ForHousing Limited (202347494)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347494

ForHousing Limited

30 October 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 response to reports of pests.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move.
3. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
4. The conduct of the landlord’s operatives.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house under an assured tenancy agreement. The resident lives with her son, who is under the age of 16. The resident reports that her son lives with autism.
The resident raised a complaint on 29 November 2023. The resident was dissatisfied that:
1. the property had been infested with rats for over 3 years and the landlord had not resolved this
2. there had been maggots coming out of the window frame in the kitchen which had been caused by dead rats in the kitchen walls
3. the property was not suitable for her son’s needs and believed the local authority had not given her the correct priority to move
4. she had been advised by the local authority’s housing department that the landlord could make a direct offer for her to be moved
5. her housing officer had been rude and unhelpful
The landlord reports that during the complaint investigation process, the resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 13 December 2023, the landlord:
1. explained it had responded to several repairs reported in 2022 but there had been issues with access from the resident
2. stated it had tried to rebook repairs with the resident but was unable to contact her
3. invited the resident to make contact to rebook any outstanding repairs
4. acknowledged that the resident wanted to live in a house with a private garden as this may be more suitable to her son’s needs
5. stated the advice she was given by the local authority was inaccurate, and that whilst it did have scope to make direct offers, this was decided on a case by case basis and only in exceptional circumstances
6. explained direct offers were made in circumstances such as:
  1. an urgent need for supported or adapted accommodation
  2. a serious risk to safety from remaining in the property
  3. where major repairs are required and the resident is unable to return for an extended period of time
7. advised the resident how she can bid for properties or mutual exchange
8. stated it had reviewed the last contact the resident had with its operatives in June 2023 and concluded that the operatives conduct was appropriate and the advice offered was accurate
9. stated it had last instructed pest control contractors in January 2023 which had not identified any rats and therefore no treatments had been carried out
10. invited the resident to provide details of any new problem with rats
The resident escalated her complaint on 18 December 2023. The resident remained dissatisfied that:
1. the landlord had said there was no evidence of a rat infestation, but she could hear rats and reiterated there had been maggots in the kitchen due to dead rats in the walls
2. she was concerned for her son’s safety around the rats
3. she was unhappy about the housing officer’s attitude
4. she believed the landlord ought to make a direct offer to move because the property required major repairs
In its stage 2 complaint response on 9 February 2024, the landlord:
1. stated it had reconsidered the resident’s request for a direct offer and had decided that her circumstances did not justify a direct offer at that time
2. reiterated its advice about how to move or mutually exchange
3. stated pest control contractors had attended on 25 January 2024 and had identified signs that rodents had been in the loft and behind the bath
4. baits were left, which were checked on 1 and 8 February 2024 and there were no signs that pests continued to be in the property
5. explained it had inspected the property on 25 February 2024, had identified repairs to prevent pests in future, and stated it would update the resident once these had been arranged
In her complaint to this service in March 2024, the resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord was not taking sufficient action to address the pest infestation. In resolution of her complaint, she wanted to move from the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope

In her complaints to the landlord, the resident indicated she was dissatisfied that the local authority had not given her the appropriate priority to bid on housing.
The local authority is not the resident’s landlord. Furthermore, the local authority’s management of its housing register does not directly relate to its provision or management of social housing. Therefore, this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is not one this service can investigate.
If the resident remains dissatisfied with the priority given to her move by the local authority, she should contact the local authority in the first instance to raise a complaint. If she remains dissatisfied, she could also contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) which may be able to investigate.
The evidence indicates the resident has been reporting rats in the property since 2019. The evidence also indicates the landlord has taken various actions to inspect the property, treat the pest infestation, and carry out repairs since that time.
Due to the length of time that has passed, it is the Ombudsman’s view that it is not possible for this service to carry out a thorough investigation of events dating back to 2019, or to draw any meaningful conclusions about how actions taken at that time may have affected the outcome of events in 2023. This is because over time systems and processes change, records can be lost, and witnesses may no longer be available. Therefore, this report will focus on the events from January 2023 onwards.

The landlord’s response to reports of pests

The tenancy agreement does not specify who is responsible for dealing with pests in the property. However, from the context of the evidence provided to this service, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord accepted responsibility for this.
Furthermore, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, which includes repairs to any access points which may be allowing rats into the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify any timescale at which the landlord will respond to repairs.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair.
In March 2023, the resident reported rats in the outside communal areas near the bins. In response, the landlord arranged for cleaning and decontamination of the bins in April 2023. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was reasonable.
The resident reported rats inside and in the walls of the property on 29 November 2023, which was the same date she raised her complaint.
The evidence indicates pest control contractors attended the property on 4 December 2023, which was 5 days later. The landlord also attended to inspect and repair the kitchen window frame on 6 December 2023, which was 7 days later. The evidence indicates that operatives were unable to access the property for either of these appointments.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s actions were reasonable, as they were consistent with its policy. Furthermore, the Ombudsman cannot hold the landlord responsible for the delay.
Another appointment was attended on 20 December 2023 and the window frame in the kitchen was repaired. The landlord’s operative did not identify any signs of maggots at that time. The same day the landlord invited the resident to provide evidence of rats in the property.
Pest control contractors attended the property on 25 January 2024 and identified there were some rat droppings in the property. The contractors:
1. left baits in the cupboard under the sink, behind the bath panel, and in the loft
2. stated there was no sign of maggots or a rat infestation
Contractors returned to the property on 1 and 8 February 2024 and identified that no baits had been taken. The contractors therefore concluded that there was not a current rat infestation in the property and no further treatments were recommended.
The landlord inspected the property on 25 February 2024 and identified repairs which it believed may prevent rats accessing the property in the future. This included:
1. re-fitting leadwork to the timber cladding
2. renewing vents
3. cleaning out gutters and renewing sections where needed
4. re-fixing the TV ariel
5. repairs to doorframes, latches, and doors
6. renewing window board
7. refitting bath the panel
The evidence indicates the landlord completed these repairs on 17 April 2024, which was 36 working days after they were identified. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the time taken was not unreasonable given the scope of the works and that they were all completed on one appointment.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to the reports of pests was reasonable. It responded in a timely manner to inspect the property for pests, identified repairs which it believed would resolve the problem, and completed them within a reasonable time. Furthermore, its decision to not undertake further pest treatments in February 2024 was reasonable based on the information it had available at the time. The Ombudsman cannot fault the landlord for this.
However, it is clear from the resident’s complaints to this service that the landlord’s actions have not resolved the problem. On 26 September 2024, this service asked the landlord if it would be willing to carry out another inspection of the property by a surveyor in order to identify whether there were any further access points which had not yet been identified.
On 4 October 2024 the landlord carried out an inspection of the property and identified the following repairs, which it has told the resident it will complete:
1. baits laid and to be checked
2. remove sink and bath
3. patch and fill holes in the bathroom and loft space
4. remove decking from rear garden
5. remove fly tipped waste from rear garden
In correspondence with this service, the resident explained it would be more appropriate if the landlord offered a permanent move from the property to allow it to complete the repairs. The Ombudsman understands this would be a desirable outcome for the resident.
However, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that this is an outcome the landlord is obliged to offer. The landlord should consider whether a decant would be appropriate in this situation. Furthermore, if the landlord identifies that a decant is appropriate, it should offer this in a way that is consistent with its policies.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of pests.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move

