Aster Group Limited (202216313)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216313

Central and Cecil Housing Trust

30 January 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:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of two staff members.
2. Handling of pest control issues.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in a bedsit flat owned by the landlord since 2011.
The flat is within an independent living scheme for people aged over 55 years. The scheme comprises 3 blocks of flats and in total contains 249 properties. Residents of the scheme have access to communal areas including a lounge, laundry and garden.
The landlord does not provide care at the scheme though many residents who live there receive care from external services.
The scheme on which the resident lives has experienced several bed bug infestations between 2015 and the date of this report.
In May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to state she was unhappy with the way it was handling the current infestation. While the resident did not have a bed bug infestation in 2022, she had experienced one in 2020 and was therefore distressed at the she may experience another. The landlord logged 2 ‘informal’ complaints from the resident regarding the issue in May 2022 and July 2022.
In August 2022 the landlord raised a formal stage 1 complaint from the resident regarding bed bugs and staff conduct and responded formally in September 2022. The resident raised the same issues in October 2022 and the landlord provided a further stage 1 complaint response. Following a further email from the resident explaining why she was still not satisfied the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. The landlord’s final complaint response was provided in December 2022.

Scope of the investigation

This Service acknowledges that there have been recurrent bed bug infestations at the scheme between 2015 and 2022.
Paragraphs 42 (b) and 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme state that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure; or, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
In this case, the landlord logged 2 complaints from the resident relating to this issue informally in May 2022 and July 2022 prior to starting its internal complaint process in August 2022. We have therefore considered events which took place from November 2021 onwards.
While an in-depth investigation of events prior to November 2021 have not been carried out, the historical bed bug infestations are referred to within this report to provide context. This is because, as the infestation recurred within a short period of time on each occasion, it is reasonable to consider them as one protracted infestation.

Policies and procedures

The landlord does not have a pest control policy or procedure. Its repairs and maintenance policy does not mention pest control, nor does its tenancy agreement, resident handbook or website.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will provide a written response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. The policy states that the landlord will close the complaint if it does not receive further contact from the resident within 10 working days. The landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that an informal rather than formal complaint may be logged when:
1. The issue can be dealt with “quickly and efficiently” as part of normal business.
2. It would be of benefit to and in the best interests of the resident.
3. Where a complaint “does not feature a repetitive service failure…and the investigation doesn’t necessarily need a written response”.

The policy states that the resident will inform the resident that the complaint has been logged as an informal complaint and why the landlord has done so.

Summary of events

The resident emailed the landlord on 23 May 2022. She stated that it was the third occasion that she had written to the landlord regarding bed bugs on the estate. The resident said that the infestation had spread to communal areas including the lifts and that the landlord appeared to be doing “little or nothing” about it. She said that some residents were being “allowed to live in filth and squalor” and were “generally unkempt and dirty”.
In response to a request for information from this Service, the landlord has stated that the resident’s complaint of 23 May 2022 “was not escalated to stage 1”.
On 25 May 2022 the landlord’s complaints team wrote to the resident. It stated that the landlord was working with its pest control contractor to investigate and treat affected properties and was treating communal areas as a precaution. The landlord said that where infestation was severe it was carrying out heat treatment at “great expense”. The landlord advised that if the resident had concerns regarding the hygiene or welfare of another resident, she should raise this with staff on site who would liaise with appropriate support services.
The landlord’s pest control contractor emailed the landlord on 29 June 2022 and provided a list of dates on which it would visit the estate to carry out inspections and treatments for bed bugs. The visits would take place twice a month until the end of the year.
On 24 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord’s complaint team and said that the estate was under a “[tsunami] of filth and bed bugs”. She told the landlord that it had a statutory duty not to allow residents to live un “unhygienic conditions which create problems for others”. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 27 July 2022 and said it would get back to her. It logged the resident’s email as an informal complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident on 10 August 2022. It stated that it had logged the resident’s complaint and:
1. It was aware of a number of properties affected by bed bugs on the scheme and it was liaising with its contractor to address the issue.
2. Since 1 July 2022 it had been taking “a more proactive response to treating the bed bug infestation”. It was carrying out 2 treatments of any properties identified as having an infestation and had closed the communal lounge to minimise the spread.
3. It could not take tenancy enforcement action against tenants without clear evidence that they were responsible for the alleged unhygienic behaviours in communal areas.
4. Where it identified issues of poor hygiene it had addressed this and where required made referrals to adult social care.
