Anchor Hanover Group (202115872)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115872

Anchor Hanover Group

21 January 2022

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 response to the resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation at her property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident was a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a communal building, which is comprised of similar flats under a sheltered accommodation scheme. The building has communal laundry facilities and on-site wardens. 
3. The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported having bed bugs in her property on 17 June 2021. At this stage she was provided with guidance on how to prepare for the pest control treatment and other information regarding bed bugs.
4. On 21 and 22 June 2021, the resident was given private access to the communal laundry facilities which was closed to all other residents at the time in order for her to wash her clothes. The resident was also provided with black sacks to bring her dirty clothes to the laundry room and clean bags for her clean washing. Around this time the resident stayed in a hotel for three days because of the pests in her property.
5. Pest control treated the property on 24 June 2021. The operative noted that not all of the steps of preparation had not been completed and therefore it had been difficult to treat all areas of the property. A further treatment was carried out on 1 July 2021 and the operative reported that the steps had still not been completed.
6. On 1 July 2021, the pest control operative attended and found that there had been an improvement in terms of the number of bugs and sprayed the flat again. At this stage another appointment was arranged and the landlord had also raised an order for a pest control sniffer dog to be brought into the building and check all the flats.
7. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 5 July 2021 and explained that her flat was infested with bed bugs despite having two treatments. She expressed dissatisfaction that she had needed to wait a week for the first treatment and said that this had impacted her mental health. She said that another flat in the building had first been infested in March 2021 but the treatment had only just been completed. On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to her complaint. She said that seven flats in the building now had bed bug infestations and the local authority’s Environmental Health department had informed her that the whole building should be fumigated. She added that she had needed to throw away her personal belongings and would need to buy a new bed because of the pests. She reiterated that the situation was having an impact on her mental health and expressed concern for other vulnerable tenants within the building.
8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 6 July 2021 and confirmed that it would be in touch in due course. The landlord’s records suggest that it called the resident on 7 July 2021 to discuss her complaint.
9. The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 8 July 2021 in which she stated that despite another treatment being booked, her complaint had not been resolved. She was not confident that the property would not be re-infected as four flats in the building which had been treated now had more bed bugs. She asked for the landlord’s policy on handling bed bugs in its premises and expressed dissatisfaction that there was no plan to fumigate the building. She added that sniffer dogs were promised but a visit had not been arranged for this. 
10. A third treatment of the property was carried out on 9 July 2021. The operative reported no fresh evidence of pest activity. They noted that the property was still filled with items that made it difficult for them to move around.
11. On 13 July 2021 the resident reported small bed bugs on her bed and said she had been bitten. She was given access to a communal shower due to her bathroom being filled with black bags containing laundered items. She reported seeing bed bugs in the communal shower; this was checked by a pest control operative, who found no evidence of pests in the shower. The resident reported that she had found eggs on her sofa on 14 July 2021 and was informed that these had already been sprayed so could be disposed of.

