Southern Housing (202300525)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300525

Southern Housing Group Limited

27 June 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation in the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs incurred during the bed bug infestation.

Background

The resident lived in a 3-bedroom ground floor flat in a converted semi-detached house. She held a secure tenancy with the landlord which started in August 1981. The landlord recorded vulnerabilities for the resident including limited mobility and hearing difficulties. At the time of the complaint, the resident was 99 years old.
The resident’s daughters brought the complaint to the landlord and corresponded on the resident’s behalf. For ease of read, the daughter who referred the complaint to the Ombudsman and the resident will both be referred to as ‘the resident’ in the report.
On 12 September 2022, the resident phoned the landlord and advised that there was a bed bug infestation in her property. She requested pest control assistance. The landlord said it was unable to carry out pest control inside the home as this was the resident’s responsibility.
The resident raised further concerns about the infestation in the following months and reported that pest control treatments which she paid for were unsuccessful. On 22 November 2022, the landlord advised the resident that given the circumstances, it would attend the resident’s and her neighbour’s property (which it owned) and complete a full treatment.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 3 January 2023. She reported that the infestation was ongoing and was dissatisfied that the landlord had not offered to assist immediately. She was unhappy that the landlord would not treat the adjoining property as it was privately owned.
On 23 January 2023, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. Residents were responsible for pest control under its policies.
2. The resident had been correctly advised to contact the local authority for assistance.
3. On this occasion it would assist in checking and treating her and the neighbour’s property which it owned.
4. It had no responsibility to carry out pest control checks or treatments to the privately owned adjoining property. Due to the layout, this was unlikely to be a source of an outbreak affecting the resident’s property.
5. It could not compensate the resident for the loss of belongings due to the infestation. This fell outside of the landlord’s policy. She should check her home insurance to see if she could raise a claim this way.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 6 February 2023. She remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not taken full responsibility for the bed bugs. She reiterated concerns raised at stage 1 and was unhappy that the landlord would not reimburse the resident for loss of furniture and private bed bug treatments which she paid for.
On 23 March 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 final complaint response. In summary it said:
1. It was the resident’s responsibility to treat pests in line with her tenancy agreement.
2. As previously advised, the landlord could not inspect or treat the privately owned adjoining property.
3. Pest control would attend on 3 occasions to carry out a treatment programme.
Since the landlord’s final response, the landlord sent the resident an insurance form if she wanted to make a liability claim against the landlord.
The resident terminated her tenancy on 3 September 2023 and moved into a care home.
On 7 December 2023, the resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. She remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports of a bed bug infestation. To resolve the complaint, she wants to be compensated for distress caused during the infestation and to be reimbursed for costs incurred during this time.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation in the property.