On 20 August 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord via its website. She said that the scheme had been infested with bed bugs for months and that the landlord had allowed the issue to get “out of hand”. She said that the attitude of some members of staff on the scheme needed to be changed and that the staff needed “proper training”. The resident asked the landlord to deal with the infestation satisfactorily.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 8 September 2022. It said:
1. The landlord was compiling a report of every flat to ascertain which were affected.
2. Bed bug monitoring equipment had been installed in every flat.
3. The communal lounge was due to be treated.
4. The landlord would have a residents meeting and its pest control contractor would attend to provide guidance and answer questions.
5. The pest control contractor had carried out treatment in all identified infested flats. Infested flats were treated twice and then monitored.
6. Where required the landlord carried out repeat treatments and provided residents with housekeeping recommendations.
7. Where necessary the landlord had carried out heat treatments and disposed of infested furniture.
8. All communal areas had been treated to minimise the spread.
9. Cleaning was carried out by the landlord’s cleaning contractor daily. Where issues had been identified by the landlord or a resident this had been raised with the contractor and addressed.
10. Where concerns have been raised regarding hygiene in a resident’s property, this was raised directly with the resident. The landlord carried out regular inspections of identified properties. It also made referrals to adult social care where necessary to ensure residents needs were being met.
11. If the resident was unhappy with the attitude of staff, she could raise her concerns and they would be addressed.
On 20 September 2022 the landlord was emailed by the local authority environmental health department (EHD). The EHD stated that it had received “multiple and serious complaints” from residents and enquiries from local councillors regarding the bed bug infestation on the estate. It said it wished to visit the estate and discuss the issue with the landlord.
On 22 September 2022 the landlord held a residents meeting. Minutes from this meeting have not been provided to this Service.
A multi-agency meeting was held at the scheme on 26 September 2022. The meeting was attended by the landlord, the EHD and the landlord’s pest control contractor. The minutes state:
1. In 2015 more than 80 properties on the scheme were infested with bed bugs. At that time the pest control approach was a “programmed…cyclical regime of inspections and treatments”. It took 2 years to get the infestation under control.
2. Many of the residents on the scheme had been housed there having previously been street homeless. As a result some experienced behaviours such as hoarding and self-neglect and this has impacted on some residents engagement with pest control treatments.
3. In 2019 the pest control contract changed to a “reactive” system and treatment was completed on an “ad-hoc referral for infestation complaints”.
4. From 2020 onwards the pest control treatment approach was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdown procedures and a number of extremely vulnerable residents within the scheme meant that “inspections and engagement with services all but ceased for this period”.
5. Quarterly programmed bed bug inspections were brought back in 2022 and the landlord was promoting the dates for inspections amongst residents. Fortnightly inspections were being carried out at that time to reflect the bed bug life cycle.
6. Bed bug infestations had increased from 33 properties at the start of 2022 to 49 properties identified during a recent inspection.
7. One particular property had been identified as having a problem with property condition and hygiene and a safeguarding referral had been made by the landlord. The infestation from this flat had been identified as spreading to other properties.
8. The pest control contractor found that in 90% of cases of treatment failure the cause had been failure of the resident to prepare the property as advised for treatment. It also highlighted that several residents with complex needs were not engaging with pest control services.
9. The pest control contractor wrapped contaminated items before removal. Some residents were dumping contaminated items in corridors or dragging them through communal areas without wrapping them causing cross-contamination.
10. Residents needed to leave the property during treatment. Some residents were bed bound or unable to leave their property for health reasons. This needed to be addressed with other agencies.
11. The EHD asked the landlord and its pest control contractor to:
  1. Provide plans of the estate highlighting bed bug infestations so that the route of spread (eg floor voids and ducts) could be identified.
  2. Provide a list of care agencies which attended the estate. The EHD could then provide the agencies with a guidance document on good working practices to reduce bed bug infestation.
12. The EHD said that it may be able to assist by:
  1. Issuing targeted noticed under the Public Health Act 1936 to residents who were not engaging. This would require the resident to allow pest control treatment and to safely dispose of items that could not be treated.
  2. Writing to residents to provide advice on how to properly prepare the property for pest control treatment.
On 29 September 2022 the landlord emailed the EHD. The landlord said that a resident had claimed that the environmental health officer (EHO) had expressed concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of the bed bug infestation. The landlord asked for clarification as it said that the EHO had not expressed concerns when it met with the landlord earlier that week.
