Clarion Housing Association Limited (201909272)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909272

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 May 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in his property and the communal areas.

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. There is a managing agent (MA) who acted on the landlord’s behalf. Prior to this complaint being escalated to this Service, the resident ended his tenancy with the landlord in part due to the pest infestation.
3. It is important to establish that the landlord and MA both acknowledge that additional reports of pests could have been made, but it was not possible to retrieve any record of these due to a system change. Therefore, this Service can only consider the evidence that has been provided but appreciates that this may not be a complete timeline of the resident’s reports.
4. On 18 February 2019 and 25 March 2019, the resident reported that in bushes external to his property, rats had been seen and it was recommended that these be cut back. A date for the completion of this work was not provided. There were no further reports of pests made by the resident until December 2019.
5. In December 2019, the landlord attended the resident’s property on three occasions. Two of these occasions were for routine inspections where no evidence of pests was identified, and on 16 December 2019 an inspection took place of the property to investigate for any pests in the property. During this inspection, no pests were identified but it was acknowledged that, if there were pests externally, there were some areas of the resident’s property which would benefit from proofing. The landlord arranged to attend the property on 20 December 2019 to complete the works; however, the resident was unable to accommodate this appointment and subsequently requested to end his tenancy. The tenancy ended on 25 January 2020.
6. Between January 2020 and February 2021, the resident made a series of complaints to the landlord relating to a variety of issues. However, these were not progressed to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure. This Service contacted the landlord in February 2021, after being advised by the resident that a response to his complaint had not been provided. The resident explained that his complaint regarded the handling of pests in the property and in the communal areas. This Service requested the landlord provide a response to the resident about these matters, on his behalf.
7. In its complaint response, the landlord stated that it understood the resident’s complaint to be about pest issues within his flat and the communal areas. It further understood that the resident was dissatisfied that he had to terminate his tenancy due to the lack of action taken by the landlord, and due to this, faced homelessness and found it difficult to register on the housing list. It understood that as a resolution, the resident was seeking support in being rehoused and compensation.
8. It stated that after having investigated the resident’s complaint, it found that it would be responsible for managing any internal infestations of the property and the MA would be responsible for any external pest control treatment. It found that during its many visits, there was no evidence of any pests being in the property for which it was responsible for. However, it was assured that the MA had been completing pest infestation treatment within the block. In relation to the resident’s request to be supported in registering on the housing list, he was informed he would be required to contact the Local Authority (LA) as it handled all of its housing allocations. As a resolution, it offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
9. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service in July 2022. The resident stated that his complaint related to the level of rent and service charges, the landlord’s request to have his boiler repaired and a rat infestation in his property. As a resolution, the resident has requested compensation for the storage of personal items which lasted a year and compensation for the distress and inconvenience at being made homeless.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

10. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for identifying and blocking any potential access points in the structure of its properties.

Scope of investigation

11. In his escalation to this Service, the resident has raised several issues which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. This includes the level of rent and service charges and the resident’s request to have a boiler repaired. These matters were not raised to the landlord within the original complaint. As these matters are a separate issue to the complaint raised with the landlord, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage. As such, no further comment will be made surrounding these matter.

Assessment

12. Where there are multiple parties involved in the maintenance of a property and estate, the first action the landlord should take is to establish what aspect of a property it is responsible for. In this case, the resident reported a pest infestation in the property and in the communal areas. The landlord established that it was responsible for the internal of the property, whereas the MA would be responsible for the communal areas.
13. In light of this, when the resident reported sighting of pests in the communal areas in February 2019 and March 2019, it took appropriate action in referring this to the MA. It also further followed up on these reports with the MA to ensure that it had taken the appropriate actions and that there were no further reports.
14. Therefore, when in December 2019 the resident reported concerns about a pest infestation inside of the property, as per the landlord’s repairs policy, it was responsible for identifying and blocking any potential access points in the structure of the property. The landlord completed this inspection on 16 December 2019, but did not identify any pests. Therefore, no pest treatment was required to be completed.
15. However, it did identify a number of areas that would benefit from pest proofing in- line with its obligations. Therefore, the landlord acted in accordance with its policy by attending and inspecting the internal areas, and then arranging for works to be completed to ensure pests could not access the property.
16. Whilst it is a fundamental part of the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether a landlord has acted appropriately in response to a formal complaint, this will often necessitate an assessment of how the resident’s own actions may have contributed to the situation. Rather than demonstrating bias in favour of the landlord, this is an example of our independent and impartial role in practice, as we consider the conduct of both parties equally.
17. The landlord arranged for the works in the property to be completed on 23 December 2019; however, the resident stated that he was unable to accommodate this. The landlord offered to rearrange this for 6 January 2020 and 9 January 2020. However, the resident rejected these appointments as he had decided to end his tenancy on 23 December 2019. Therefore, there was no pest proofing treatment completed owing to the resident’s refusal. This would not be the fault of the landlord and compensation would not be owed for this.
18. It is recognised that the resident would like compensation for the storage of personal items and for the distress and inconvenience of becoming homeless; however, these matters occurred as a result of the resident’s own actions and decisions. Therefore, whilst this Service understands how distressing this time had been for the resident, it would not be reasonable to order the landlord to compensate the resident for these matters as it was resident’s choice to end his tenancy.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in his property and the communal areas.