12. The pest control sniffer dog was brought to inspect all properties in the building except those which had been freshly treated with chemicals on 26 and 27 July 2021.
13. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 27 July 2021 and explained the following:
    1. On 24 June 2021 a pest control operative attended and sprayed the flat. The operative had reported that it was difficult to spray everything as the resident had a large amount of craft materials. The landlord acknowledged that the resident ran a craft group and had a large amount of wool and other materials where bed bugs could lay eggs. It noted that the flat did not provide much storage space due its size but recommended that the craft materials were stored in shrink wrap bags where bed bugs could not lay eggs.
    2. It noted that members of its staff also lived in the building and it was working to resolve the issue for all residents. It had contacted Environmental Health who advised that it was not their policy to fumigate entire buildings but to treat affected flats individually.
    3. It acknowledged that the resident had waited a week for her first pest control treatment but noted that this included a weekend when pest control would not attend. It confirmed that the pest control sniffer dog visit was due to go ahead which help it to identify areas where bed bugs were still present. It confirmed that the resident could escalate her complaint to stage two of its internal process if she remained dissatisfied with its complaint response. 
14. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 August 2021 and expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response. She said that the information provided by the landlord was not a true reflection of the conversation she had over the phone with members of the landlord’s staff. She noted that the landlord had been confrontational and abusive by accusing her of being a hoarder and saying that it was her fault the pest control treatment had not worked. She said that the circumstances and the landlord’s actions had impacted her mental health and reiterated that she had needed to wait a week for treatment when another tenant had waited only 48 hours. She added that she had gone into considerable debt replacing items that she had needed to throw away because of the pests.
15. A pest control report was issued following a visit to the property on 3 August 2021. It noted that a treatment was carried out and there was no obvious evidence of pest activity. It also noted that the 12-step preparation had not been completed by the resident prior to the appointment.
16. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 5 August 2021 and confirmed that it would aim to respond within 14 calendar days.
17. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 August 2021 to explain that she had moved from the property (around 3 August 2021) due to a different property becoming available. She expressed dissatisfaction that she had been told that her previous flat had been clear of bed bugs and explained that this could not have been the case as she now had to pay for a private company to resolve the bed bug issue at her new property. She asked the landlord to compensate her for the costs.
18. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 8 September 2021 – and explained the following:
    1. It noted that the resident had requested £3,000 compensation due to needing to replace her damaged possessions. She had also asked the landlord to compensate her for the private pest control treatment she had needed to carry out at her new property.
    2. It noted that it had provided the resident with information about preparing for the treatment before the first visit. The resident had not cooperated with this request which made the treatment less effective.
    3. It said it had offered the resident further sole use of the laundry room if needed but it had not received any further requests for this. It noted that neither the landlord or the pest control operatives had advised the resident to dispose of any furniture or bedding, nor had it advised the resident to leave the property at night or for extended periods of time.
    4. It explained that it could often take two to three visits to eradicate bed bugs completely due to their life cycle and ability to hide in cracks and soft materials. It confirmed that it had followed its procedure when handling the infestation and had followed advice from the pest control company.
    5. It apologised if the resident felt that its staff had not dealt with the situation sympathetically. Having reviewed its records and spoken to staff, it concluded that it had attempted to support and advise the resident during this time.
    6. The landlord refused the resident’s request for £3000 compensation and confirmed it would not reimburse her for the additional costs she had incurred at her new property. it noted that it did not charge residents for the pest control treatments it had carried out and did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
19. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 September 2021 and said that she did not agree with the landlord’s findings. She said that she had cooperated fully with the instructions she had been given on the second pest control visit by clearing the rooms of clothes, disposing of some craft items and heat treating the rest. She said that she was not offered another laundry slot or plastic sheet for the sofa and reiterated the impact the situation had on her mental health.
20. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 30 September 2021 as she did not feel that the landlord had dealt with the bed bug infestation appropriately.  She noted that another tenant had first reported bed bugs in March 2021 but nothing had been done until June 2021. She added that she had needed to stay in a hotel due to the impact the situation had on her mental health as she needed to wait a week for the first treatment. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had accused her of hoarding and that her flat was not clear of bed bugs after four treatments. She wanted compensation to be paid due to the expense and distress the situation had caused her. The resident also provided receipts for the expenses she had incurred.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

21. The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the bed bug infestation and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord in its handling of the pest issue in her property.
22. As part of her complaint the resident expressed dissatisfaction that another tenant had first reported bed bugs in March 2021 but nothing had been done until June 2021. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the landlord’s handling of bed bugs at other tenants’ properties. This is because it is our role to investigate complaints brought to us by individual residents and we cannot investigate issues which may have affected other residents unless those residents make their own complaints to the landlord and ask the Ombudsman to investigate their concerns. Also, in line with data protection regulations, we would be unable to request detailed information from the landlord about other residents’ properties without permission from the residents concerned.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation.

