The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Islington Council (202215889)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215889

Islington Council

2 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 the landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation at the resident’s property.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority at the property, a 3-bedroom flat on the third floor of a building owned by the landlord. The resident has four young children who live with her. The resident’s partner lives at the property also. At the time of the complaint, he was not listed as a ‘member of the household.’ The landlord was made aware the resident’s son is asthmatic through the course of the complaint. The landlord currently has no vulnerabilities recorded for the family.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord an infestation of bed bugs on 2 July 2022. On 4 July 2022, she said she had moved her and her children to a family member’s home. Her partner remained at the property, and he said the issue was affecting his sleep. The landlord attended the property on 7 July 2022 and put in a treatment plan from 13 July 2022. It told the resident it would take two to three months for the treatment to be effective.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 14 July 2022. She said the issue had been ongoing since 2013 when she had bed bugs at her previous property. She said she moved to her current property in 2016 and transferred the bed bugs in her possessions. She said since then she had to dispose of carpets, mattresses, a bed and had to redecorate. She said she was “homeless again” and in rent arrears because of the situation. She said her partner’s body was “in bits” and the landlord’s pest control team had made appointments and did not show up.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 August 2022. It said it would focus on the resident’s concerns in the previous 12 months. It said this was in accordance with its complaints process. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It qualified this with the following:
    1. It refuted that the resident’s partner had tried unsuccessfully to obtain a pest control appointment in July 2022.
    2. It said the level of bed bugs at the property was of concern. It’s pest control service attended on 7 July 2022 and arranged follow-up appointments. It said the resident’s partner had cancelled these appointments, arranged for 14 and 27 July 2022.
    3. It was aware the resident and her children were not living at the property. It said it was aware one of the children was asthmatic.
    4. It had completed treatment later on 27 July 2022. It said later that day the resident’s partner refused any further treatment. However, on 28 July 2022, the resident agreed for treatment to continue.
    5. It said the infestation had reached a high level due to the resident’s failure to report pest issues or had missed booked appointments.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 and 3 August 2022. She said pest control had “killed some but don’t get them all.” She said she had thrown carpets, wardrobes and kids toys away and had no support. She said pest control had not turned up for appointments. She said they did attend on 27 July 2022.
  6. The landlord agreed it would try and find temporary accommodation for the resident and her children from 3 August 2022. It completed a risk assessment of the family to support this. The landlord had difficulty in arranging temporary accommodation due to the size of the family and the requirement to be proximate to the children’s school. A hotel was unable to support more than 2 children under 11 per room. The resident rejected two temporary accommodation properties. One was due to the resident’s concerns about transferring bed bugs and the other was due to the proximity of the property to an ex-partner.
  7. The resident and her children returned to the property around 16 September 2022, whilst treatment was ongoing. The pest control team completed their final treatment on 19 October 2022. There were no further reports of bed bugs at the property from this date. The landlord offered support with replacing the resident’s personal property, but the resident rejected this. It supported her with installing new carpets on 6 December 2022.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 24 January 2013. It told the resident the following:
    1. It was unable to place her in temporary accommodation due to unprecedented low-level housing stock.
    2. The bed bug infestation was resolved with treatment. It said there were no further reports of infestation from 19 October 2022. The landlord had supported the laying of new carpets at the property on 6 December 2022.
    3. It had told the resident to report signs of bed bugs. It said her “delay between reports” resulted in high-level infestation. Its pest control needed to begin treatment from the beginning. The resident’s cancellation of appointments also had adversely affected the time it took to resolve the infestation.
    4. It acknowledged it was delayed in providing its stage 2 complaint response and offered £75 in compensation.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 26 July 2023. She said that the landlord had failed to find temporary accommodation for her and her family. She said it should have done this when aware of her son’s health. She said that she had to pay for new carpet, bed bugs had ruined her walls and that she wanted money or vouchers as compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident stated that the infestation of bed bugs affecting her previous and current property has been ongoing for over 10 years. The Ombudsman appreciates that this may be a longstanding issue, however, it would not be effective for the Ombudsman to consider events dating back 10 years. The records may not be available, memories fade and staff members may have come and gone. As a general principle, the Ombudsman will consider complaints which have been raised within a reasonable time of the events occurring. For this reason, the Ombudsman’s investigation does not consider any specific events prior to July 2021, which is 12 months before the resident complained to the landlord in July 2022.
