named in the complaint and was not therefore impartial. The landlord confirmed it still needed to repair the plug socket in the living room and agreed to dispose of the carpets. It arranged a job to repair the socket on the same day. The carpets were removed on 8 November 2022.
8. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 9 December 2022. It said it took reasonable steps to resolve the matter including visiting the resident, arranging for electrical works to be completed and carrying out a deep clean. It also said it chased up the specialist cleaning company when they failed to attend and sent the resident an insurance claim form.
9. The landlord told the resident on 22 June 2023 it had not been negligent and it would not make an offer for the carpets and expenses incurred by the resident. It did, however, say it would make a goodwill gesture given the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident. The resident accepted an offer of £4,000 compensation from the landlord on 6 July 2023 and said this was paid to her.
10. The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 25 January 2024. She said she was unhappy with the way in which the landlord dealt with the issue and the cleaning of the property. She also said the landlord failed to provide her with temporary accommodation. She noted she suffered PTSD as a result of the incident and reluctantly accepted the compensation. She wanted the landlord to increase its offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. In considering the landlord’s response to the complaint, it is noted that the resident has referred to a possible impact upon her mental health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that this Service is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a resident’s mental health, as this would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of maggots in the property, including the associated electrical work and request to be moved.

12. This Service’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s handling of the infestation and subsequent actions were in accordance with its policies and procedures and fair in all the circumstances.
13. The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) guidance sets out a general duty on the landlord to ensure that the property is habitable and safe to live in. This includes ensuring the property is free from hazards (such as infestations) that could potentially lead to infections. In this case, the resident reported an infestation of maggots on 4 September 2022. This Service has not seen any evidence to show the infestation was caused by any failing or inaction on the part of the landlord.
14. Once the landlord was notified of the reported infestation, it was reasonable to expect it to investigate the report and carry out any necessary contamination and remedial works promptly to ensure the flat was habitable and free from any infestation hazards. This was particularly important given the cause and nature of the infestation was related to the discovery of a decomposing body.
15. In this case, the landlord visited the property on 4 September 2022 following the resident’s reports that the electrics kept tripping and there were maggots in the plug sockets. This was in accordance with its repairs and maintenance standards. These say it will attend to emergency repairs immediately. Loss of electrical power and unsafe electrics are classified as emergency repairs. There is no evidence the landlord repaired the electrics during the visit. This meant it did not meet its obligations under the tenancy agreement. This says the landlord is responsible for ensuring installations are kept in working order. This includes electrics. The resident said she had to use an electric extension lead given she had no power in several rooms and this was a fire hazard. There is no evidence to support the resident’s claims the police told the landlord to move her.
16. The landlord arranged for the upstairs flat to be cleaned on 4 September 2022 but has not provided any evidence to this Service confirming this or what works were completed. Neither is there any evidence the landlord arranged for the resident’s flat to be cleaned at this point or considered whether temporary accommodation was required.
17. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited in places and made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
18. It was appropriate for the landlord to visit the resident on 5 September 2022 to assess the situation, although no record of the visit was provided to this Service. The landlord arranged an emergency appointment to check the electrics. This was in accordance with its repairs and maintenance standards and the repair visit took place on the same day. The landlord said the circuit was reset and the plug sockets repaired. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with an insurance claim form for her carpets and for it to arrange for a specialist cleaning company to carry out a deep clean of the property. It said it would do this once the police had returned the keys for the upstairs flat. It said the company would be in touch within the next 24 hours.
19. The housing records confirm the landlord decided at this point that it would not offer a decant or hotel accommodation. This was because it had arranged for the property to be cleaned. The landlord said it told the resident it would not move her, although there is no evidence confirming it did this. Neither is there any evidence it took steps to identify if there were any health and safety concerns that could affect the resident. The landlord’s decant policy says it will undertake a risk assessment.
20. The landlord confirmed on 6 September 2022 that the electrics were working and the specialist cleaning company would attend on the following day. It also said the flat above was cleaned on 4 September 2022 and the resident should not have any more maggots. There is no evidence the landlord checked this was the case or undertook any assessment of the situation. This was not appropriate.
21. The resident told the landlord on 7 September 2022 that maggots were still entering her property through the light fittings and fire alarm. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this report. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have visited the resident and undertaken an assessment given her ongoing concerns. The landlord did not raise a repair to fix the plug socket in the living room following the resident’s report that it was not working and was full of maggots. This was not in accordance with its repairs and maintenance standards.
22. There is no evidence the resident was told the specialist cleaning company could not attend on 7 September 2022 as originally planned. It was appropriate for the landlord to chase up the specialist cleaning company, but this was not done until 8 September 2022. The landlord’s failure to actively pursue the matter on behalf of the resident led to further delays. The housing records confirm the flat was cleaned on 9 September 2022, although it is unclear what work was carried out.
23. The landlord’s records confirm the specialist cleaning company visited the resident again on 16 September 2022. It told the landlord that activity levels were minimal and the resident was taking the right action to remove the flies. It is unclear from the housing records if and what additional cleaning was carried out following the visit.
24. The landlord raised a job on 4 November 2022 to repair the plug socket in the living room. This was almost 2 months after the resident reported it was not working. It is unclear from the housing records when the work was done. It was reasonable for the landlord to dispose of the carpets on 8 November 2022.
25. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered. In this case, the landlord did not offer compensation until June 2023. Whilst this demonstrated learning, it cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because the landlord should have thoroughly reviewed its position before issuing its final complaint response.
26. In summary, the infestation was not caused by any failings or inaction by the landlord. It did not, however, meet its repairing obligations when the resident first reported the electrics were tripping. There were also delays in cleaning the property and it did not assess whether there were any health and safety implications that could affect the resident. Whilst the landlord offered compensation, it did not do this until June 2023, 6 months after its final complaint response and only after the resident had contacted this Service. The financial offer was, however, reasonable and in excess of what this Service would have ordered as a remedy in the circumstances. As such, we will not be making a further order of compensation.
27. Given the above findings, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of maggots in the property, including the associated electrical work and request for a decant.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

