Hightown Housing Association Limited (202233841)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233841

Hightown Housing Association 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:
1. handling of reports of a silverfish infestation.
2. response to a request for rehousing.
The Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, her tenancy having started on 23 September 2019. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the first floor of a small block containing a further 12 properties. She occupied the property with her 2 children. The resident terminated her tenancy on 18 June 2023.
The resident has provided evidence that she first raised her concern about silverfish in her home with her housing officer on 20 August 2021. In response he advised that as the infestation was in her home it was her responsibility to deal with and that he was unable to assist further.
The resident has said that she had a leak into her home on 11 February 2022. This was from the flat above and originated in the loft space. The landlord’s repair records show that it attended to the leak on 14 February 2022. Follow on repairs to address the damage caused within the resident’s home were raised on 17 February 2022. The works order was extended to 20 April 2022 to facilitate access to the property.
Between 30 June 2022 and 15 July 2022, the resident was in contact via email with the landlord regarding her concerns around silverfish in her home. The landlord agreed to contact other residents within the block to find out if there was a wider issue. The resident explained that having spoken previously with her housing officer, she had been taking steps to deal with the issue herself. She said that she believed that the silverfish were coming from the communal area. She added that she was concerned that the leak that had occurred in February could have contributed to this; having created ideal conditions for silverfish to breed. She said that this was impacting her mental health, and she was concerned about the wellbeing of her children.
On 4 July 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that following contact with others in the block it had received a “mixed response”. It said that it had “some other tenants reporting silverfish within their properties, but no sightings within the communal areas”. It agreed to arrange for a pest control specialist to visit the block, inspect the communal areas and carry out the appropriate action. An order was raised for this to be done on the same day. A damp survey of the resident’s home was carried out by the landlord on 15 July 2022, with no issues found. The landlord responded to a further enquiry from the resident on 4 August 2022. In this it said that “one other flat was identified as a possible source of the silverfish…” It said that it had written to that resident to take appropriate action and if this were not done it would refer this back to the housing officer to follow up with action for breach of tenancy.
On 26 November 2022 the resident submitted an online complaint. She said that she had experienced a problem with silverfish for most of her tenancy and that her children were unable to sleep in their bedroom due to the infestation. Most recently she had found 1 in her bed. She did not feel that she could keep her belongings in her home as it was unsanitary and that this was impacting on her mental health. As the problem did not come from her property, she wished to be moved. Her housing officer provided a reply via email on 29 November 2022. In this it advised that an earlier damp survey had found no issues with damp and said that dealing with pests was the resident’s responsibility. It suggested that she should consider a mutual exchange to move home. It asked her if she wished her contact to be logged as an early stage complaint and in reply the resident confirmed that she did. She further asked for an update as to the action taken by the landlord to deal with the potential source of the problem. This was referred internally on 29 November 2022 to the property services inspector. He completed an inspection of the resident’s home on 16 December 2022.
On 4 January 2023 the resident asked to escalate her early stage complaint as she had received no follow up since the visit carried out on 16 December 2022. The landlord provided an early stage complaint response on 5 January 2023. In this it said:
1. it had reviewed her complaint and the recent images she had sent.
2. that the visit carried out on 26 July 2022 found no evidence of silverfish in her home. Further its officer had advised that pests within a home were the resident’s responsibility and provided advice on how she could treat them.
3. given her concerns and her expressed belief that the silverfish were entering from the communal area of the block, it had arranged for the communal area to be treated. This had been done in August 2022 and its contractor had reported that it had found no evidence of silverfish in the communal area.
4. that during the visit carried out in December 2022 the resident had “pointed out what [you] believed were silverfish but the inspector responded stating he could not see any”. Furthermore, it had checked with neighbouring properties and those above, and it had found no evidence of silverfish.
5. “as this matter is clearly defined as tenant responsibility, together with the fact we found no evidence of silverfish on either visit, including neighboring properties and communal areas, I feel your complaint is not justified and as a result I am not upholding your complaint”.
In reply the resident expressed her dissatisfaction and asked that her complaint be escalated. She provided photos and a video of silverfish in support of her complaint. She also complained about the delay in responding to her earlier complaint. Following acknowledgement by the landlord the resident provided additional information on 6 January 2022. She expressed her concern for her children’s health and that she felt that her requests had been ignored.
