Tower Hamlets Community Housing (202307854)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307854

Tower Hamlets Community Housing

31 August 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
2. The related complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a one-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord told us it did not hold a tenancy agreement on its system for the resident, but it was in the process of changing the tenancy type from a starter tenancy to an assured tenancy.
The resident has confirmed he moved into the property in the summer of 2020. The resident’s flat is 1 of 8 or 9 flats in his block.
The landlord states it has no known vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident first contacted the landlord on 5 October 2022 reporting he had seen a cockroach in his flat and found “20 bags of rubbish crawling with cockroaches” in the communal bin area.
The landlord’s pest control contractor visited the resident’s flat on 7 October 2022 and placed baits in all the rooms. On 11 October 2022, the landlord’s Housing Officer (HO) told the resident it was aware of the infestation and block treatments were being carried out by its pest control contractor.
Its pest control contractor attended the resident’s property again on 25 October 2022, 23 November 2022 and on 13 December 2022. The last one referred to “lots of activity” in the neighbour’s adjacent flat (flat x) and recommended continued monitoring until the infestation was cleared.
On 29 December 2022, the resident reported to the landlord he was still finding cockroaches in his flat 3 months on, and he asked the landlord to urgently call him.
On 3 February 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of a cockroach infestation at this block. He said this issue first came to his attention in October 2022 when he found cockroaches in his flat and the communal bin store which had spread from flat x.
The resident said he found the landlord’s officers to be “incompetent” as he was still finding cockroaches in his flat. He said he had left numerous messages and emails for its HO and Senior Business Improvement Officer (SBIO) and found their communications skills to be “appalling”.
The resident stated that he trusted that the landlord would take his complaint extremely seriously and look at getting the problem resolved urgently. The resident included his mobile number if the landlord wanted to contact him to discuss the issue.
On 16 February 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It said it was sorry the resident was unhappy with the service it had provided. It was evident from its investigation into his complaint that the resident had been in regular contact with its HO regarding pest control treatments at his property. The landlord said its HO had spoken to the resident on 6 February 2023 when:
1. The resident had asked for an update on the treatment and tenancy of the adjoining neighbour and was informed it was unable to provide these details as it would breach their neighbour’s right to privacy.
2. The resident advised he had seen a cockroach in his property and the HO asked that he send confirmation of this so it could take the matter further. The landlord said the photograph sent on 8 February 2023 appeared to have been taken on 5 January 2023 and requested that he send a “current photograph” of cockroaches in his property to be provided by 24 February 2023.
The landlord apologised for the lack of response regarding the reimbursement he was expecting. Although internal investigations had taken place, it had not updated him on the outcome. It said it was happy to provide a reimbursement of £75 consisting of:
1. Food thrown out due to contamination – £40
2. Cockroach traps, spray and powder – £35
The landlord explained however that it could not consider his request for £150 for a missed day off work until he provided evidence of a missed appointment by pest control as they did not have a record of this appointment being booked. It asked him to provide evidence by 24 February 2023.
The landlord offered a further compensation amount of £50 for the lack of response received in this matter.
On 23 February 2023 the resident raised a stage 2 complaint. He said:
