Central and Cecil Housing Trust (201914399)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914399

Central and Cecil Housing Trust

31 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

the resident’s reports of bed bugs in his flat.
the alleged antisocial behaviour by the resident.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat in a sheltered housing scheme under an assured shorthold tenancy. The resident suffers with back issues.
The resident’s tenancy conditions state that he is responsible to take care of, amongst other things, common entrance halls and to keep “any other common parts” in a state of reasonable repair.
The resident’s tenancy conditions also state that he is responsible to make good any damage he may cause to common parts of the building and also to pay any costs the landlord incurs in rectifying the damage.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy, at stage one the complaint will be acknowledged within two working days and a full response provided within ten working days. If the landlord cannot respond within this timescale it will update the resident and agree a date for its response. If the resident escalates the complaint to stage two then the complaint will be reviewed by a director and two residents from the Service Scrutiny Panel. An outcome will be given within 20 working days, if the landlord cannot respond within that timescale it will update the resident and agree a date for when it will give its response. Should the resident still remain unhappy with the landlord’s response the complaint can then be referred to this Service.
The landlord has a compensation policy that allows it to consider awarding compensation to residents where it has been responsible for a delay in resolving an issue or loss of facilities outside of its target timescales. It has a payment scale for which is as follows:

For issues that it categorises as being of a low disturbance and a low impact it pays £50.
For issues that it categorises as being of a low disturbance and a high impact it will pay £50 to £100.
For issues with a high disturbance and a low impact it will pay £50 to £100.
For issues with a high disturbance and a high impact it will pay £100 to £150.

Summary of events

The resident reported an issue with pest infestation in early September 2019.
On 17 September 2019, the resident’s property was treated for a bed bug infestation. On that same day, the resident moved his orthopaedic mattress out of his property and put in on the rooftop garden of the residence. He says that that he did this in order to allow the mattress to air out. Later, when he went to reclaim the mattress, he could not find it and reported it missing.
On 17 September 2019, the landlord says it received complaints from other residents with regards to the mattress being left on the rooftop garden.
On 30 September 2019, the resident visited the landlord’s office and met with it. At the meeting, the landlord agreed to help try and locate the resident’s mattress.
On 1 October 2019, the landlord visited the property, it reported checking all areas of the property and finding “medium activity” regarding the bed bugs and sprayed the property. The report advised that the resident should wash all his linen at 60 degrees to kill any of the insect eggs and that the bed would need replacing because of its poor condition.
On 18 October 2019, pest control attended the resident’s property to treat the bed bug problem and reported that there was a bed bug infestation. The treatment report indicated the infestation had been going on for four to eight months prior to pest control’s arrival.
An appointment had been arranged for pest control to attend the property on 31 October 2019, when the pest control team arrived at the resident’s flat, he cancelled the appointment. The resident said he was not given any prior notice and so was unable to complete the appointment as it would mean him needing to leave the flat for several hours whilst the property was treated. The landlord says it has no record of the resident rearranging another appointment.
On 1 November 2019, the landlord returned what it says was the resident’s mattress to the outside of his flat door. The resident later called the landlord saying that the mattress was not his.
On 25 November 2019, the landlord says it received reports of antisocial behaviour regarding the resident from other neighbours which included the resident writing on the walls in the communal area outside of his flat.
Shortly after, the resident painted a message on the wall in the communal area outside of his flat which he stated was an apology to other residents for the situation with the mattress in the hallway.
On 17 December 2019, at the request of the resident the Environmental Health department went to visit the resident’s flat, with the landlord’s pest control team in attendance. Between the Environmental Health officer and the pest control technician it was agreed that the following should be done to deal with the infestation:

The resident to wash his bed linen on the highest temperature setting.
Vacuuming of the floor.
Further spraying of the flat with insecticide.

On 3 April 2020, the landlord made a welfare check on the resident where he reported that the infestation problem was continuing.
On 6 April 2020, pest control visited the flat and found live bed bugs in the property, which was then treated with insecticide.
On 4 May 2020, pest control visited the property again and found no evidence of recent or current pest activity, however they still treated the property with insecticide.
On 2 July 2020, the resident complained to the landlord as he did not feel that the issue with the infestation had been solved, or that his original mattress had been returned to him. The resident was also unhappy with a warning letter that he had been sent in regard to his alleged antisocial behaviour.
On 8 July 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
On 28 July 2020, the landlord sent the resident its stage one response to the complaint, which, in summary said the following:

