Anchor Hanover Group (202208400)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208400

Anchor Hanover Group

09 December 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 handling of the resident’s reports about a pest infestation.

Background

2. The resident, an assured shorthold tenant, first reported pest activity to the landlord on 1 September 2021. The landlord’s pest contractor attended the following day to inspect and lay bait/traps. In order to alleviate the resident’s stress, the landlord offered her use of the building’s guest room until the pest issue was resolved. The resident was residing in this room between 11 September 2021 and 15 November 2021.
3. Following the contractor’s inspection on 2 September 2021, it attended weekly until the issue was resolved. It had inspected on 11 October 2021 and determined that there was no further sign of rodent activity in the flat, and a follow-up inspection on 21 October 2021 confirmed this. The property was then cleaned and disinfected on 26 October 2021. The landlord advised that it allowed the resident extra time to move out of the guest room at her own ease.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 21 December 2021, in which she advised that she sought compensation for damage caused to her possessions by the rodents. She also suggested that the landlord had been negligent in its handling of the issue. She advised that due to the damage to her possessions, impact on her mental heath and lack of cooking facilities whilst staying in the guest room, the compensation she was seeking totalled £7000.
5. In its final response (17 February 2022), the landlord concluded that it had not been negligent in its handling of the pest issue, but it did recognise the impact that the ordeal had on the resident’s mental health. After attending the property to assess the damage to her possessions, it found that the resident had already thrown away several items and of those remaining, it could not be determined that the damage was due to rodents. It offered £250 as a goodwill gesture, in recognition of the stress and anxiety caused, and to help towards replacing some of the damaged items. The resident remained dissatisfied with the response as she felt that the landlord had exacerbated her mental and physical health issues. She advised this Service that she wanted an increase in compensation, as well as a written apology from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

6. The landlord’s Pest Control Resident Helpsheet states that “[The landlord] has an obligation to ensure individual properties… are fit for human habitation. This means they must be safe, healthy and free from pests that could cause residents or members of their household serious harm”.
7. Page one of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that “There may be times that when [the landlord has] fallen short of [its] standards, [it] may decide to make a discretionary compensation payment, or gesture of goodwill.

Scope of investigation

8. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of the pest issue has impacted her health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. It is more appropriate for this to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a pest infestation

9. Following reports of pests in the resident’s property, as noted in its Pest Control Resident Helpsheet, the landlord would be obliged to ensure that the issue was dealt with as soon as possible. This is because rodents can potentially lead to health and safety hazards for occupants of the property.
10. The resident reported the issue on 1 September 2021 and the landlord responded in an appropriate timeframe. Its pest contractor attended the following day (2 September 2021). The landlord’s quick reaction to the report of pests demonstrated that it had taken the issue seriously, and was being forthright in attempting to resolve the situation for the resident.
11. Reports from its contractor show that there were regular and frequent visits to eradicate the pest issue. The contractor identified entry points, placed baits/traps and filled in the entry points. Additionally, following a determination that there were no further pest issues on 11 October 2021, it followed this up with a further inspection and confirmed that this was the case. This was followed by a clean-up and disinfection of the property on 26 October 2021.
12. The evidence showed that the issue was resolved within a reasonable timeframe, and that the landlord and its contractor had taken care to ensure that the work was fully completed, and confirmed that there was no further presence of pests. Additionally, by cleaning and disinfecting the property, it ensured that the resident’s living space was back to being a hazard free environment. This should always be the priority of the landlord, as the resident’s health and safety is expected to be at the forefront of the landlord’s service delivery.
13. As well as demonstrating a quick response in order to get the situation resolved in a rapid manner, the landlord allowed the resident to stay in the building’s guest room whilst the situation was being resolved. It advised that this was to alleviate the distress that the resident had been experiencing as a result of the infestation. The landlord was not required to do this, and in doing so, went above and beyond its obligations in its attempts to make the resident feel comfortable.
14. The resident advised that staying in the room was detrimental to her mental health, and that she did not have access to cooking facilities, therefore she had to rely on takeaways and her friend’s cooking. However, the landlord advised that it had informed the resident that her property was free of rodents and that it had been cleaned on 26 October 2021. The resident did not need to stay in the guest room for any longer than this, and did so at her own discretion after the landlord had notified her she could return to her property.
15. An internal email on 7 February 2022 advised that the resident “failed to vacate [the guest room] after all works were completed and had to be prompted by [an operative]”. Additionally, the landlord noted that the resident had access to a kitchenette and that it believed she had used it for “crockpot cooking and electric griddle”. Additionally, the landlord confirmed in its final response that there were cooking facilities available to the resident.
16. The landlord’s offer of compensation consisted of two parts; £100 for help in replacing some of the damaged items, and £150 in recognition of the stress and anxiety caused to the resident. The resident did not feel that the £100 offered for damaged possessions was reasonable, and instead wanted £2656.
17. As the landlord concluded that the damage was not caused as a result of its negligence, it was appropriate for the landlord to suggest to the resident, in its final response, that she should seek to purchase contents insurance for the future. Nonetheless, the landlord did offer to assess the damaged items and offered to provide compensation where it believed there was damage resulting from the pest issue.
18. It was reasonable for the landlord to refuse compensation for items that the resident had already disposed of, such as her mattress. The landlord should be given the opportunity to make an assessment of the damaged items prior to making a decision on compensation to be offered. Additionally, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to refuse to make payments where it could not be evidenced, or it was not clear that damage was due to the pest issue.
19. The assessment of damaged items would be the duty of insurers had the resident taken out contents insurance prior to the damage. As such, the landlord was exceeding its responsibilities in assessing the damage and offering compensation for damage to items that it did not believe was due to its own negligence. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of a £100 goodwill gesture towards the cost of replacing certain items was reasonable, and in the interests of maintaining a positive landlord/tenant relationship.
20. The landlord’s further offer of £150 in recognition of the distress that was caused to the resident was also reasonable. As already noted, the landlord’s offer to place the resident into the guest room went above its obligations. The guest room met the basic needs for the resident, although the landlord did acknowledge that it was not an ideal situation for her. Additionally, the decision to offer the guest room was borne out of concern for the distress being caused to the resident due to the pest infestation. As also noted, the resident stayed in the room longer than necessary and, as such, the landlord did not cause the further inconvenience.
21. The landlord’s response to the infestation was appropriate and fulfilled its obligations. The resident also confirmed in her stage two escalation that she was happy with the workmanship that had been done in regard to sealing the pests’ entry points. The landlord and its contractor made sure to eradicate the issue in a timely manner and ensured that it had been completed with several follow-up visits. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Service that the landlord had  acted appropriately in its handling of the issue. As such, the compensation offered to the resident in consideration of replacing items was reasonable. With this offer, and the offer of compensation for the distress caused, it is the opinion of this Service that the £250 already offered by the landlord constitutes reasonable redress.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.