  2. The resident said that she has suffered stress because of the landlord’s handling of the infestation of bed bugs and this has affected her and her family’s health. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her or her family’s health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of the situation involving her property.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation at the resident’s property.

  1. The landlord’s website states “by law, your landlord has to ensure your home is safe, free from hazards and in good repair. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure their properties meet an acceptable standard. This includes being free of pests such as bed bugs.” The Occupancy Agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for the internal structure of the property. The resident is responsible for internal doors and ensuring carpet is laid in each appropriate room throughout the property.
  2. The landlord confirmed to this Service it provides a document to residents called ‘Beating Bedbugs. Preparing Your Home for Bedbug Treatments’ before commencing any treatment. The document is a good practice guide by the Greater London Pest Liaison Group. The document confirms the following:
    1. Residents should not take anything other than rubbish out of the property. Infested items should not be thrown away as they can be treated. Before treatment commences all furniture should be moved away from the walls.
    2. Residents can return to a property after treatment when the spray is dry, which is usually after 2 to 3 hours. More than 1 treatment is necessary for full eradication.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response refers to the resident reporting bed bugs in December 2021. This was based on evidence provided by its Pest Control service. However, this Service can see no evidence in the Pest Control treatment history of either the resident reporting an issue of bed bugs in 2021 or any treatment taking place. The only entry for 2021 on the records is the reporting and treatment for wasps at the property. It is uncertain whether the evidence of bed bug reporting and treatment is missing for 2021 or if the landlord made an error in its stage 1 complaint response. Prior to July 2022, this Service can only find reports of bed bugs and treatment in 2019.
  4. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a member landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively.
  5. The resident reported the presence of bed bugs to the landlord on 2 July 2022. The landlord reacted quickly to this, attending the property within 4 working days on 7 July 2022. It acted appropriately in agreeing a treatment plan with the resident on 13 July 2022. It sufficiently managed her expectations at this time by explaining treatment would take 2 to 3 months to be effective. It also explained throughout that “treatment does not always kill all bed bugs and further treatment is required.”
  6. The resident’s partner cancelled further treatment on 14, 20 and 25 July 2022. The landlord made two visits to the resident’s property on 27 July 2022 and was able to complete treatment on the later appointment. It was unable to gain access at the earlier appointment. The landlord failed to appropriately explain this in its stage 1 complaint response. It stated the resident’s partner cancelled the earlier appointment on 27 July 2022, but there is no evidence of this.
  7. The resident had said in her stage 1 complaint the landlord had failed to show up a number of times. This Service can find no evidence of this. The landlord was able to complete further treatment from 3 August 2022 to 19 October 2022. In this period, one appointment was rearranged by the landlord due to staff shortage with sufficient explanation provided.
  8. The resident raised her belief on 15 September 2022 that the landlord was failing to complete treatment correctly. She said she had moved furniture and found further bed bugs. The good practice guide suggests the resident must move furniture out before treatment commences. The landlord clarified this the same day finding “bed bugs can hide behind untreated areas.” It said this was why it was important treatment continued and it “was not surprised with her finding, given the high level of infestation.” It appropriately arranged a further visit the same day with the resident and agreed to monitor and review the situation.
  9. Following the final treatment on 19 October 2022 there were no further signs of bed bugs at the property and no further reports from the resident. As such the landlord adhered to its advice on 13 July 2022 that treatment would take 2 to 3 months to complete.
  10. The landlord made it clear in both its complaint responses and in contact in between what it believed the cause of the bed bug infestation to be. Its Pest Control service referred to the infestation in July 2022 as one of the “most severe cases it had seen”. The landlord told the resident it believed the infestation of bed bugs had reached such a high level in July 2022 due to the resident’s failure to report the issue up to that point. It said there were other contributing factors including the poor condition of the property and the cancelled appointments up to that point. It was the landlord’s belief it was not responsible for the infestation of bed bugs. There is no evidence to suggest this is incorrect.
  11. Between 4 and 7 July 2022 the landlord discussed temporary accommodation as an option with the resident. The resident initially stated she did not want temporary accommodation and her and her children would stay with her family. The resident and her children were not living at the property at this point. In the same period, the resident’s partner told the landlord he was staying at the property and could not remain there. The landlord did consider temporary accommodation for the risk to the children if they were to return. At this time, it was appropriate for the landlord to take no action with a decant in accordance with the resident’s wishes.