On 16 January 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. This acknowledged her reports of silverfish in her home. It confirmed the actions it had taken, including the inspection carried out on 16 December 2022. It further said that it had contacted occupants of neighbouring properties. It said that this inspection and the advice given had been its response to her early stage complaint. It apologised that this had not been made clear and that she had been awaiting a written response. It upheld this element of her complaint. It reconfirmed that the responsibility for dealing with pests within the property was hers. It however agreed, as a gesture of goodwill, to undertake a one off treatment to her property, together with a further treatment of the communal areas. As no evidence of silverfish had been found in other properties it would not carry out a block treatment. It asked her to confirm if her wish were still to move and said that it would then refer this to her housing officer to advise further.
Following its complaint response the landlord raised orders with its specialist contractor on 16 January 2022 to carry out treatment to both the resident’s flat and the communal areas of her block.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated for review on 22 January 2023. In this she said that she felt that she had been “gaslighted” and not believed by the landlord. She referred to contact she had with the landlord in July 2022 when she had been told that the source of the infestation was elsewhere in the block.
The landlord provided its final response on 9 February 2023. In this it said that:
1. it had found no evidence that there was an infestation coming from another flat.
2. it would be carrying out further investigations and had arranged for its specialist contractor to carry out an inspection of the internal communal areas and all properties within the block and recommend appropriate treatment.
3. it was not able to move her. It had a limited stock of properties which were subject to local authority nomination. It suggested that she consider a mutual exchange and referred her to home swapper.
An order to carry out the inspection was raised to its specialist contractor on 7 March 2023. The landlord has said that its contractors experienced difficulties in arranging access to the resident’s property to carry out the proposed treatment. This was only completed on 20 June 2023 following the tenant moving out. It has provided an email from its specialist contractor, dated 6 October 2023, which confirmed that it found no evidence of silverfish.
The resident brought her complaint to the Service on 27 June 2023. She said that she had raised several complaints but had been left with no choice but to move. She wanted the Ombudsman to review her complaint and make recommendations for future residents, and to compensate her for the alarm, distress caused and that she had needed to move. She felt that the landlord had neglected its duty and responsibility to its residents.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has indicated that the infestation within her home had an impact on her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments and understands this situation may have had a detrimental impact on her wellbeing. However, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.

Policy and procedures

The tenancy agreement confirms the responsibilities of both parties. Under this the landlord agrees to “take care to keep the common entrance, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, rubbish chutes and any other common parts including the electric lighting in reasonable repair and fit for use by the tenant and other occupiers and visitors to the premises”.
The resident has responsibility “to keep the premises free from vermin (for example rats, mice, fleas, cockroaches and other pests)”. She must also “allow the associations employees or contractors … access at reasonable times and subject to reasonable notice”.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that responsibility for dealing with pests within a property is generally the responsibility of the resident. It lists pharaoh ants as an exception to this. It says that the landlord is responsible for infestations within communal areas.
Its allocations and lettings policy says that it “does not hold an internal transfer list”. Its existing tenants, with a housing need, can apply to the landlord for a transfer and their application will be assessed in line with the points based system that it operates. The policy provides that it acts in accordance with section 167 of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended) in defining priority for housing.
Section 8 of this policy provides guidance around managed moves for its existing residents. These are used in certain circumstances and the policy says that these are used as “a last resort where other actions have failed … “.
The landlord’s complaint’s policy says that it operates a 2 stage process preceded by an early resolution stage. It says that “where a customer states they are not happy … the staff member will log this as an early resolution step complaint”. It sets out that this covers single issues, which are resolvable within a short period of time. It further states that “if the matter cannot be resolved immediately, and further action is required, the member of staff will confirm what action will be taken, by who, and when the customer can expect a response”. Escalation will then be to the formal procedure where a resident remains unhappy. Its complaints procedure sets out that “the early resolution step must be investigated, resolved and responded to in writing … within 10 working days of receipt”.
Complaints will be logged under the landlord’s formal process where there is an expression of dissatisfaction that cannot be resolved quickly and informally or requires a detailed investigation. Its 2 step process provides that stage 1 will be responded to by a senior manager within 10 working days and stage 2 by a director or the chief executive within 15 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that where a complaint is upheld it has a discretion to make a payment up to a total of £100. This is to cover time, trouble, and inconvenience in bringing the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a silverfish infestation.

The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the tenant is responsible for dealing with pests and this is supported by the landlord’s procedure around repairs. When the resident first raised the issue with her housing officer in August 2021, she was correctly advised that this was her responsibility to address.
