Anchor Hanover Group (202007716)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007716

Anchor Hanover Group

23 June 2021

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 silver fish at the property and its subsequent compensation offer.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident was an assured non-shorthold tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 2 October 2019 until she left the property on or around 16 May 2020.
3. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure whereby it aims to respond at both stage one and two within 14 calendar days; stage two in circumstances where the complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint at stage one and requests escalation of the matter.
4. On 11 January 2020, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about various issues around the estate including a silver fish infestation at the property.  The resident said that having noticed “a few” silver fish after moving in, she reported it to the landlord and its response was “basically non-existent”. She added that having stripped the bathroom wallpaper, a “high volume” of silver fish were underneath and that she finds “between 2-5 every day” in the kitchen.
5. The resident stated that the second time she reported the issue she was told by the landlord that it had been noted there were silver fish at the property but it did not know how to deal with it.  No evidence of these notifications to the landlord or its responses have been provided to this investigation.
6. In any event, a week later, on 17 January 2020, the landlord visited the resident and discussed the issues with silver fish with her and following this, on 23 January 2020, raised “urgent” works to take place by 30 January 2020 to eradicate the silver fish, although for reasons unknown, this was not started until later. 
7. On 17 February 2020 the resident emailed the landlord stating that there were many silver fish at the property and that the situation was having a detrimental impact on her and she wanted compensation in respect of this.  The resident questioned the landlord’s letting of the property to her, given the issue and added that the property above hers also had had silver fish.
8. The following day, on 18 February 2020, powder was put down in the property by the landlord to help eradicate the silver fish, although the resident reported that this did not help and suggested a pest removal company be instructed.  In response, the landlord did this, raising works to take place from 3 March 2020.
9. On 19 February 2020 the landlord visited the resident at the property to again discuss the issue and spoke with her again on 4 March 2020, following which, it sent an email to her on 5 March 2020. In its email, the landlord said:
10. It would ask the pest control company to visit the property above the resident’s also, even though there had been no reports of silver fish being there;
11. That it would fit a dehumidifier on advice of its contractor who had explained that silver fish cannot live in a de-humidified environment (the date of the contractor visit is unknown) and reimburse the resident for any costs incurred in respect of this, and;
12. It would support a property move if that’s what the resident wished to do but explained that any application to transfer would need to be assessed.  
13. The landlord said that it had been agreed with resident that the complaint would not be moved to stage two of its complaints procedure but that it would like to meet with her again on 9 April 2020 following all of the pest treatment visits.
14. On 3, 10 and 17 March 2020 and 7 April 2020 pest control services attended the property and carried out treatments although the installation of a dehumidifier was declined by the resident.  The resident has said that she was told by the contractors that the problem with silver fish would never be eradicated because the property was next to a laundry room and so would always just have to be managed.  The attendance reports from the pest control company provided to this investigation do not refer to this being the case. 
15. During April 2020 and early May 2020 there was correspondence between the resident and landlord, with the resident continuing to make requests for compensation; this was for money she had spent on the property (renewing the doors and flooring) which she was now leaving due to unresolved issues with silver fish.
16. Within the email correspondence there was also further discussion regarding the possibility of relocating to another property, with the landlord explaining that new tenancies for different schemes were currently on hold, but that the resident could move to a different property at the same estate, which she declined to do.
17. In correspondence to the landlord on 8 May 2020, the resident reiterated that she was leaving the property (which she had hoped to stay at and spent a lot of money on) due to the silver fish problem having not been eradicated.  The resident also reiterated that the situation had had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing and she wished for compensation in recognition of this as well as reimbursement for the money she had spent.
18. On 14 May 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s contact of 8 May 2020, which it was treating as a complaint.  It said it aimed to contact her in two days to discuss the issues and to be able to provide a response within 14 days but explained that it may take longer due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
19. On 26 May 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure. The complaint was not upheld.  The landlord set out the actions it had taken in addressing the silver fish problem, including conducting a professional pest treatment plan and offering a dehumidifier which was refused.  It could not find evidence to substantiate the resident’s claim that the problem got worse, explaining that only one dead silver fish was found across the pest visits.
20. The landlord noted that there were no silver fish or other issues with the property when the resident moved into it.  It noted too, that it had offered the resident to move to another property – albeit not another estate – explaining that new tenancies were on hold due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
21. On 5 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction with its response.  She said she had evidenced the large number of silver fish at the property in photographs and videos she has sent to the landlord. 
22. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 11 June 2020 and said it aimed to respond within 14 calendar days and if this was not possible, it would let her know.
23. The resident emailed the landlord about the issue on two further occasions and on 12 June 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure. The complaint was not upheld, with the landlord finding that the property met the lettable standard when the resident agreed to move into it and setting out the chronology of actions it had taken in response to the reports of silver fish. 
24. Additionally, the landlord repeated its earlier explanation that it was not able to rehouse the resident in another of its properties, as renting properties out was put on hold during the Covid-19 pandemic. 
25. The landlord would not compensate the resident for the improving the property in respect of the replacement doors and floors, due to not being responsible for these works which were carried out as a personal choice, rather than repair issues. The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation, however, as a gesture of goodwill, which it said was towards her moving costs and recognising that this was a difficult time.