1. He had never been in “regular contact” with its HO as while he tried to contact him regularly as well as its SBIO, they were “pretty awful” at getting back to him.
2. He attached 2 photos of cockroaches in his flat, the most recent one taken on 5 February 2023.
3. He was aware of the the state of the cockroaches in flat x as this had a huge impact on his life. He said until the landlord had removed all the cockroaches in this flat, they would keep coming into his and the neighbouring properties.
4. The resident asked the landlord to ensure family members of the resident occupying flat x did not dump cockroach infested rubbish into the bin chute room as this only made the problem “100 times worse”.
5. He asked if the landlord could confirm if the bin area had been deep cleaned/disinfected. Last time he checked there were dead cockroaches present and “squashed ones” still on the door.
6. He referred to the landlord’s duty to keep all their residents safe, asked why it did not write to or knock on doors of the residents affected. The resident stated that its offices were “only just up the road” and it would have only taken a couple of hours at the most.
7. Asked for £15 to cover cost of further cockroach traps he had purchased. Pest control did miss an appointment, but he was not prepared to call and chase them when they have lied.
8. The resident said he found £50 offered “insulting”. Pests living in his flat since early October 2022 and it was now approaching March 2023.
9. His mental and physical health were suffering as a result. He had been paying full rent and had given the landlord ample opportunities to rectify the situation but thus far it had failed to do so. He had not even received a letter of apology.
On 28 February 2023, the landlord called the resident and sent him a follow up email to confirm their discussion.
On 27 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. This stated the following:
1. Regarding the resident’s communication with its HO, they had been in touch with the resident on several occasions. This included in October 2022 when the resident had asked to be decanted due to the infestation, and on 2 occasions in February 2023 when he had asked for updates in relation to flat x and advised that he saw a cockroach in his property. It was sorry however that the communication between him and its HO was not more frequent and for any delays by its HO contacting him.
2. The landlord thanked the resident for emailing a photograph on 23 February 2023 showing a dead cockroach. However, as he said this was taken on 5 February 2023, it required a more recent photograph to evidence there was still cockroaches in his property. As a recent image was not sent it assumed that the matter was now resolved.
3. The landlord stated that the most recent pest control report dated 6 January 2023 confirmed no live cockroaches in his property. On inspection, 1 dead cockroach was found, and this was removed along with the baits. Since this report, an inspection was booked in for 25 January 2023, but he refused this appointment and was unhappy for any future appointments to be booked.
4. It reiterated it could not share information about the status of the cockroach infestations at his neighbour’s property.
5. It confirmed the bin room had been deep cleaned on 3 February 2023 and the most recent report shows that no cockroaches were found in the bin room. However, monitoring would be ongoing as a precaution.
6. In his email he had asked why neighbours in affected properties were not contacted. Information in its system shows both its environmental services team and pest control contractor were contacting its residents.
7. Regarding missed appointments by its pest control contractor, they had stated there were no missed appointments in November 2023 and he had not provided any evidence of this as previously requested as such it could not reimburse him £15 for the cost of a cockroach trap.
8. It understood having cockroaches in his property was unsettling and it was sorry for this, and that the resident had felt he could not reside in his property. However, he was told there was no requirement to leave during the pest control treatment as this was safe.