The EHO replied on 30 September 2022 and said that he had tried to explain to residents that the landlord, pest control contractor and local council were unable to carry out effective pest control where residents did not provide access or were unable to carry out preparatory work before treatment.
Internal landlord emails of 3 October 2022 demonstrate that a senior landlord officer identified the following issues:
1. The landlord’s communications in general “could be much better”. It was suggested that a regular newsletter could be introduced.
2. The landlord should commission a specialist consultant to review its handling of the bed bug infestation.
3. If the landlord did not already have a bed bug policy and procedure, one should be established. It was suggested that the policy should include:
  1. What was the landlord’s responsibility and what was the responsibility of the resident.
  2. What support the landlord would provide.
  3. When the landlord would involve the EHD.
  4. What works would be completed on void properties.
  5. What guidance and advice should be given to residents.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 October 2022 and acknowledged receipt of her complaint.
On 10 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord asked for minutes of the resident meeting of 22 September 2022. The resident also said:
1. Bed bug infested furniture was being stored outside the scheme for months. This was being brought down in lifts or left in communal corridors waiting for removal which was spreading the infestation.
2. A member of landlord staff had been rude to her. She had told him that the landlord had called her and he had replied that it wasn’t him then ignored her and “carried on with other things”. She had “remonstrated with” the staff member and he had told her “That’s enough”.
3. She had complained to the scheme manager that several residents on the estate had poor personal hygiene and that this was the cause of the bed bug infestation. His body language was dismissive and he had said that there was nothing to be done about the issue of personal hygiene.
4. At the residents meeting the landlord’s pest control contractor said it would be checking every flat and installing bed bug monitors. This did not appear to have taken place.
The landlord emailed the EHD on 14 October 2022 and said that it had attended bed bug monitoring visits with its pest control contractor and had been unable to access approximately 90 properties.
On 18 October 2022 the landlord began contacting bed bug specialists to carry out a review of its handling of the bed bug infestation and make recommendations for improvement.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 October 2022. It said:
1. As a minimum the landlord should be doing a daily check of the estate and reporting any fly-tipped items or bed bug infested furniture for removal.
2. The landlord would ensure that in future, minutes from resident meetings would be circulated within one week of the meeting.
3. The landlord apologised for the behaviour of 2 staff members. They had been spoken to regarding their demeanour and the landlord was confident that neither colleague meant any disrespect.
4. The landlord was currently dealing with “a significant infestation of bed bugs”. It had outlined in response to the resident’s previous complaint that it had changed its approach to pest control as it had found its previous approach of reactive treatment was “not adequate”.
5. The landlord was treating the bed bug infestation with the “utmost priority” and monitoring and treatment programmes were being carried out in line with best practice. Progress was being made and the number of infested flats was reducing.
6. The EHO had said that he was “satisfied” with the landlord’s management of the infestation.
7. The landlord would schedule and advertise resident meetings for the next 12 months with pest control as an agenda item so all residents could get regular progress updates.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 October 2022 and requested that it escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. She said:
1. Her complaint regarding staff attitude was not based on one incident.
2. There had only been improvement in the landlord’s handling of the bed bug issue due to the resident contacting the EHD.
3. She wanted to know what qualifications the scheme staff had and what their remit was.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint escalation on 31 October 2022.

On 21 October 2022 the landlord provided the EHD with an update on the bed bug issue. It said that 55 flats had been inspected and treated between 17 October 2022 and 19 October 2022. The landlord said that 32 flats were confirmed to have bed bug issues and 85 flats needed further inspection. The EHD replied and said that while it was pleased there had been some progress, 32 flats was considered “a high level of infestation”. It asked that the landlord provide an update regarding resident engagement with preparatory work prior to bed bug treatment.
Email communications between the EHD, adult social care and the landlord were sent on 10 November 2022 and 11 November 2022. It was explained that several residents on the scheme had complex needs and could not mentally or physically carry out the required preparatory works, without which treatment would not be effective. It was also pointed out that some of these residents were also contaminated with bed bugs on their person. Adult social care said that the issue should be viewed as a “building level infestation” and that the landlord should take a “centralised, coordinated and strategic approach” to permanently eradicate the bed bugs. It said that the landlord should be funding this, not adult social care as it was a “housing related situation”. The EHD agreed with this approach and provided the landlord with contact details for a contractor who could carry out cleaning and cleaning to prepare properties for pest control treatment.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint holding response. It stated that it had requested the advice of a specialist lawyer to provide clarity on the landlord’s legal position and powers. The landlord said that it would provide a full complaint response by 2 December 2022.