The first treatment for the infestation was carried out on 18 October 2019, where a medium level of pest activity was found. The treatment report suggested that the activity had been going on for at least four to eight months prior, but there was no evidence of the resident having previously raised the issue.
There was a visit to treat the property arranged for 31 October 2019, which the resident cancelled when the technician arrived and there is no record of him rearranging another appointment for his flat to be treated.
The resident arranged for the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) to attend the property on 17 December 2019, representatives from the landlord were also in attendance.
The EHO and the pest control technician agreed that measures including washing the bed linen and setting the highest setting and vacuuming the floor and further pest control treatment were necessary.
The EHO was satisfied that the landlord had a pest control contract in place and were following all the necessary guidelines to eradicate the problem.
It was sorry to hear that the resident was continuing to suffer from bed bugs, as the last treatment report from 4 May 2020, stated that there was no fresh or current pest activity and that instructions for good housekeeping had been put in place for the resident.
On 17 September 2019, the landlord was notified that there was a mattress on the rooftop garden. Two members of staff removed the mattress and placed it in the store cupboard. The resident called the landlord who arranged to have the mattress returned.
Staff provided photos of the mattresses in its cupboard giving the resident an opportunity to see whether any of them were his.
Residents should contact the landlord when looking to get rid of a mattress as the landlord has a responsibility for the health and safety of all of the residents.
Although the mattress when returned was placed outside of the resident’s flat he alleged that this was not his mattress. It was then left outside in the hallway which caused problems for other residents trying to get past.
When the landlord asked the resident whether or not the mattress should be disposed of, the resident wrote on the walls, defacing the communal property which was not acceptable.
The Environmental Health Officer explained that the likelihood of contaminating other residents’ properties due to moving the mattress may increase the likelihood of the bed bugs spreading through cross contamination.
The landlord’s staff have met with the resident to discuss his behaviour and it has followed its antisocial behaviour process.
The resident described his mattress as having been given to him in 2002, saying it was thick, and heavy duty, however the landlord’s staff said that the mattress it recovered was very light and thin.
If the mattress was 18 years old and the resident had bed bugs for some time, there would be a certain staining and discolouration on the mattress. This is the opposite of the resident’s description of the mattress being in a brand new condition.
The landlord tried hard to locate the missing mattress and does not believe that it was intentionally removed. Therefore, it is not upholding the resident’s complaint about the missing mattress.

On 11 September 2020, the landlord received notification that the resident wanted to escalate the complaint. On the same day, the landlord sent an email to the resident asking what outcome he wanted in order to resolve the complaint.
Between 6 April 2020 and 4 March 2021, the landlord made six visits to deal with the bed bug infestation by spraying the flat with insecticide.
On 8 October 2020, the resident’s property was treated again by spraying with insecticide.
On 5 November 2020, another visit to the resident’s property was carried out by pest control. A low level of pest activity was found and the property was treated with insecticide. The technician advised that the resident wash his linen at 60 degrees to kill any insect eggs and for the resident to remove unwanted items from his property to allow for a full inspection.
On 19 November 2020, pest control carried out another visit to the property and found no new evidence of live insects. The property was then treated with insecticide.
On 3 December 2020, pest control visited the resident’s property and found a low level of insect activity. It again recommended that the tenant wash his linen at 60 degrees to kill any insect eggs and also that he remove old items from the property to allow for a full inspection and the treatment of all areas. The technician took pictures to show the way in which the property was being kept.
On 17 December 2020, pest control paid another visit to the resident’s property and found no new evidence of bed bug activity. The pest control technician’s report says that they noticed a “medium” level of activity of biscuit beetles in the kitchen. It goes on to say that the resident was advised that a deep clean and declutter of the flat was required to throw away infested food products to prevent them becoming breeding grounds for insects. The landlord has provided pictures of the resident’s work surfaces.
On 4 March 2021, pest control visited the resident’s property – there had been no recent reports of bed bugs and there was no evidence of their presence found by the technician. The property was sprayed with insecticide as a precautionary measure.
On 18 March 2021, pest control visited the resident’s property – there had been no recent reports of bed bugs and there was no evidence of their presence found by the technician. The property was sprayed with insecticide as a precautionary measure.
On 26 April 2021, the resident attended a stage 2 appeal hearing by video conference in order to explain his concerns to the panel after which the outcome was summarised in the landlord’s final response letter.
On 28 April 2021, the landlord issued the final response which, in summary, said the following:

It recognised that although there was an extensive treatment program in place the bed bugs were not eradicated.
The landlord recommended an independent organisation support the resident to help reduce his excess contents and surplus furniture. Then once the contents had been reduced a deep clean and spray would be carried out to eradicate any sings of the bed bugs.
The Panel felt that the landlord could not prove that it had returned the resident’s original mattress.
The landlord should the replace the mattress.
The resident had agreed to these measures at the stage two panel hearing.