The landlord’s internal transfer procedure states that transfers are offered at its discretion, and only in exceptional circumstances where one or more of the following conditions apply:
1. the household is statutorily overcrowded
2. the household is under-occupied and is unable to meet its rent obligations as a result
3. there is a significant and ongoing risk of harm to residents by remaining in the property
The resident wanted to move from the property because:
1. she did not believe it was safe for her son to live in a property with rats
2. she had been advised by professionals involved in her son’s care that he would benefit from living in a home with a private garden
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for a direct offer, explained why her circumstances did not meet its threshold for a direct offer, and provided the resident with advice about how she could achieve a move.
It is positive to note that the landlord also reconsidered the resident’s request in its stage 2 complaint response. Although it did not result in the outcome the resident wanted, it demonstrated the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of being fair.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to move.
The Ombudsman acknowledges it would be desirable for the resident to be rehoused by a direct offer or management transfer by the landlord. However, the evidence indicates the landlord has reached a decision it was entitled to make under its policy. The Ombudsman cannot fault the landlord for this. Furthermore, it has given the resident appropriate advice about how she can be rehoused.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy and the Ombudsman’s expectations regarding repairs are detailed at paragraphs 16 and 17 of this report.
The landlord reports that the resident verbally raised concerns about its handling of repairs to windows following her complaint on 29 November 2023. No contemporaneous record of such a conversation has been provided to the Ombudsman.
In correspondence with this service, the resident reports she has been raising concerns about the windows with the landlord for several years. This included the windows leaking and a lack of child safety locks.
The evidence indicates the landlord attended the property to carry out repairs on the following occasions:
1. 15 February 2023 operatives renewed a window on the landing
2. 25 November 2023 a plumber attended to complete repairs to the bathroom, but was unable to gain access
3. 28 November 2023 operatives attended to fit a mould to the kitchen window and seal it, but were unable to gain access
4. 6 December 2023 operatives attended to repair the kitchen window frame and inspect for maggots, but were unable to gain access
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord also stated that a kitchen window had been renewed on 1 November 2023. The landlord went on to explain that it had attended within a reasonable time to complete the repairs, and had followed the correct procedure of leaving a calling card when it was unable to gain access.
The landlord has provided limited evidence of what repairs to the windows were reported by the resident or when, and what repairs it has completed in response. Therefore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord responded to reported window repairs within a reasonable time or that it’s actions were appropriate.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repair. This is because there is insufficient evidence of what repairs were reported or when, or that the landlord responded to these reports appropriately.

The conduct of the landlord’s operatives

It is not the remit of this service to determine whether or not the conduct of a landlord’s operatives did or did not happen as described in a complaint. It is the role of the Ombudsman to consider whether the landlord’s response to that complaint was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
In her complaint, the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord’s operative had been rude and unhelpful during a telephone conversation.
The evidence indicates that in response, the landlord reviewed the contact the resident had with its operative in June 2023. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that it did not believe its operative had been rude, or that the advice they had given was incorrect.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was reasonable in that its response was based on a consideration of the evidence available to it at the time.
However, the Ombudsman notes that in both complaint responses, the landlord apologised that the resident “did not feel the neighbourhood officer was helpful”. This was not appropriate, because qualified apologies such as this are unlikely to result in residents feeling that they have been heard or taken seriously.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been better if the landlord had acknowledged the resident’s point of view and either:
1. explained why it believed the conduct of its operative was appropriate
2. explained why the conduct of its operative was not appropriate, acknowledged the impact this had, and offered an apology
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the complaint about its operative’s conduct, in that it considered the resident’s complaint and its response was based on the evidence available to it at the time. However, the Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord’s response could have been better.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of pests.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its operative.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in its response to the repairs
2. provide evidence of this payment to the Ombudsman
3. inspect the windows in the property and provide a copy of its inspection report to the resident and the Ombudsman
4. if repairs are identified, provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a schedule of repairs which sets out the scope of the works and the planned completion dates

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord consider whether it is able to complete the repairs it identified in October 2024 with the resident in situ, or whether a temporary or permanent decant would be more appropriate. It should also explain this decision to the resident.