Assessment and findings

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

The Ombudsman role is to assess whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a cockroach infestation in accordance with its obligations and reasonably took into account all the circumstances of the case.
When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own dispute resolution principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes.’ In this case, the landlord told this Service that is does not have a pest control policy however repairs information on its website makes clear that the landlord is responsible for pests including cockroach infestations.
This Service acknowledges that cockroach infestations can be difficult to eliminate. However, we would expect landlords to carry out prompt inspections to identify affected properties and the source of the infestation, appoint a pest control contractor to carry out treatments and for the landlord to put in place any relevant support and monitoring to ensure pests have been fully eradicated within a few weeks.
This Service acknowledges that in this case the source of the infestation came from flat x within the resident’s block which spread to communal areas including the bin chute and bin area and then to the resident’s flat and other flats in his block. In this situation we would expect the landlord to demonstrate it treated these areas as well as the resident’s flat.
When the resident first reported cockroaches in his flat on 5 October 2022, the landlord promptly arranged for its pest contractor to attend his flat on 7 October 2022 who laid baits in all rooms. This action was appropriate. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord had been made aware (by another resident) of the infestation affecting the block as early as 8 September 2022.Good practice would be for the landlord to have carried out a timely and thorough investigation of the whole area to establish the extent of the problem.
Pest control reports seen by this Service show it had appointed a pest control contractor by 21 September 2022 however while the report of the same date shows they visited the communal area, comments in the report indicate they could not find the bin area at that time although they did place a cockroach monitoring station in the area to monitor cockroach activity. Better communication between the landlord and the pest control contractor would have enabled them to locate and treat the infestation within the bin area on this occasion.
There is also no evidence to show other residents within the block were informed of the issue around this time. At the time of the resident’s first report on 5 October 2023 he had not been made aware of any potential issue within the block. It is noted that he reported to the landlord at this time that the bags in the bin area were “crawling with cockroaches”. While it is evident that following the resident’s report, the pest control contractor took steps to contact and inspect/treat all flats within the resident’s block, the delay in commencing the treatments may have caused the infestation to spread. Furthermore, clear communication from the landlord when dealing with pest infestations is key, partly to manage residents’ expectations but also because residents have a part to play in ensuring the issue is resolved. Therefore, on balance, the lack of any steps taken by the landlord in this case to notify all residents within the block of the issue early on, was a shortcoming.
Reports seen by this Service show the landlord had identified the source of the infestation and began treatments within flat x by 5 October 2022. The landlord’s contractor also treated multiple other flats within the block during the next 3 to 4 months as well as treating and deep cleaning the communal bin area. This action was appropriate.
However, on 29 December 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that he was still finding cockroaches in his flat. It is evident from information seen by this Service that there was still significant cockroach activity within flat x at this time. There had been 2 occasions in October 2022 when its contractor had not been able to gain access to flat x. The Ombudsman acknowledges the mitigating circumstances concerning the resident’s neighbour which the landlord explained to us. However, it was important to target the source of the outbreak to prevent the issue reoccurring in adjoining flats which by this stage had mostly had 3 treatments and was showing less or no cockroach activity.
The landlord’s contractor did continue treating and monitoring flat x into March 2023 even though no live cockroaches were found during a previous visit in mid-February 2023. This indicates a thorough approach by the landlord which was appropriate. In the resident’s case, the contractor attended again on 25 January 2023 when the report says: a “couple of cockroaches found in monitors but resident reported having seen no more”. It is noted that there is one further report dated 7 February 2023 which suggests the resident cancelled a further visit booked for 6 February 2023 however it is unclear why. In his formal complaint dated 3 February 2023 however, the resident told the landlord that he was still seeing cockroaches in his flat.
In its stage 1 response the landlord asked the resident to provide further evidence of ongoing cockroach activity so it could take further action. On balance its request was reasonable in the circumstances. However, when on 8 February 2023 the resident sent the landlord a further photograph (taken on 5 February 2023), there is no evidence of it arranging a further visit from the pest control visit to the resident’s flat. While the resident made no further reports following on from this indicating the matter was resolved soon after, as a precaution, best practice would be for the landlord to have followed up on this final report from the resident.
Therefore, while the steps taken by the landlord fully resolved the infestation, on balance, the 5-month timeframe taken was longer than should reasonably be expected, even when considering the relatively large size of the infestation. The initial delay in starting the treatments was a factor.
It is also evident that throughout this timeframe, the landlord did not provide sufficient updates to the resident. Generally, it was only after the resident contacted the landlord that it provided an update and often there was a delay by the landlord in responding. For example, following the resident’s initial report on 5 October 2022, he had to call 3 times before the landlord returned his call. Also, it took the landlord 10 days for it to return the resident’s call of 14 October 2022 and it only did so after receiving chaser emails from the resident on 20 and 21 October 2022. There is no evidence of the landlord providing timescales or an action plan to manage the resident’s expectations at any point. Had it done so the resident may have felt more reassured the issue was being resolved. The landlord’s poor communication compounded the pest issue.
