The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Citizen Housing (202215591)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215591

Citizen Housing

23 February 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a rodent infestation in the resident’s property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since February 2018. The property is a house and the resident lived there with her 4 children.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s website says that in most cases it is the resident’s responsibility to deal with pest problems in their home or garden. It will deal with the problem if this is due to any neglect or disrepair by the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy and license management policy said that discretionary moves could be considered where there were circumstances that seriously impacted the health and wellbeing of a resident or household members.
  3. The landlord’s decant procedure said that where a resident moved into temporary accommodation and there were no cooking facilities, it would consider a discretionary payment of up to £40 per day for a family with one or more children, where breakfast was not provided. When breakfast was included, the amount per day would reduce by £10. The payments would be made on a weekly basis. It would also pay reasonable expenses involved in a temporary move, including travel costs.
  4. The landlord’s complaints procedure at the time of the complaint said that it would respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 working days. Where there were delays, it would inform the resident and provide a revised timeframe for the response to be provided.
  5. The landlord’s compensation procedure and compensation matrix at the time of the complaint said:
    1. Discretionary compensation claims would be agreed where the landlord’s actions or practices had not been in line with its published service standards, policies and procedures. The resident must have suffered an inconvenience or loss as a direct result of the landlord’s service failure in order to receive any compensation.
    2. Compensation for inconvenience would be valued at £10 per service failure, up to a maximum of £200.

Summary of events

  1. The resident reported rodents in the property in September 2021 and the landlord told her to contact the local authority for support to resolve the issue.
  2. In January 2022 the resident reported the rodent infestation twice and, on the second occasion, said that she believed this was caused by a neighbouring property. The landlord visited on 28 January 2022 and confirmed this. On the same day the landlord completed a management move request form for the resident due to the “severe mouse and rat infestation”. It noted that the health of the resident and her children was being impacted.
  3. A week later the landlord received contact from a school support worker on behalf of the resident. They advised that the situation was becoming a potential safeguarding issue and asked for the family to be moved urgently. The following day the landlord told the resident it would provide her with temporary accommodation.
  4. On 8 February 2022 the landlord raised a works order to investigate the rodent infestation and noted that a bait officer would be attending the following day.
  5. The landlord provided the resident with temporary accommodation in a hotel from 11 February 2022. Seven days later it provided a self-contained temporary accommodation unit.
  6. Later that month the resident asked for an update on what was going to happen regarding the property and the management move. She queried whether she could receive compensation for damaged items and costs incurred from moving.
  7. In March 2022 the landlord told the resident that it had authorised a management move for her. The following month she was offered, and signed the tenancy for, an alternative property.
  8. On 8 April 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the infestation. The rodents had destroyed her furniture and she wanted compensation for the damage caused.
  9. The following month the resident provided photo evidence of the infestation and the damage caused, as well as receipts for items she had replaced and the costs incurred. She said she had asked the landlord whether she could get financial support at the time of the temporary move, but did not get an answer.  She was only told the day she signed the tenancy for her new property that she needed to make a complaint.
  10. On 10 June 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, which said:
    1. It was the resident’s responsibility to resolve pest issues in a house and it would support by offering advice, which it had done when she first reported the issue in September 2021. Following its visit in January 2022, due to the nature of the infestation, if decided to offer her alternative accommodation.
    2. It offered her £20 a day to support with the move to temporary accommodation that did not have cooking facilities, which was £140 for the 7 days for a family of 4. It apologised this was not processed at the time. It also offered £40 as contribution to fuel expenses.
    3. It would only compensate for damaged items where it had done something wrong or been negligent. As it had responded to her reports and had not caused the infestation, it would not agree to compensate her for any damage to personal items. It suggested she could claim on her home contents insurance.
    4. It offered an additional £200 compensation for the time taken to provide the complaint response.
    5. It would look at this again if new information came to light.
  11. The resident asked for her complaint to be looked at again on 22 June 2022 as this issue had negatively impacted her finances and her and her children’s health. The rodent problem had been reported by a neighbour several years before but nothing had been done. She had spent 6 months clearing her garden and had to remove a large shed that was left by the previous resident and queried whether this had been picked up as part of the mutual exchange inspection. She raised concerns regarding repairs that had been reported after moving in but not resolved and delays to a new kitchen being fitted due to the COVID-19 lockdown.
  12. On 19 July 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response which said that it agreed with the stage 1 response and that the compensation offered was fair.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has suggested that the infestation was present in the property at the time she moved in, in 2018. Complaints should be brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 6 months. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme).
  2. As the formal complaint was not brought to the landlord until April 2022, this investigation focuses on matters that occurred from September 2021. While this is slightly over the suggested 6 month period, this was the first record of the resident reporting this matter to the landlord and so it is fair and reasonable to extend the investigation to cover this period. 
  3. The resident has reported that this matter has negatively affected the health and well-being of her and her children. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the ill-health of her and her children. The resident 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 failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman 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 service failure by the landlord.