23. The landlord’s guidance on bed bugs states that resident’s should inform the landlord if they suspect that they have been exposed to bed bugs. Following this, pest control operatives will carry out an inspection. The guidance notes that the operative would need unobstructed access to all areas of the effected room(s), including cupboards and drawers. The aim of the inspection is to provide sufficient information for the pest control operative to assess the extent and severity of the activity so the treatment can be planned accordingly.
24. The guidance also states that where high bedbug activity is present, several revisits will be required before complete control is achieved. It can often be difficult to determine when eradication has been achieved following a high amount of bedbug activity. Only through repeated treatments and follow up inspections, including one visit conducted at least 2-3 months after the initial course of treatments, can the treatment be considered completely effective.
25. The landlord also provided a copy of the 12 steps of preparation document which was given to the resident prior to the treatment of the property. The document notes that prior to treatment, a resident should: 
    1. “Remove all sheets, covers, dust ruffles, or any other bedding covers from the mattresses and box-springs of all bedrooms. Wash all bed linen in the hottest water possible. Do not replace the bed linen until four hours after the treatment. If any mattresses, box-springs or other furniture are in poor or ripped condition and infested, they should be placed in large plastic storage bags, then removed from the property and discarded.
    2. Remove all personal items including clothes, shoes, stored materials, etc., from the furniture and floor area throughout the property. Remove everything from ALL closets. Completely empty all bedroom drawers and empty all books and items from bookcases prior to treatment.
    3. Clean or launder all clothing in the hottest water possible and store in clean storage bags for up to two weeks after treatment. Any fabric-based personal items should be run through a pre-heated, hot dryer cycle for a minimum of 15 minutes.
    4. Move all items and furniture away from walls as the operative would need access behind all furniture.
    5. Vacuum all carpeting, bedding, bedframe, backs of pictures, and other areas bed bugs are seen. Immediately empty the vacuum cleaner bag and dispose of it in an exterior bin. To give the treatment time to work, do not shampoo or clean floors or carpet for at least three weeks after the treatment. The vacuum may be used as desired.
    6. Allow three weeks from the time of treatment for it to be completely effective. If the problem persists after two weeks, it is advisable that resident’s contact the landlord.”
26. The resident remains dissatisfied that she had needed to wait a week for the first treatment to be carried out whereas other tenants only had to wait 48 hours. As above, we cannot comment on the landlord’s handling of treatments needed to other properties. Whilst it would have understandably be worrying for the resident to be waiting for treatment to start one week is not an unreasonable timeframe for the treatment to be completed and the landlord’s records show that it had asked for an appointment to be arranged on 17 June 2021, the date when the issue was reported by the resident. The appointment date was likely to be dependent on the availability of the external pest control operatives, which was not within the landlord’s control.
27. The records show that pest control attended on 24 June 2021, 1 July 2021, 9 July 2021 and 3 August 2021. On each occasion it was noted by the operatives that the 12-step preparation had not been completed by the resident. The resident has advised that during this time, the landlord had accused her of being a hoarder. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account, but as an independent and impartial arbiter we can only base our decisions on the available evidence. Where there are conflicting accounts of what happened without corroborating evidence to support either account, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine what was said.
28. Despite this, the landlord acted reasonably in response to this issue by apologising for any lack of sympathy from its staff.  It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident of the reports that the pest control operatives could not access certain areas of the property as the 12 steps had not been completed. This was likely to affect the efficiency of each treatment, meaning further treatments would likely be needed before the issue was resolved.
29. It is understood that the resident disputes the account given by the pest control operatives and maintains that she did follow the instructions prior to the second visit. As above, the Ombudsman is not in a position to determine which account is correct. However, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified contractors concerning their observations of the property and the difficulties they experienced in carry out the treatments. It was also appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of these concerns and explain to her the importance of carrying out measures herself to help eradicate the pests in her property.
30. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to show that there were any unreasonable delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of pests in her property and although its efforts were ultimately unsuccessful in resolving the problem, the landlord acted reasonably and in line with advice from its qualified contractors in its attempts to eradicate the pests.
31. The Ombudsman notes that the resident asked the landlord to fumigate the entire building and she feels that the infestation could have been eradicated sooner if this had been done. She has said that Environmental Health told her the entire building needed to be fumigated. The landlord’s records show that it was in contact with Environmental Health regarding the infestation in the building and there is no record that Environmental Health suggested that the entire building needed to be fumigated. The landlord has said it was told by Environmental Health that it was not their policy to fumigate an entire building and that individual flats should be treated instead. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acted against advice from Environmental Health in its response to the pest issue. If the resident is concerned about information she was given by Environmental Health, she can contact the local authority directly to make a complaint about this.
32. The resident has asked the landlord to provide compensation for items that she had needed to throw away due to the bed bugs, she has also noted the inconvenience caused and the additional costs she had incurred treating bed bugs at her new property. Whilst the circumstances are likely to have been inconvenient for the resident, the landlord has demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to support the resident during this time by providing relevant guidance, allowing her private access to the communal laundry room and arranging for treatments to be carried out. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was responsible for causing the bed bug infestation or that the resident was told to throw away any personal belongings or stay away from the property. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord had agreed to replace any furniture or pay hotel expenses beforehand. As such, the landlord would not be expected to compensate the resident for these costs.
33. Whilst there was no evidence found of active pests on the final visit on 3 August 2021, this would not mean that the resident’s property could be considered 100% free of bed bugs or their eggs. In line with the guidance on bed bugs, repeated treatments and follow-up inspections, including an inspection two-three months after the course of treatment can be needed before the treatment be considered completely effective. As the resident had moved out of the property following this visit, it is likely that bed bugs present in her belongings had been transferred to her new property. The guidance states that it can take up to three weeks following a visit for the treatment to be effective. Therefore, there may not have been sufficient time between the final visit and the resident moving out for the treatment to fully eradicated the bed bugs. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for moving out when she did, but the landlord would not be expected to pay the cost of pest control treatment at her new property because the evidence suggests that the landlord was not at fault for causing the new infestation.

Determination (decision)

34. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation at her property.

Reasons

35. The landlord has demonstrated that it made reasonable efforts to advise the resident of the steps required prior to each bed bug treatment. The evidence from the pest control operatives shows that the steps were not followed and as such, the treatments were likely to be less effective. The landlord would not be expected to pay for the costs associated with replacing personal belongings, hotel expenses or treating bed bugs at the resident’s new property as the cost of the hotel and possessions were not agreed by the landlord in advance. There is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord was responsible for the damage to the resident’s possessions or for causing the infestation at her new property through any failure to respond appropriately to the infestation at her previous property.