In its stage 2 final response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident that communication from his HO was not more frequent. While this indicates some learning by the landlord, it did not give any indication of what steps it would take to avoid a similar situation occurring in the future. In its responses, the landlord also declined the resident’s request for compensation for a lost day’s work (£150) for a missed appointment by its pest contractor on the basis there was no evidence of them having missed an appointment. The landlord had made enquiries with its pest contractor to establish if they had missed any appointments. While the pest control contractor did not confirm they had missed any visits, it is clear from the landlord’s own records that there had been a visit arranged for 21 October 2022, yet the pest contractor had cancelled this on the same date due to sickness. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge this and provide reasonable redress was a failing.
It also evident that the resident had told the landlord on several occasions that the pest problem was affecting his mental health, that he felt unable to stay at the property and was sofa surfing and on one occasion slept in his car. He reiterated this to the Ombudsman. It is recognised that living with pest infestations can be extremely distressing for residents. Therefore, we would expect the landlord to conduct a risk assessment of the situation to assess whether it is appropriate to decant the resident, taking into account his circumstances. There is no evidence of the landlord doing so despite the resident asking it on more than one occasion in October 2022 to be decanted from the property into a hotel. On balance, the landlord’s refusal of his request without carrying out any risk assessment represents a failing as it indicates the landlord did not give sufficient regard to the resident’s personal circumstances when handling the pest issue.
During a conversation on 28 October 2022, the resident told the landlord that he should not be expected to stay in a property “full of cockroaches”. In response, it told him many residents do “all the time” whilst treatment was being undertaken and on both visits its contractor had found “no evidence” of cockroach activity. The landlord’s response on this occasion was dismissive and showed a lack of empathy, particularly as the landlord was fully aware of the pest issue affecting multiple flats within the resident’s block, albeit the pest control reports for the resident’s flat at this time suggested no or low pest activity.
In summary, the landlord appropriately accepted responsibility for addressing the cockroach infestation from the outset and the action it took over the next few months fully addressed the issue. However, the length of time taken was unreasonable even after considering issues experienced by the landlord because of the circumstance of flat x. Its communication with the resident was not to a reasonable standard and it showed a lack empathy for the resident’s situation at times. The landlord’s failure to carry out a risk assessment despite the resident informing it on several occasions that the issue was affecting his mental health, and he was unable to stay in the property, was inappropriate.
This Service finds that it would be of benefit to residents and its staff if responsibilities in relation to infestations and pest control were clearly defined in a policy document and information provided to residents, including in relation to decants. As such an order has been included below for the landlord to implement a formal pest control policy and procedure detailing its response when dealing with pests.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord offered to reimburse the resident £40 for food thrown out due to contamination, £35 for cockroach traps, spray and powder and a £50 gesture due to a delay in getting back to him regarding his request for a reimbursement. While this was reasonable, it would have been appropriate to also offer an amount of compensation in recognition of the failings identified in this investigation which the landlord did not do. This is indicative of maladministration by the landlord.
The landlord’s compensation policy provides for discretionary payments up to £300 for serious or prolonged service failure resulting in severe stress, disruption or inconvenience. However, based on the number of failings identified in this investigation, this amount does not reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident. In the circumstances, the landlord should pay the resident compensation of £850 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to him. This figure is at the higher end of the range recommended for maladministration in the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance whereby there has been a significant impact on the resident which is appropriate here.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint responses contained factual errors indicating a failure by the landlord to properly investigate the points raised by the resident in his complaint. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated the photograph the resident emailed to it on 8 February 2023 was taken on 5 January 2023, but the email shows the resident also included a photo taken on 5 February 2023.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord referred to the resident’s escalation request as being made on 26 February 2023 when it was on 23 February 2023. It also incorrectly referred to the pest report dated 6 January 2023 when there was no visit or report of this date in relation to the resident’s flat, only the communal areas. Furthermore, the landlord stated that the inspection booked for 25 January 2023 was refused by the resident. Again, this is inaccurate as the report shows this visit to his property went ahead as scheduled, rather the resident cancelled the following visit booked for 6 February 2023.
While such errors were relatively minor, they are unprofessional and would have caused the resident confusion. This issue is evidence of poor complaint handling by the landlord. This is indicative of service failure by the landlord while handling the related complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling reports of a pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the related complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £900 in additional compensation made up of:
  1. £850 for distress, inconvenience time and trouble for failings while handling the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
  2. £50 for distress, inconvenience time and trouble for failings while handling the resident’s related complaint.
Within 8 weeks, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Draft a pest control policy and procedure setting out its responsibilities regarding pest control and in response to reports of infestations. The landlord should indicate a timeframe for implementing its policy.

Recommendations

Ensure it has an updated tenancy agreement for the resident on file.