The resident’s tenancy agreement does not specifically mention pests. However, the landlord’s pest control guidance and information on the landlord’s website states that pestsare the resident’s responsibility to remove from the property unless their tenancy agreement states otherwise.
The guidance continues that if the pests originate from a neighbour’s property and they are a tenant of the landlord, it can speak to them. However, if the property is privately owned, the resident should advise the neighbour to report the matter to the local authority.
If residents require professional help to remove bed bugs from their property, they can contact their local authority, or an independent company to see if they can assist.
The resident’s view that the infestation was ongoing since April 2022 is understood. However, no evidence of this is seen. Records show that the resident’s first report of bed bugs in the property was made to the landlord on 12 September 2022. In response to the concerns, the landlord referred her to its website for further information on bedbugs, signposted her to age UK, and advised her to contact the local authority. This advice was timely and in line with the landlord’s process for dealing with bed bugs. Further, the landlord recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities at the time.
The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord did not take full responsibility for the bed bug infestation or act immediately. However, in accordance with the landlord’s pest control guidance, it was the resident’s responsibility to address the matter.
The landlord changed its position 2 months after the resident’s initial report and said that it would make an exception and treat the infestation in the property. Records suggest that this decision was made based on the reported distress to the resident and unsuccessful pest control treatments which she had arranged through the local authority and a private company. Given the circumstances of the case and the resident’s vulnerabilities, it was appropriate for the landlord to exercise its discretion at this stage. This showed that the landlord understood the impact that the issue had on the resident and attempted to alleviate her concerns.
The landlord exceeded its obligations when it agreed to inspect a neighbouring flat in the block which it owned for bed bugs. There were no records suggesting that bed bugs were affecting this property. Its approach was thorough and resolution focussed.
The resident raised concerns that the infestation originated from an adjoining privately owned flat. She was unhappy that the landlord refused to inspect or treat this property. The Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to take such actions for a property it did not own. It was appropriate that the landlord explained this position to the resident in its complaint responses. It offered her advice in line with its pest control guidance and said she could advise the neighbours to contact the local authority if she had concerns.
If there was clear evidence that the infestation originated from the neighbouring privately owned property, it may have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the freeholder to alert them of the issue. However, in this case, the resident did not submit any evidence to suggest that the infestation stemmed from the adjoining property. Despite this, the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns. A contractor concluded that there was a solid 9-inch brick wall between the resident’s and adjoining neighbour’s property. It identified that there was no access for the bed bugs to enter the adjacent flat and no justification to ask the neighbours to complete a survey. This was a reasonable response based on the evidence.
Between November 2022 until January 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to arrange a suitable time to inspect her property. During this time, the resident raised queries about the process. It was appropriate that the landlord sought advice from its pest control contractors and responded to her. On 10 January 2023, she confirmed she was happy for an inspection to take place on 17 January 2023.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 17 January 2023 and recommended a 3-part job to treat the bed bugs. Records show that the landlord communicated the process to the resident. It advised her that the property would need to be vacated for up to 4 hours after treatment. It was positive that the landlord set the resident’s expectations on the process.
There were delays of 2 months after the inspection for the landlord to arrange the follow-on appointments. However, the resident did not regularly chase up the landlord, or report the situation as worsening during this time. Within its final response, the landlord said it booked 3 dates for the treatments to be carried out in April and May 2023. It was positive that the landlord secured appointments to complete the planned pest control works. However, it is acknowledged that the delays to arrange these would have caused frustration to the resident.
Following the final response, records show that the landlord did not carry out the planned pest control treatments due to access and contact issues with the resident. A contractor noted that she requested compensation and a further inspection before any treatment was carried out. The landlord took appropriate steps to attempt to complete the recommended pest control works. No further action was taken as the resident terminated her tenancy.
Overall, although the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her concerns, the Ombudsman is satisfied that it took appropriate steps. The landlord evidenced that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when it acted outside of its policy and offered to treat the infestation in the resident’s property. It was unable to action the treatments due to access issues outside of its control. As such, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation in the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs incurred during the bed bug infestation.

The resident was dissatisfied that she paid for treatments to address the bed bug infestation through the local authority and a private company before the landlord offered to assist. She reported spending a total of £1,606 for these treatments. As addressed earlier in the report, the landlord was not obliged to treat the infestation in accordance with its process. Therefore, although likely disappointing for the resident, the landlord would not be expected to reimburse the resident for costs incurred in her attempts to resolve the matter.
The resident raised further concerns about infested furniture in her property which she paid to replace. She said that this amounted to £3,397. The landlord set the resident’s expectation at an early stage and said that compensation for loss of belongings fell outside of its policy. However, it suggested that the matter may be covered by the resident’s home insurance policy. This advice was correct and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which states that residents are encouraged to take out contents insurance and have cover for situations where the landlord is not liable (including damage to personal belongings). There is no evidence to suggest that the bed bug infestation was caused by the landlord’s action, or lack of.
After the landlord’s final response, the resident reiterated her request for compensation. As she felt that the costs incurred were a direct result of the landlord’s lack of action, it was appropriate in the circumstances for the landlord to provide the resident with its insurance liability claim form. Records show that the resident completed and returned this. The Ombudsman considers this to be the correct process for such claims to be considered.
The landlord clearly outlined its position to the resident throughout the complaints process and acted in line with its compensation policy. Where the resident raised further concerns, the landlord referred her to its insurers. These were all appropriate steps. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs incurred during the bed bug infestation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation in the property.
2. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs incurred during the bed bug infestation.