The landlord emailed the EHD on 25 November 2022 and said:
1. It had met with adult social care earlier that week. It had been agreed that:
  1. The landlord would share with adult social care the details of all vulnerable residents experiencing bed bug infestation.
  2. The landlord would support residents to prepare for bed bug treatments and arrange for carers to assist in carrying out laundry at high temperatures.
  3. The landlord had supported residents with the removal of items infested with bed bugs where treatment was not possible.
  4. The landlord had provided support with the replacement of furniture but adult social care would also consider what support it could provide.
  5. Safeguarding issues for vulnerable residents affected by bed bugs would be considered “in one meeting as part of a cohesive response”.
The landlord’s pest control contractor emailed the landlord on 30 November 2022 and said it had “hit a brick wall” in engaging with certain residents who refused to provide access or engage with treatment. The contractor said that the infestation would “not get better unless positive action and support takes place”.
On 2 December 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. This said:
1. The role of the landlord’s staff at the scheme was to provide “advice and signposting” to assist residents to live independently. They were not qualified to provide care and support. Where such services were required, staff would work alongside social care, mental health or safeguarding teams.
2. The landlord was finding that adult social care responsiveness to referrals was significantly delayed due to pressures on its own service. This was impacting the landlord’s ability to manage some issues at the scheme. The landlord had met with the local authority to agree a way forward.
3. Since the resident’s stage 1 complaint the landlord had taken the following actions:
  1. Introduced a hardship fund for residents impacted financially by the bed bug situation.
  2. Engaged with the local authority to provide support for residents who were unable to personally carry out the recommendations for bed bug treatment.
  3. Continued treatment and monitoring of the affected properties.
  4. Supporting residents to treat individual properties including cleaning properties where necessary to reduce spreading.
  5. Engaged a specialist independent pest control consultant to review its approach to the bed big issue. This was in addition to a review by the local environmental health team.
4. The landlord considered that it had no liability under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for the situation as the bed bugs entered the property on residents or their visitors and not via a defect in the structure, exterior, or installations of the property.
5. It did not consider that it was liable under Section 79 of the Environmental Health Act 1990. The landlord did not bring the bed bugs into the estate or “allow them to be brought in” and it was taking steps to eradicate the infestation.
6. Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 a severe case of bed bugs could make a property unfit for human habitation if the landlord was not taking actions to address the bed bugs. The landlord had taken significant actions where it could, to address the issue.
7. The landlord had recently changed its approach given the level of the infestation. It said that at no point had the issue not been taken seriously. It did however acknowledge that some measures to support residents could have been implemented more quickly.
8. It said that it was not obliged to pay for replacement items that had to be destroyed due to the infestation as it had not failed to fulfil a statutory duty or term of the tenancy agreement. It had however set up a hardship fund to help eligible residents who had been impacted. It would in future highlight to residents the value of having contents insurance for such instances.
9. The landlord’s tenancy agreements had clauses in respect to residents providing access to the property. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also obligated residents to give access to the landlord with reasonable notice and at a reasonable hour.
10. The issue was not that the landlord had failed to gain access to properties but that on gaining access some properties were not in a state that allowed effective treatment to be carried out.
11. A number of actions had been carried out and improvements implemented as a result of issues highlighted by the resident. The landlord did not however consider that there had been any service failures in the case.
On 5 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. Within this email she said that the landlord had caused a nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It had failed to deal with “in a timely manner matters of poor hygiene” such as some residents living in “filth and squalor” and soiling communal areas. The landlord had been “remiss” in its failure to carry out regular checks on properties.
In December 2022 the landlord commissioned a report by an independent pest control specialist into the landlord’s handling of the bed bug infestation on the estate. The report stated:
1. There had been a previous bed bug infestations on the estate in 2018 and 2021. These were dealt with satisfactorily.
2. In 2022 there was a “very substantial increase in the level of infestation” with around 22% of flats in the resident’s block affected.
3. Similar increases in bed bug infestations had been seen elsewhere in the UK in hotel and domestic properties.
4. The landlord’s bed bug control on the estate had “many strong elements”. However, too many flats experienced persistent infestation and the success of the landlord’s control work “could and should be significantly improved”.
5. “little information” had been seen regarding communication with residents. “Communication with residents should be reviewed to ensure…a positive working relationship”.
6. The landlord’s pest control contractor provided residents on the estate with a leaflet containing guidance on identifying bed bug infestations. When residents reported an infestation, the contractor carried out “reactive visual inspections”.