The resident raised the issue of a silverfish infestation with her landlord again in July 2022, having taken steps to address the problem herself and having experienced a leak into her home. She said that the insects were entering her flat from the outside. She believe that the leak from the loft space of the flat above, had created conditions which allowed silverfish to breed.
The landlord’s communication with the resident at this point was timely and appropriate, following up each contact from her. The landlord contacted other residents within the block and carried out a visit to the resident’s home. It further arranged a joint inspection with one of its surveyors, who was a damp specialist. The subsequent report identified no issues with damp or mould within the property. It noted that the resident had shown the surveyor 2 dead insects on the doormat and that she had said that it was worse at night with insects on the carpet. The surveyor saw 2 live silverfish in a hallway cupboard that backed onto the bathroom but found no evidence of leaks or damp within this cupboard. Advice was given to the resident about ventilation and temperature management within the property. It recommended that it check and treat the communal areas of the block for an insect infestation, together with inspections of neighbouring properties. This was appropriate.
The landlord further advised the resident that it had identified a possible source for the infestation, and had written to the occupant of that property. It added that it would be referring this to its housing team to follow up. It notified the resident that there would be a change in property surveyor dealing with the property. It is not clear from the evidence provided what action, if any, was taken in respect of the property identified as a potential source of the silverfish and this was not addressed through the landlord’s complaint responses. It noted in late December 2022 that this had been inspected and no evidence of an infestation was found. No evidence of this inspection or a report of the findings has been seen by the Service.
Silverfish are by their nature nocturnal and are usually found in moist areas of a home such as the bathroom or kitchen. Their presence can be a sign of damp. The resident provided evidence of small numbers of silverfish both within her flat and the communal areas by sending photographs and video evidence to the landlord. On its early inspections the landlord appears to have acknowledged that there was silverfish present within the resident’s home, although the numbers recorded was small, or the insects seen were dead. The landlord later changed its position, stating in its complaint responses that its inspectors had found no evidence of silverfish in the flat or the communal areas. It is unclear why the landlord said this. This was contrary to its email communication with the resident in July 2022.
No evidence has been provided of the follow up action taken by the landlord with the resident’s neighbours. Having indicated that it had identified a potential source of the problem, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to maintain contact with the resident on this issue, to reassure her that it was addressing the problem. It would also have been an appropriate step for it to have offered to treat the resident’s home alongside the communal area. This would have aligned both with its own complaint policy and with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right and learning from outcomes. It is noted that an offer to treat the resident’s home was later made, as an outcome to her formal complaint.
In its complaint responses the landlord did not effectively acknowledge the evidence provided by the resident. However, at stage 2 of its complaints process, it said that it would carry out further investigations, ordering an inspection of the communal area and all flats within the block. This was appropriate. However, the landlord has provided no contemporaneous reports of the inspections and treatments carried out by its specialist contractor. It has only provided an email from its contractor dated 6 October 2023, which said that it “had completed the visits and treatments and found no evidence of silverfish”. Therefore, while the landlord has taken steps to satisfy itself that there are no signs of a wider infestation, it failed to take the steps that it had agreed during the course of the complaints process. It follows that there was service failure in its overall handling of this issue. Having considered all circumstances of this aspect of the complaint an order has been made for appropriate compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s response to a request for rehousing.

The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge the distress experienced by the resident and how uncomfortable it must have been to live in a property affected by silverfish. This was of particular concern to her as she was caring for 2 small children. The resident asked to be moved to another property as the outcome of her complaint. She explained to the landlord that she had found silverfish in her bed, her children’s clothing and toys, as well as in her kitchen where she prepared and stored food. She raised her concern about the impact these could have on her children’s health. As she was not offered a move by the landlord, she found her own accommodation and vacated the property on 18 June 2023, ahead of bringing her case to the Service.
The Service is unable to make decisions that cover the allocation of a landlord’s properties or determine that an offer of accommodation should be made. The landlord’s properties can only be allocated through the application of the relevant policy and procedure. This would be in line with the allocations and lettings policy introduced by the landlord in June 2022.
The advice provided by the landlord was appropriate and in line with its policy on rehousing. The evidence presented by the resident of the infestation of silverfish and the reports of its surveyors following inspections of her home, did not present a level of infestation that would require the resident to move either permanently or temporarily. As part of its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord proposed treatment of the flat and provided advice that this would require the resident to vacate her property for a short period. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord acted in accordance with its policies and procedures in advising the resident that it could not assist with direct rehousing and providing her with options to assist her with a move. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the resident’s complaint.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code 2022) encourages the early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents. It recognises that there may be times appropriate action can be agreed immediately. It says that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns should not obstruct access to the complaints procedure. The Code 2022 sets out that a 2 stage complaints procedure is ideal. This ensures that the complaints process is not unduly long.