Handling of a rodent infestation in the property

  1. The landlord does not have a policy on pest control but the guidance on its website says that in most cases, the landlord is not responsible for treating pests in resident’s properties and gardens. Its guidance on this subject is very limited and while it gives some information about when it would deal with pest issues, further guidance on when it would take responsibility for these issues and what action it would take, would be useful to ensure consistency in its approach and so residents know what to expect of it. A wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme has been made below for the landlord to review its practises around pest control in order to introduce a formal policy and procedure on this matter.
  2. In this case, when the resident first reported the rodent infestation in September 2021, the landlord offered advice on treating this herself, which was reasonable and in line with its guidance, as detailed above. When the landlord identified the severity of the infestation and that it was caused by a neighbouring property in January 2022, it took reasonable and timely action to address this, which was appropriate considering the circumstances of the resident and the neighbour.
  3. Due to the severity of the infestation and the impact on the resident and her children, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider a management move for her in line with its tenancy and license management policy, as detailed above. It did this the same day it identified the issue, which showed that it took the matter seriously and properly considered the impact of this on the family.
  4. From the records provided, there is no evidence that the landlord considered a temporary move at the same time, which would have been appropriate considering the severity of the infestation and the impact. It was not until the landlord received further information from a school support worker a week later that it considered this and agreed to provide temporary accommodation. While only a minor delay, this would have been upsetting for the resident as the landlord knew how this was impacting her and her children.
  5. The landlord does not appear to have a management move policy or procedure and so there is no set timeframe for these to be considered. Due to the urgent nature of these types of moves, it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider and decide on these applications as quickly as possible. In this case, the landlord authorised the resident’s management move in around 6 weeks, which is slightly longer than would be expected. However, this was not a significant concern as the resident was in temporary accommodation and so there was no ongoing detrimental impact from the infestation.
  6. Going forward, it would be useful for the landlord to have a set policy and procedure on management moves to ensure consistency in its approach and so resident’s know what to expect of the landlord. A wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme has been made below for the landlord to review its practises around management moves and introduce a formal policy and procedure.
  7. When the resident asked about financial compensation to support her during the temporary move in February 2022, there is no record that the landlord responded to this. It was 4 months later, after the resident made a formal complaint, that the landlord offered her financial compensation to cover the costs incurred. This amounts to maladministration as the landlord should have proactively provided this to the resident in line with its decant procedure, as detailed above. The landlord apologised for this as part of its response to her complaint but did not consider whether any other redress was required. Orders have been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation and to provide staff training on its decant procedure.
  8. The landlord offered the resident £40 for reimbursement of fuel costs, which was in line with its decant procedure, as detailed above. It also offered her £20 per day for meal replacement for the 7 days she was in hotel accommodation; however, this was not in line with its decant procedure. The landlord said that its offer was in recognition of a family of 4; however, the resident was decanted with her partner and 4 children. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer the maximum amount in line with its procedure, which was £30 per day, as the booking included breakfast.
  9. The landlord’s failure to comply with its decant procedure amounts to maladministration and an order has been made below for it to pay the resident £250 for reimbursement of costs incurred during the decant, made up of £40 for fuel costs and £210 for meal replacement costs, if not done so already.
  10. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy, as detailed above. This is because it  was not the cause of this and took reasonable steps to address the infestation. The landlord also appropriately suggested that the resident could claim via her contents insurance.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in 41 working days and the stage 2 complaint in 20 working days, which was over the committed response times set out in its complaints procedure, as detailed above. There is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with any updates during the periods of delay, as is committed within its procedure. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident uncertain about when she would receive a response.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time said that on completion of stage 1, the landlord must confirm in writing details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident was not satisfied with the answer. In this case, the landlord did not do that and instead said that it would look at the matter again if new information came to light. This was an incorrect approach to complaint handling as it was not necessary for new information to come to light for the matter to be reviewed at stage 2. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on complaint handling in line with its complaint procedure and the Code.