  12. It is uncertain if the resident and her children were living at the property following this. As on 27 July 2022, the resident reported her, and her children were not living at the property. However, on the same day, the resident’s partner raised his concerns about the treatment. He said the chemicals used could trigger one of the children’s asthma symptoms. The resident stated the following day she was happy for treatment to continue. This suggests the children were not living at the property at that time.
  13. In her complaint escalation of 2 August 2022, the resident stated the “place was turned upside down and they were expected to stay there whilst soaked in poison”. This suggests the resident and children had returned to the property. The landlord acted appropriately in completing a risk assessment of the property on 3 August 2022. It noted one of the children was asthmatic and the chemicals could affect their health. It determined temporary accommodation was required for the welfare of the children. It determined treatment for the bed bugs needed to continue. It found reasonably that stopping treatment would be detrimental to other residents in the building. It found asthmatics should not be present when treatment was completed in the property. There is evidence it ensured the family was not present in the property and it was safe for them to return the same day. This was also in accordance with the good practice guide.
  14. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 3 August 2022 that it had agreed to temporary accommodation for her and her family and would look for suitable accommodation. There is evidence of it completing appropriate searches for properties from this date. The resident rejected two temporary accommodation properties found by the landlord on 24 August and around 16 September 2022. However, evidence shows the resident rejected both options for her own reasons.
  15. The landlord had difficulty in finding suitable temporary accommodation for a number of reasons which it discussed internally. This included:
    1. The size of the family required a suitably large property. The property was also required to be in proximity to the children’s school.
    2. It could not place the family in a hotel due to hotel policy of accommodating a maximum of 2 accompanied under 11 children per hotel room.
    3. It found that there was increased tourism in the local area due to the “current situation in the media,” which is believed to be the Royal Ascension in September 2022.
  16. From the 3 August 2022 the landlord kept the resident informed about its progress in finding temporary accommodation on 23, 24 August, 12, 16, and 20 September 2022. As previously stated, the landlord was having significant difficulties in finding suitable properties. Other than the times it offered the 2 properties it told the resident it was “continuing to look for temporary accommodation”. It should have gone further than this and explained the restraint on its search and the difficulties it was having. This would have helped the resident understand the delay in finding suitable further properties.
  17. In correspondence with this Service in September 2023 the landlord said it had no recorded vulnerabilities recorded for the family. This is of concern given the resident raised that her son was asthmatic and the landlord’s risk assessment and stage 1 response had highlighted this. A recommendation will be made to ensure a further risk assessment is carried out and any vulnerabilities in the family are appropriately recorded.
  18. The resident raised issues with damage to her property and possessions from 2 July 2022. She raised this formally in her complaint of 14 July 2022. The landlord did not directly refer to this point in its stage 1 complaint response. It instead focused on why it believed the bed bug infestation was present. This was relevant in explaining why it believed it was not responsible for the damage to the resident’s property. However, it should have gone further to ensure the resident understood why it was not obligated to replace her possessions. The landlord also had the opportunity to advise the resident about making an insurance claim in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It failed to do this which denied her the opportunity to gather any relevant evidence or give consideration to such a claim.
  19. The resident said she had been told by the landlord’s Pest Control to dispose of her carpets. This Service can find no evidence of this. Any guidance as such would contravene the good practice guide. The landlord appropriately found it was ineffective to replace carpets at the property whilst treatment was ongoing. In accordance with the Tenancy Agreement, the resident is responsible for ensuring floors of the property are covered with carpet. However, the landlord supported the resident with replacing her carpets as requested in December 2022 under its carpet support scheme. This was following no further continued evidence of bed bugs at the property.
  20. The resident had asked for latex flooring and the upper floors to be sealed with ply covering. The landlord took advice from its Pest Control team who stated this approach would not aid pest control and could not be considered as part of any treatment. It asked on 19 October 2022 if latex flooring could be considered under the carpet support scheme. There is no further evidence of a decision on this. Carpet was fitted following this as stated above which suggests this was declined. The occupancy agreement confirms carpet must be fitted in appropriate rooms in the property.
  21. On 21 October 2022, the landlord offered support for replacing furniture through its Resident Support Scheme. The resident refused this support as her partner said any items replaced would be of “low quality and would prefer to buy his own.” The landlord discussed other charities that could support refurbishing the children’s bedrooms, but this was also rejected by the resident. The landlord spoke with the resident one further time following this about support for replacing furniture, but no outcome was found. The resident’s partner said he had started purchasing furniture for the children’s room on 27 October 2022.