7. The contractor also carried out proactive visual inspections of all properties on a quarterly basis and had placed bed bug monitors in every property checked during these inspections.
8. The landlord should emphasise the importance of reporting suspected bed bugs to all residents. Guidance should be provided on the signs of an infestation.
9. The landlord should consider the use of a canine bed bug infestation service. It should also consider using heat treatment through “tent systems or whole-room systems”.
10. The landlord was using several different formats for recording its control programme. It should implement a standard format on a spreadsheet that allowed the data to be interrogated.
11. Overall the landlord’s bed bug control programme on the estate had not been “completely successful”. This may have been because of:
  1. Challenges in identifying all infested properties.
  2. Ineffective preparation of properties for treatment by residents.
  3. Difficulties treating cluttered properties.
  4. The presence of items that could not be treated with insecticide eg clothing.
  5. Bed bug resistance to the pesticides used.
The landlord has provided this Service with works orders and treatment report forms which demonstrate attendances by its pest control contractor between June 2022 and April 2023. The contractor carried out inspections of all properties on a routine basis and inspected specific properties where there had been reports of bed bug infestation. The evidence provided shows that the contractor wrapped and removed bulky items from infested properties and from communal areas and cleared a number of individual properties. Where the contractor carried out treatment of a property or communal area, the evidence shows that it carried out a second treatment between 3 days and 19 days later.
In April 2023 the landlord’s pest control contractor carried out an inspection of all properties on the estate. It found infestation (ranging from low level high level) of bed bug in 15 properties, mice in 8 properties, and cockroaches in 4 properties.
The resident has advised this Service that at the time of this report, the bed bug infestation continues. The landlord has stated that 7 properties in the resident’s block have been found to still have bed bugs. It has said that 7 of these properties have been described as having a “low level of infestation”, the other property had a “medium level of infestation”.
The landlord has provided this Service with a large amount of information which demonstrates that it received reports of concerns regarding the condition of several properties on the estate. The information demonstrates that the landlord investigated the reports and made safeguarding referrals and signposted to further support services. It would not be appropriate for this report to provide further details regarding these issues as they are sensitive in nature and do not relate directly to the resident or her complaint.
In response to a request for information by this Service the landlord has stated that both staff members mentioned in the resident’s formal complaint were spoken to informally. The landlord advised that the explanations given by both staff members were felt to be reasonable and that therefore no further action as taken.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of two staff members.

The resident has stated that two members of the landlord’s staff have behaved dismissively towards her on more than one occasion. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord’s staff did behave improperly as we do not have the evidence to substantiate this. The Ombudsman has however considered whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s report was appropriate, fair, and reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord has advised this Service that informal discussions were held with the staff members referred to in the resident’s complaint. While we have not seen evidence of these conversations there is no suggestion that they did not take place.
It is acknowledged that the resident reported being distressed by the behaviour of members of the landlord’s staff. We consider however that it was fair and proportionate of the landlord to speak with the staff members concerned and to explain this to the resident within its complaint response. This Service would not expect the landlord to provide the resident with details that may relate to an individual’s employment as this would have been inappropriate.
The evidence seen by this Service shows that the landlord engaged with the resident’s allegations, gave them reasonable consideration, and responded appropriately.
Overall, this Service considers the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns relating to staff conduct. Therefore there was no maladministration in relation to this complaint.

Handling of pest control issues.

It is the role of this Service to determine whether the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the bed bug infestation in a reasonable time frame and in accordance with its obligations.
While the resident’s flat was not infested with bed bugs during 2022, it had been infested during previous bed bug infestations on the scheme. Communal areas of the scheme, the use of which formed part of the resident’s tenancy, also experienced bed bug infestations. The resident was therefore understandably concerned that her property would again be infested. This caused her distress which was clear in her communications with the landlord and this Service. This Service also acknowledges that the resident invested an unreasonable amount of time and trouble in communicating her concerns to the landlord.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy does not outline its responsibilities in relation to pest infestations within its properties. Nor does the landlord’s website provide any information relating to bed bugs or general pest control. Additionally, the resident’s signed tenancy agreement does not clearly clarify the responsibilities of the resident or the landlord in relation to pest infestations.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord has, from the beginning of the issue, accepted responsibility for addressing the bed bug infestation. Even so, it would be beneficial for residents and landlord staff if responsibilities in relation to infestation and pest control were clearly outlined in a policy document and in information provided to residents.