  3. The resident raised several new issues as part of her escalation request in June 2022, including delayed repairs and kitchen replacement and a query around the mutual exchange inspection. While the landlord was under no obligation to address these as part of the ongoing complaint investigation, it should have told the resident how it intended to deal with these new issues. For example, whether these would be investigated as a new complaint or whether, due to the length of time passed, it would not investigate the issues at all. An order has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident regarding these issues and provide written confirmation of what, if any, action it will take to investigate them.
  4. The landlord accurately acknowledged there had been service failure in its complaint handling and offered £200 compensation, which was appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. However, it did not apologise, which would have been fair and showed that it genuinely wanted to put things right for the resident and restore the relationship. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident the £200 compensation, if not done so already, and apologise for its poor complaint handling.
  5. The Ombudsman has decided to issue 2 wider orders under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme for the landlord to review its practices in relation to issues identified in this determination, which may give rise to further complaints about these matters. We have set out the scope of the reviews below.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. handling of a rodent infestation in the property.
    2. complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of rodents in the property was reasonable and in line with the guidance on its website. When it established that the infestation was caused by a neighbouring property, it took timely action to address this, which was appropriate. The landlord quickly progressed a management move application for the resident but there was a minor delay in it considering and progressing a temporary decant. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial request for financial reimbursement for costs incurred as a result of the decant and it was not until after she made a complaint that this was offered to her. It apologised for this but did not consider whether any other redress was required. When it did make an offer of financial reimbursement for costs incurred, the amount offered for meal replacements was not in line with its decant procedure. While frustrating for the resident, its response to her request for compensation for damaged items was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.
  2. The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed at stage 1 and 2. During the periods of delay it failed to update the resident, which would have resulted in her being uncertain about when she would receive a response. The landlord appropriately identified service failure and offered compensation; however, it did not apologise. The landlord did not properly confirm how the resident could escalate her complaint within its stage 1 response and adopted an incorrect approach to complaint handling when it said it would only look at the matter again if new information came to light. The resident raised several new concerns as part of her request for the matter to be looked at again and while the landlord was not obligated to consider these as part of the ongoing complaint investigation, it should have told her how it would be addressing these issues.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £600 compensation, made up of £150 for its handling of a rodent infestation in the property, £250 for costs incurred as a result of the decant (if not done so already) and £200 for its complaint handling (if not done so already).
    2. Apologise to the resident for its complaint handling.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss the issues raised as part of her escalation request dated 22 June 2022 and provide written confirmation of what, if any action it will take to investigate these concerns.
  2. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks.
  3. Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide staff training on:
    1. its decant procedure.
    2. complaint handling in line with its complaints procedure and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  4. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 8 weeks.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, within 12 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to consider the failings identified in this report and complete a review at senior management level of its practices around pest control. The outcome of this review to include the introduction of a formal policy and procedure, identifying the roles and responsibilities of the landlord and resident’s in relation to treatment and management of pest infestations.
  6. The landlord to provide a copy of the review to the Ombudsman with any proposals within 12 weeks of the date of this report, including timeframes for implementation and a plan for staff training.
  7. In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, within 12 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to consider the failings identified in this report and complete a review at senior management level of its practices around management moves. The outcome of this review to include the introduction of a formal policy and procedure, identifying:
    1. The circumstances in which a management move would be required and the evidence needed to support this.
    2. Any eligibility conditions that would need to be met by resident’s.
    3. The application process for a management move, including a set pro-forma for this to be recorded and timescales for this to completed and approved.
    4. A process for recording, monitoring and reviewing approved management move applications.
    5. A process for appeals or challenges to decisions, including a timeframe for these to be considered and responded to.
  8. The landlord to provide a copy of the review to the Ombudsman with any proposals within 12 weeks of the date of this report, including timeframes for implementation and a plan for staff training.