  22. The landlord told this Service in September 2023 it was unable to complete repairs to the resident’s doors. In accordance with the Tenancy Agreement, the resident is responsible for maintaining and repairing internal doors. There is no evidence it informed the resident of this. On 19 October 2022, it stated it would complete repairs to the resident’s floorboards. This was appropriate as in accordance with the Tenancy Agreement the landlord is responsible for the internal structure of the property. This Service has not seen evidence such repairs were completed. A recommendation will be made for the landlord to complete any repairs as necessary and/or show evidence they have been completed.
  23. In summary the Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation at the resident’s property. The only evidenced reports of bed bugs found were from July 2022. The landlord acted quickly and attentively in its approach and commenced treatment as soon as possible. The landlord met obstacles in completing the treatment at the property. However, it was able to complete its objective of removing the severe infestation of bed bugs in the timescale it promised. There is no evidence the landlord was responsible for the bed bug infestation at the property. As such it had no obligation to support the resident with damage to floor coverings or furniture. It did support the resident with new carpets and offered support for new furniture which she rejected. It had attempted to provide temporary accommodation at the appropriate time, but this was unachievable due to factors out of its control.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy confirms it is committed to dealing with complaints impartially, objectively, and professionally. It aims to put things right where possible and apologise when necessary. It is committed to learning from complaints and using them to improve its service. It operates a two-stage complaints procedure as follows:
    1. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged in 3 working days and responded to within 10 working days of registration. Stage 1 complaints are investigated and responded to locally by the service area responsible.
    2. The landlord must clarify why a complainant wishes to escalate a complaint. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
    3. If the landlord is unable to meet a complaint deadline it must send a holding response explaining the delay and provide the next expected due date.
  2. The resident made her complaint on 14 July 2022 and the landlord acknowledged her concerns on 19 July 2022. This was within the timescale for acknowledgement in the landlord’s Complaints Policy. The landlord made a minor error in its stage 1 complaint response in stating it had received the resident’s complaint on 19 July 2022, the acknowledgement date. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 August 2022. From the date of registration, 19 July 2022 this was equivalent to 10 working days. This was within the landlord’s timescale for response.
  3. The landlord appropriately told the resident it would not investigate her concerns further than 12 months from her initial complaint. This was in accordance with its Complaints Policy which states “any complaint known about by the customer, that was not reported to us within 12 months will not be accepted unless there is good reason for the delay”. There was no further evidence or explanation from the resident as to why she had not complained prior to this.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 and 3 August 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 August 2022. However, there is no evidence it spoke to the resident to clarify her reasons why she wished to escalate her complaint. It failed to adhere to its Complaints Policy in this regard. The landlord did not provide its stage 2 complaint response until 24 January 2023. This was equivalent to 120 working days and exceeded the 20-working day response time in the Complaints Policy.
  5. The landlord acknowledged its delay in responding in its stage 2 complaint response. It explained this was due to a “historical backlog” and offered £75 compensation. In correspondence with this Service in September 2023 the landlord has acknowledged its compensation award should have been higher. It offered to review this. The landlord’s Compensation Policy for ‘time and trouble’ and ‘distress’ regarding complaints suggests compensation between £100 and £300. The landlord’s original offer did not meet this. The £75 offered also is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. This suggests awards of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which has adversely affected the resident, with no permanent impact.
  6. In further correspondence with this Service in September 2022 the landlord has shown evidence it has reflected on the limitations of its complaints service. It has taken reasonable steps to address this including, appointing a new complaints manager and monitoring complaints at all levels at stages 1 and 2. It has reviewed its Complaints Policy from end to end to improve the “customer journey”. It also states it has learnt from determinations received from the Ombudsman.
  7. A landlord’s complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in its stage one and two complaint response time and its communication with the resident. A determination of service failure has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £150 compensation has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred over a protracted period with some impact to the resident throughout that period.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation at the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
  2. Pay the resident a total of £150 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in its complaint handling. This includes the £75 already awarded to the resident. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should complete a further risk assessment of the resident and her family at the property. Any vulnerabilities should be noted on the landlord’s records and any further appropriate action should be taken.
  2. The landlord should complete any outstanding repairs to the resident’s floorboards if it has not already done so.