Assessment and findings

26. Once notified of the issue with silver fish at the property, the landlord was required to take action to investigate and remedy any infestation. Having notified the landlord of the problem on 11 January 2020, the actions that followed – to visit the resident to discuss and clarify the issue and to arrange for “urgent” works to remedy the problem – were appropriate.
27. The landlord demonstrated that it took the matter seriously.  In taking the time to meet with the resident, it sought to preserve the landlord-tenant relationship; it was not required to do this and could have instead discussed the issue via telephone and/or raised investigation or works in the absence of this.  In doing so and raising “urgent” works, it understood the impact on the resident and the need to resolve things quickly.
28. Although the resident has said she reported the issue twice previously, no evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman of these notifications and as an evidenced-based Service, fault cannot be found with the landlord not taking action where notification of an issue cannot be proven; the landlord is obliged to take action once on notice and not prior to being made aware.
29. With the powder that had been put down having been reported as not working, the landlord utilised the services of a specialist pest removal contractor who commenced works at the property shortly thereafter.  In doing so, the landlord listened to the resident and acted quickly.
30. Part of the specialist recommendations for eradication of the pests was that a dehumidifier be installed, which was declined by the resident.  While the resident has said that she refused this because she was told by the contractors that this would not be a permanent solution, no evidence of this being the case has been provided to this investigation.  There is a reasonable expectation for a resident to cooperate with the landlord’s attempts to remedy a problem and the landlord was entitled to rely on the expert opinion of its specialist contractor and this expert opinion included installation of a dehumidifier.
31. In terms of the handling of the complaint, the landlord responded at stage one and stage two of its complaints procedure within the timescale set out in its complaints policy, where the initial complaint is considered to have been made in May 2020.  There is no information as to whether it discussed the issues further with the resident at stage one, as it said it would do, however. 
32. It is important that a landlord’s complaint procedure is managed effectively, and this includes adherence to standard procedures. In cases where this does not happen, or where there is agreement for a complaint to be paused or closed, there should be documentation confirming and providing reasons for the decisions made.  In this case, whilst the landlord did not send a written response to the resident’s complaint of 11 January 2020 as required by the complaint procedure, it has provided evidence to this Service that that it investigated the complaint within its complaints procedure by visiting the resident.  The landlord also kept a record of the visit and agreed actions, which provides an audit trail of its complaints handling.  The record of the visit confirms that the resident did not require a written response at that time, but that they would be contacted again in approximately four weeks’ time.  This supports the landlord’s decision not to send a written response to the complaint at that time.
33. In its complaints responses the landlord did, however, explain the actions it had taken and why.  The landlord was not obliged to compensate the resident for improvements made to the property or to re-house her; it was obliged to investigate and eradicate the pest problem which it tried to do but there was an absence of cooperation from the resident in respect of the dehumidifier. 
34. If the dehumidifier had been installed and had not worked, the landlord would have been required to take further steps to resolve the issue but in the absence of opportunity, fault cannot be found on its part. Its offer of £250 compensation as a gesture of goodwill was reasonable because it was not required to make this offer for the reasons described.

Determination (decision)

35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

36. There was no maladministration insofar as the landlord took steps to address the issue of silverfish and its offer of compensation was reasonable because this was a goodwill gesture in acknowledgement of the stress of moving. 
37. The landlord was not obliged to compensate the resident for improvements made at the property or for failing to eradicate the silver fish issue where the recommendations of the specialist contractor were not able to be fulfilled because of the resident’s decision to not allow a dehumidifier to be installed.

Recommendations

38. If not already accepted, the landlord re-offers the resident the £250 compensation it previously made.
39. The landlord reviews its complaints handling taking into account the findings made in this report.  The landlord to demonstrate this learning to the Ombudsman.