It is not clear to this Service why, despite a senior officer of the landlord stating in October 2022 that a pest control policy was required, the landlord still has no policy or process regarding bed bugs. This is particularly concerning due to the repeated and severe infestations on this estate and the vulnerability of many of the residents living there.
The Ombudsman has found service failure following investigation into a complaint raised with the landlord involving pest control, specifically bed bugs. In case 201914399 we found service failure for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of bed bugs. We have therefore decided to issue a wider order under paragraph 54 (f) of the Scheme for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures investigated in this determination, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter. We have set out the scope of the review in the orders below.
It is of concern to this Service that the resident reports that bed bug infestation on the scheme continues, albeit less widespread than previously, and has been ongoing since 2022.
This Service acknowledges that a bed bug infestation is extremely difficult to treat. This is in part due to the bed bugs resistance to pesticides used in treatments. The landlord has demonstrated that it understands this and has been utilising other methods such as heat treatment though this appears to be less commonly used.
The landlord advised the resident in August 2022 that from July 2022 it had taken a “more proactive approach” to the bed bug infestation. It also told her in its stage 1 complaint response in October 2022 that its previous approach was “not adequate” and so it had changed approach.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that in 2015 the landlord’s pest control contractor carried out programmed inspections for bed bugs. In 2019 the landlord changed its contract to a “reactive” approach and, instead of carrying out regular programmed inspections, replied on ad-hoc referrals when infestations were identified.
It is unclear to this Service why the landlord reduced its pest control program in 2019 when it had experienced repeated bed bug infestations. The landlord itself, in its October 2022 stage 1 complaint response, acknowledged that its reactive approach had not been “adequate”. We consider that this was unwise and that the previous programmed approach may have controlled the infestation before it became so widespread.
In July 2022 the landlord returned to its original proactive approach in carrying out programmed inspections of all properties. While it is positive that the landlord has returned to a more strategic approach, it would have been preferable had it done so earlier in the infestation.
It is acknowledged that the effective treatment of bed bugs requires cooperation from residents in reporting infestations, allowing access to the property, and carrying out required preparations before treatment.
It has been demonstrated by the landlord that there are a significant number of residents in the scheme who, due to physical or mental health support needs, are unable or unwilling to cooperate with the landlord. There are references throughout the landlord’s treatment records and communications with its pest control contractor and external agencies that this was a major obstacle faced by the landlord.
In September 2022 the landlord’s pest control contractor highlighted in a multi-agency meeting that it was struggling to obtain engagement from some residents. It also pointed out that residents needed to leave the property while the bed bug treatment was carried out and that residents with health issues were unable to do so.
In October 2022 the landlord stated it had been unable to access 90 properties to carry out monitoring inspections. In November 2022 the landlord’s pest control contractor said that it had “hit a brick wall” in engaging some residents.
Residents have an obligation under section 16 of the Housing Act 1988 to allow the landlord access to the property to carry out works. This would include pest control. The only way a landlord can enforce this obligation is by applying to court for an injunction compelling the resident to provide access. Given the vulnerabilities of the residents involved, this Service understands that taking legal action would be the landlord’s very last resort.
While it is understandable that legal action would be the landlord’s last resort, where all other lesser options had been exhausted the landlord should have considered taking such action. Where a resident would not engage with support from the landlord or other agencies or cooperate with pest control treatment, legal action may be reasonable and proportionate. Such action may have facilitated more effective treatment of the infestation and in doing so may have safeguarded the resident themselves and others in the scheme.
It is acknowledged that it was the resident along with other residents of the scheme rather than the landlord itself that contacted the EHD in the first instance. While it would have been considered good practice for the landlord to contact the EHD as soon as it realised the extent of the infestation, it engaged positively when it became involved. The landlord provided detailed information to the EHD regarding its approach to the infestation, invited an inspection by the EHD, and provided regular detailed updates regarding progress. This was good practice.
This Service has seen evidence that in November 2022 the landlord met with adult social care to agree an action plan for supporting these residents. The landlord would share with adult social care the details of all vulnerable residents experiencing bed bug infestation. It was agreed that the landlord and adult social care would work together and consider the needs of all vulnerable residents impacted by bed bugs jointly.
This Service considers that it was good practice of the landlord to work with adult social care. It could and should however have sought input from social care sooner. By the time the landlord met with adult social care it had experienced recurrent bed bug infestations over a period of 7 years.