On 13 May 2021, the resident asked this Service to investigate the complaint as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to the pest infestation. The resident said that the warning letter he received from the landlord was threatening.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident has been decanted and further work has been carried out in the property to eradicate the pest problem. The resident also raised a query about the mattress and the information provided for this investigation indicate that it is an orthopaedic mattress.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of bed bugs in his flat

The landlord was first made aware of the pest issue on 17 September 2019. It then organised for pest control to visit the resident’s flat within approximately two weeks to investigate the issues and to treat the flat with insecticide. A further visit was arranged on 18 October 2019, where there was evidence found that the problem had been going on for several months before the resident had made the landlord aware of it. As well as treating the flat again the resident was advised on measures he could take to help eliminate the issues (such as washing the bed linen on the highest temperature and vacuuming the floors). By doing this the landlord has demonstrated that it responded promptly to the resident’s initial reports of pest infestation and took appropriate measures to deal with the issue.
The pest control technician attended the resident’s flat again on 31 October 2019, there is some dispute as to whether or not the resident was given prior knowledge of this appointment, as he was caught unawares when the technician arrived. As a result, the resident cancelled the appointment as carrying out the treatment would have meant that he would have to vacate the flat for several hours, which he was unable to do at that time. No further treatment or intervention was made until 17 December 2019, as the resident had asked the Environmental Heath Team to come and inspect the flat. The landlord says this is because the resident never made contact to rearrange the pest control appointment he had cancelled on 31 October 2019.
It is fair to say that there was some responsibility on the resident to have contacted the landlord to arrange another appointment. However, the landlord was aware that there was an infestation problem and that treatment for the problem was needed. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the landlord would have followed up to ensure that another appointment was made and it was inappropriate that it did not do this.
The resident asked Environmental Health to come and inspect his flat. The Environmental Health Officer (EHO), attended the flat on 17 December 2019, along with the pest control technician. It was agreed that a combination of washing bed linen at the highest temperature setting, vacuuming the floor and further pest control treatments were the correct course of action. The flat was then treated again with insecticide. The landlord received no further reports of infestation issues from the resident until 3 April 2020, where he mentioned during a welfare check by the landlord that the problem was still ongoing. The landlord treated the property again in April 2020 and then a further six times up to March 2021. During these visits bed bugs were found to be present intermittently at varying levels of activity. Notably during the pest control visit on 17 December 2020, no bed bug activity was found but there was evidence of another type of insect in the resident’s flat.
The landlord has provided this Service with pictures taken by the technician which show the resident’s work surfaces which are heavily filled with various food products and containers and that the flat was filled with a large amount of contents. The technician advised the resident to clear any infested food product and to remove excess contents from the flat for the flat to be deep cleaned. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer advice to the resident as to how he could reduce the likelihood of an infestation while also conducting its own treatment programme.
The resident initially complained to the landlord on 2 July 2020, as he was unhappy the problem had not been resolved. The landlord responded reiterating the measures that had been agreed with the EHO and stressing that it was taking action in accordance with this. When the resident escalated his complaint the landlord in its final response to the complaint acknowledged that its current programme of treatment had not resolved the issue and it did the following:

Recommended an independent organisation to help support the resident in reducing his excess furniture and contents.
Agreed to undertake a deep clean and respraying of the flat once the excess contents had been removed.

When the resident complained it was reasonable for the landlord to refer to the measures agreed with the EHO and to reiterate that it was continuing to take those actions. When the complaint was reviewed the landlord decided to take further measures beyond those it had initially agreed to try and resolve the issue. In doing so the landlord has acted appropriately in demonstrating that it was that it was focussed on trying to resolve the issues.

The landlord’s handling of alleged antisocial behaviour by the resident

On 20 November 2019, the landlord sent a warning letter to the resident as it says that he committed acts of antisocial behaviour, which included writing on his front door and the wall next to it. The landlord intended to repair the damage and charge this to the resident. The letter stated that it was a warning and that it was monitoring the resident’s behaviour as further incidences of antisocial behaviour could affect his tenancy. The resident believes that the letter was unfounded and intimidating.
The resident’s tenancy conditions state in Section Four, point six, that the resident has a responsibility to take reasonable care of common parts of the building. Point ten of the same section states that the tenant is responsible for making good any damage he may cause to the “common parts” of the building and to pay any cost the landlord incurs in fixing that damage. The resident agrees that he did write on the walls on the landing outside his flat. That being the case it was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with a warning regarding his behaviour and to charge the resident for the cost of repair, in line with the conditions of the tenancy. Therefore, the landlord’s response was appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of bed bugs in his flat.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of alleged antisocial behaviour by the resident.

Reasons

The landlord was aware that there was an infestation problem which had not been resolved. It should have followed up on this, even if the resident was responsible for booking another appointment.
The landlord’s response to reports of ASB by the resident was reasonable and in line with the conditions of his tenancy.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failure identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident £70 in recognition of its service failure in its handling of the resident’s report.

The landlord to reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to supply the resident with a copy of the invoice (redacted as necessary), showing the specifications of the mattress it purchased.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report