28. The housing records confirm the resident made a complaint on 26 September 2022. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. This says it will acknowledge complaints, provide the name of the nominated resolution officer and details on the timescale for a response.
29. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident on 10 October 2022 to discuss the complaint and the outcomes she was seeking. This was in accordance with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. This says landlords should confirm their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes being sought with the resident.
30. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response until 13 October 2022. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy. This says it will provide a response within 10 working days. Whilst it told the resident there would be a delay in responding on 11 October 2022, this was after the complaint deadline had passed.
31. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to summarise the key questions raised by the resident into 4 main points, it did not address all the issues she raised. In particular, it did not confirm whether a risk assessment was undertaken or whether it took account of her medical conditions and vulnerabilities. It also failed to explain why there were delays in carrying out the cleaning works. This was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. This says landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. There is no evidence the complaint response was not impartial.
32. The housing records confirm the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 14 November 2022. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint or sought to understand why she remained unhappy or the outcomes she was seeking. It issued its final complaint response on 9 December 2022. This was within the 20-working day target set in its complaints procedure. Whilst it addressed all of the questions raised by the resident, it did not confirm whether the complaint was upheld or not.
33. In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints procedure at times. It also failed to address all of the points raised by the resident in its stage 1 complaint response and there was a delay in responding. Given these failings, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The offer of compensation was, however, reasonable and in excess of what this Service would have ordered as a remedy in the circumstances. As such, we will not be making a further order of compensation.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of maggots in the property, including the associated electrical work and request to be moved.
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

36. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer an apology to the resident for the failings set out in this report.
37. Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review its approach to pest infestations to ensure it takes a pro-active approach to reports and properties are cleaned in a timely manner.