We have seen evidence that the landlord assisted residents by removing infested furniture and belongings and by carrying out property clearances. This was good practice. While the resident has expressed concerns that items being removed from properties was spreading the infestation, evidence seen by this Service demonstrates that the landlord’s contractor wrapped infested items prior to their removal. It is accepted that some residents abandoned infested items in communal areas, this was not within the landlord’s control and it swiftly arranged removal of these items as soon as they were reported.
The landlord introduced a financial hardship scheme to assist those impacted by the infestation. This was over and above what it was obliged to do and this Service considers that this was good practice.
The landlord took the initiative to commission an independent review of its approach to the bed bug infestation. This is to be commended. The review highlighted issues in identifying infested properties and in treating properties that were cluttered and had not been properly prepared for treatment. The report made several key recommendations:
1. Communication with residents should be reviewed to ensure a positive relationship.
2. The landlord should emphasise the importance of reporting suspected bed bugs to all residents and provide guidance on the signs of an infestation.
3. The landlord should consider the use of a canine bed bug infestation service and heat treatment through tent or whole-room systems.
4. The landlord should implement a standard format for recording its treatment actions on a spreadsheet which would allow the data to be interrogated.
While it was positive that the landlord commissioned the specialist review, this Service would like to have seen more evidence that it has implemented the recommended improvements. An order has been made in relation to this.
In September 2022 the landlord held a resident’s meeting. The resident requested minutes from the meeting 18 days later. A month after the residents’ meeting, in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord assured the resident it would circulate the minutes by 21 October 2022. It is unclear when the minutes from the meeting were circulated.
The landlord told the resident in its October 2022 complaint response that it would hold more regular resident’s meeting and that in future minutes would be circulated within a week. The landlord has provided evidence that it held residents’ meetings and working group meetings approximately once a month. This Service considers that this was reasonable.
A senior officer of the landlord acknowledged in internal emails that the landlord’s communications could be improved and suggested that a regular newsletter could be sent out. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged to the resident that its communications could have been improved or that newsletters were subsequently sent out. This was a missed opportunity.
Overall, while the landlord demonstrated good practice in some areas it could have acted more swiftly and decisively to address the severe and recurrent bed bug infestation on the scheme. Between 2019 and July 2022 the landlord operated a reactive pest control service. A more proactive approach like the one reintroduced in June 2022 was more appropriate considering the vulnerability of residents on the scheme and the history of recurrent infestations. Despite the history of infestations on the scheme the landlord has still not implemented a pest control policy or procedure. This is unsatisfactory.
The landlord missed opportunities to engage sooner with the EHD and adult social care and to communicate more effectively with residents on the scheme.
Therefore, this Service considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of pest control issues.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that in some circumstances outlined earlier in the report it may log a complaint informally. In this case the landlord logged the resident’s complaints informally on 2 occasions in May 2022 and July 2022.
This Service does not consider that it was appropriate that the issue raised by the resident was logged informally. The landlord was not able to resolve the issue “quickly”, it related to a serious and ongoing issue which the landlord was already aware of, and a written response was required and indeed provided. A formal stage 1 complaint should have been logged in May 2022. Failure to do so unreasonably delayed the resident’s access to this Service.
It is of concern to this Service that the complaint policy refers to issues which do “not feature a repetitive service failure”. The Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord can determine whether there has been a service failure, repetitive or otherwise, at the time a complaint is received and before an investigation has been carried out.
This Service has not seen evidence in the landlord’s letters to the resident that it explained that the complaint had been logged informally or why this was the case. Nor was it explained that the resident could ask that her complaint be logged as a stage 1 complaint if she wished.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s complaint policy states that residents have a period of 10 working days following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response in which to request an escalation. This Service has an expectation as per the Complaint Handling Code operated at the time that the landlord will escalate a complaint (unless it can provide good reason not to do so). The landlord’s imposition of a 20-working day timeframe in which to request an escalation is arbitrary and unnecessarily limiting. A recommendation has been made regarding this.
The resident remained dissatisfied following the landlord’s informal complaint responses and complained again on 20 August 2022. The landlord raised this as a formal complaint and responded 13 working days later. The landlord’s response was slightly outside the timeframe outlined in the landlord’s policy and the Code but this Service does not consider this unreasonable.
The landlord first stage 1 complaint said it was compiling a report of all affected flats on the scheme and explained the treatment that was being completed. It advised that it would be holding a residents meeting and that its pest control contractor would be in attendance to provide guidance and answer questions from residents. This was a reasonable response.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also explained to the resident what actions it took when there were concerns regarding the wellbeing of a resident. This was also reasonable.