The landlord’s complaints policy that was in place at the time includes an “early resolution step”. While this refers to being able to resolve complaints immediately, it also says that these should be investigated, resolved, and responded to in writing within 10 working days of their receipt. The policy then provides for 2 further stages beyond this. The landlord’s self-assessment against the Code 2022, published on its website, says that the early resolution step is included in its complaints policy “at the request of the residents voice and scrutiny panel as they felt that it would encourage people to raise concerns, promote quick resolution of more simple issues, and would be beneficial to those who would be reluctant to go through a formal process”.
The Ombudsman has revised the Complaint Handling Code, and the Code 2024 came into force on 1 April 2024. Under the Code 2024, landlords should operate a 2 stage process, to prevent an unduly long complaint process and delay access to the Service. As such, the landlord should ensure that it takes particular note of this when carrying out its self-assessment, and considers reviewing its policy accordingly.
The resident initially raised a complaint via the landlord’s online complaint form on 26 November 2022. Following initial communication with her housing officer she confirmed on 29 November 2022 that she wanted her complaint to be logged. The officer confirmed that this had been logged as an early stage complaint and that it had been referred to the property services inspector. The resident continued to communicate with the housing officer and on 9 December 2022 she advised that despite an initial telephone call she had received no further contact from the property services inspector. Through this she continued to raise her concerns around the infestation in her home. The lack of contact was escalated internally, and an inspection was undertaken on 16 December 2022, 13 days after she registered her complaint.
No written follow up to this inspection was provided until this was pursued by the resident at the beginning of January 2023. A written response was then provided on 5 January 2023. This was inappropriate. In the circumstances, the landlord should reasonably have provided the resident with a written response to her concerns, in line with its policy, and updated her on the outcome of its inspection. That it did not was a failing. When the written response was issued, it was provided 22 working days after the early resolution process had begun, as opposed to 10 working days.
The handling of the resident’s complaint through this early resolution step led to a delay in the resident’s complaint being considered within the landlord’s formal complaints process. No attempt was made to find a solution for the resident during this period. Promises were made that the landlord would take follow up actions, but no evidence has been provided of the actions and inspections caried out.
The resident asked that her concerns be escalated as a formal complaint on 5 January 2023 and provided further information on 6 January 2023. She said that she felt that she had been ignored and that the landlord’s staff had witnessed the silverfish in her home and had concluded that the infestation originated from elsewhere in the block. She said that she had exhausted attempts to treat the infestation and that she believed that the landlord’s policy was only a guide. The landlord provided its formal response on 16 January 2023. Within this it questioned the timeframe of its response to the early resolution stage, saying that the inspection was the conclusion of this process. It is unclear why the landlord advised as such, given that the policy states a written response must be provided.
The evidence provided by the landlord shows that an initial draft of the stage 1 reply was completed by the officer who had responded at the early resolution stage. This raises a question as to the independence of the review undertaken by the senior manager at this stage.
As the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she escalated her complaint on 22 January 2023 and the landlord provided its final response on 9 February 2023. Its responses at stage 1 and 2 of the process were completed within its published timeframes.
The overall complaints process was protracted due to the early resolution stage and the landlord’s delay in providing a written response. The landlord’s handling of this stage was poor both in terms of its timeliness but also the landlord’s failure to engage in a meaningful way. It was only as an outcome to its formal process that steps were taken by the landlord to find a resolution for the resident.
The outcomes offered at stage 1 and 2 were appropriate as the landlord considered its discretion to order a treatment of the resident’s home and then to undertake wider investigations into the reported problems. It is unclear from the evidence provided if the follow up actions from the stage 2 were completed within a timely manner. The order for contractors to carry out the inspection was raised on 7 March 2023 and the feedback provided via an email dated 6 October 2023.
Considering this delay and the evidence of a lack of an independent review at stage 1, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. An order has been made to address this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a silverfish infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to a request for rehousing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord must provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This should be in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.
2. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £300 in compensation, calculated as follows:
  1. £100 to the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her reports of silverfish.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider its position about dealing with pests within its residents’ homes, to provide wider guidance and support to residents in treating pests. At the same time, it should consider its approach to issues of wider infestations.