This Service does not consider that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response adequately addressed the resident’s complaint regarding staff conduct. If it was unclear exactly what the resident’s complaint regarding staff conduct related to then the landlord should have contacted the resident prior to issuing a response to ensure that it fully understood the resident’s complaint. That it did not do so was a failing.
On 8 October 2022 the landlord raised a new stage 1 complaint despite having only issued its previous stage 1 complaint response to the same issues on 8 September 2022.
This Service considers that the landlord should have considered the October 2022 complaint an escalation of the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the process. Failure to do so further delayed the resident’s access to this Service.
The landlord responded to the resident’s second stage 1 complaint within the timeframe outlined in its policy.
The landlord said that it had changed its approach to the management of the bed bug infestation as it had found that its previous approach was “not adequate”. While the landlord identified that its approach had been inadequate it failed to apologise for this or offer any redress. This was a failing.
The landlord stated that its new approach was in line with best practice and that the environmental health team were “satisfied” with the actions it had taken. It advised the resident that it would hold more regular residents’ meetings to provide progress reports to residents and would advertise the upcoming pest control treatment dates 12 months in advance. This was a reasonable response.
The landlord apologised for the behaviour of its staff members. It said that the staff members had been spoken to regarding their demeanour had meant no disrespect. The landlord’s response addressed the resident’s concerns and this was reasonable and proportionate.
At the resident’s request the landlord escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process on 21 October 2022. The landlord was unable to provide a full response within the timeframe in its policy as it wanted to seek specialist legal advice. It clearly explained this to the resident in a holding response on 17 November 2022 and this was reasonable.
The landlord provided a very thorough final stage 2 complaint response on 2 December 2022. It outlined the actions that the landlord had taken since the resident’s stage 1 complaint and provided an in-depth explanation of why it felt it had fulfilled its obligations under various statutory provisions.
The landlord’s final complaint response acknowledged that some measures to support residents could have been implemented more quickly. It then however said that there had not been any service failure in its handling of the bed bug infestation. This Service considers that the landlord ‘s complaint process failed to identify, acknowledge and apologise for several failings identified by this investigation.
Overall, the landlord failed to record the resident’s first 2 complaints as formal stage 1 complaints. It then provided two stage 1 complaint responses rather than recording the second complaint as an escalation to stage 2 of the process. This delayed the resident’s access to the Ombudsman. The complaint process failed to identify a number of failings identified by this Service and therefore failed to provide redress to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of two staff members.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of pest control issues.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord engaged with the resident’s allegations regarding staff conduct, gave them reasonable consideration, and responded appropriately.
The landlord could have acted more swiftly and decisively to address the severe and recurrent bed bug infestation on the scheme. The reactive pest control service provided between 2019 and 2022 was not adequate considering the vulnerability of residents on the scheme and the history of recurrent infestations. It is unsatisfactory that the landlord has still not implemented a pest control policy or procedure.
The landlord recorded 2 complaints made by the resident informally. This is not in line with the Code. It then failed to escalate the resident’s complaint in August 2022 to stage 2 of the complaint process thereby delaying the resident’s access to this Service. The landlord failed to identify failings identified by this Service and therefore failed to provide redress.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report a senior officer of the landlord to apologise to the resident in person for the failures identified in this investigation.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,100 comprising:
1. £700 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience relating to its handling of the pest control issue.
2. £200 for time and trouble relating to its complaint handling.
3. £200 for distress and inconvenience relating to its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review its practices in recording complaints. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks of the date of this report, and be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. Implementing a formal pest control policy and procedure detailing:
  1. What aspects of pest control are the landlord’s responsibility and what are the responsibility of the resident.
  2. What support the landlord will provide.
  3. When the landlord will involve the EHD.
  4. What works will be completed on void properties.
  5. What guidance and advice will be given to residents.
2. Providing information and guidance on pest control to residents on its website, in its tenancy handbook, and via newsletters and other local communications.
3. A review of existing pest control contracts and provision.
4. Whether it has implemented the recommendations from the December 2022 independent specialist review of its handling of the bed bug infestation.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to carry out a review of its complaint policy with consideration of the Ombudsman’s forthcoming updated Complaint Handling Code. It should particularly consider whether its use of an informal complaints process is in line with the Code. It should also consider whether the requirement that a resident escalate a complaint within 10 working days is unreasonably restrictive.