Clarion Housing Association Limited (202114998)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114998

Clarion Housing Association Limited

19 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of an ongoing pigeons’ infestation.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns of the difference between the service charge actuals and estimates for year 2020/2021 and the service charge increase.
3. Associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of a two-bedroom flat, situated on the fourth floor of a building owned and managed by the landlord.
The lease sets out the contract between the parties. The landlord is obligated to maintain the common parts of the estate. The resident is obligated to pay a proportion of the service charge, including costs reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect to the maintenance and services it provides in respect of the common parts of the building. The service charge is variable, and the leaseholder is asked to pay towards estimated costs, for which excesses or deficits are consolidated every year.
Pest control services are included in the service provision of the estate, for which annual service charges are applied. The lease also sets out the landlord’s obligation to maintain and keep in good condition the exterior wall, foundations, roof of the building and the common parts.
The landlord’s tenancy management policy sets out its responsibilities, which are as follows:
1. Take measures to prevent problems from the build-up of pigeon droppings.
2. Regularly inspect estates with known pest control problems and enter into a pest control contract for regular treatments for high-risk blocks or estates (this will normally form part of the service charge).
3. Repair any damage to the structure of the buildings.
4. Eradicate any infestations and pests in communal areas.
5. Arrange for regular cleaning of communal areas.
6. Arrange for the eradication of pests in a resident’s home where the problem is clearly traced to an infestation in a communal area.
7. Undertake or arrange treatment where a whole block or several flats are affected (this may be service chargeable).
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Pest Infestation and pigeons fouling are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS.
Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Local authorities have powers to act under HHSRS, but enforcement is seen as a last resort. Typically, landlords and local authorities work together, and a programme of improvement works is usually the starting point.
The landlord has two stages to its complaint policy. At stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, (The Code) sets out in paragraph 5.6 that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, reference the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The resident received the estimated service charge bill for year 2020/21 on 7 February 2020. The bill had an estimated increase from the previous year, from £1066.80 to £1190.19.
The evidence suggests that the pigeon infestation dated back to 2019. The complaint about pigeons’ infestation had been previously considered by the Ombudsman under reference 201816896. In the course of the Ombudsman’s previous investigation, the resident contacted his MP in January and March 2020 for assistance with the ongoing issue. The resident informed the MP who forwarded the information to the landlord that the pigeon infestation was also the cause of a fly infestation. He said he had suggested to the landlord that he would be prepared to put spikes on his part of the roof section but requested that the landlord complete the spikes to the guttering and to deal with the birds’ nesting.
On 29 April 2020, this Service issued under reference 201816896 a determination in relation to the pigeons’ infestation. The Ombudsman found maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the pigeons’ issue up to the report date and ordered the landlord to follow the recommendation of the specialist contractor and consider its obligations under the HHSRS. The Ombudsman also ordered compensation of £350.
On 20 May 2020, the landlord’s correspondence suggests that approved trapping was planned and a specialist contractor inspection of the pigeon infestation issue was approved.
On 1 June 2020, the landlord’s pest control contractor issued a report. It was noted in the report that the inspection had been conducted following the resident’s complaints of noise and birds’ fouling. It stated:
1. There was heavy pigeon activity and heavy fouling.
2. There was evidence of gull activity found in the form of fouling.
3. It recommended the installation of netting over the part of the resident’s roof to prevent birds from roosting and nesting.
4. Pigeons’ droppings were acidic and could erode most surfaces. Their fouling could be a public health hazard and must be cleaned regularly.
On 5 June 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and said it had attached a letter to explain what action it would take to deal with the pigeons. This Service has not seen the letter the landlord referred to. On 18 June 2020, a job was raised for the pest control contractor to install a roof net on the part that covered the resident’s property.
On 21 July 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord. He said:
1. A contractor had attended the affected area and had advised the resident that the issue was a health hazard. He also said flies that he had previously reported (this Service has seen no evidence of these reports) were due to the “mess and pigeons”.
2. The contractor had looked in the loft and had recorded birds nesting.
3. There was a hole outside where the pigeons were getting in. However, it was not visible from the landing.
4. He wanted the landlord to repair the loft and deal with the pigeons as a matter of urgency.
5. His mental health and wellbeing were affected and there was “unbearable every day” noise coming from the birds upstairs.
Following a further visit from the landlord’s contractor on 28 July 2020, the resident chased an update on the pigeons’ in the loft. The resident reported that the contractors had been searching for a hole in the roof but had not been able to find it. They had tried to access the loft from his flat, but pigeons’ mess had fallen out. The resident stated that they had told him it was against health and safety procedures to go into the loft.
On 15 August 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said:
1. It had discussed the issues with the resident on 10 August 2020.
2. It confirmed that its contractors, during the visit to the property from 28 July 2020, had not found birds in the roof space. There was evidence of fouling inside the space, however, it could not determine whether the fouling was from recent bird activity.
3. The specialist contractor had not identified any holes from the inside, but due to limited space and the loose insulation, which was a hazard, the contractors had not fully explored the loft. It had recommended further investigation from the outside.
4. It noted that due to the extreme heat at the time, the pigeons might not have been active, and the resident had agreed with this during their telephone conversation. It advised that the resident could contact the landlord if there was any change in the birds’ activity.
5. Since 1 June 2020, more than 118 pigeons had been trapped. In addition, the netting that had been placed on the roof had contributed to a reduction in the number of pigeons in the area.
On 16 August 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord providing a video of the pigeons in the loft. He said:
1. The video had been recorded on 19 July 2020.
2. He believed the pigeons might get in below the insulation as the noise from the video suggested.
3. He wanted a proper investigation as the window ledges and the gazebos put up by his neighbours were “covered in the birds’ excrement”.
The landlord authorised further investigation by its contractors into the pigeons’ activity in the loft. It wrote on 5 September 2020 to inform the resident of this. In further correspondence, the landlord informed the resident that the contractors would commence the approved works and would contact him for the bird proofing of the building which was meant to start the week commencing 21 September 2020.
On 11 September 2020, the landlord completed work to the communal areas related to spiking and some bird points, which were to act as a natural barrier to prevent birds from alighting and roosting in the affected areas.
On 15 September 2020, in internal correspondence, the landlord acknowledged its conversation with the resident from the same day. The resident said that the hole had not been identified and there were “maggots droppings through his loft hatch”. The landlord acknowledged internally that the issue was becoming a health and safety issue and as such, the point of entry of the birds should be identified urgently.
On 28 September 2020, in internal emails the landlord stated that proofing works were still ongoing. On 5 October 2020, the landlord asked its contractors for the nature of the works undertaken to block the holes as it had received a report of leakage from the resident following those works. It also internally discussed its obligation to repair and decorate the resident’s property. The contractor said as follows:
1. The pigeons’ entry points above the resident’s flat had been sealed.
2. The bird points had been installed in different points of the communal areas and the roof.
3. Although the works were completed there was an ongoing issue due to the roof design and the length of gullies. Pigeons had been able to access the gullies unrestricted and had nested there. All these gullies contained “pigeon guano, live birds and nesting material”.
4. It was of “no surprise” that the resident had suffered rainwater leakage as the gullies were blocked with fouling.
5. It recommended that a qualified roofing contractor remove the metal coping to allow access to the gullies in order for them to be cleared and then the metal coping to be placed back.
On 12 October 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord. He said he could hear the birds back in the loft area. He was also concerned that the rainwater was mixing with the fouling above the bedroom ceiling and had been seeping through the plasterboard and leaving stains. The resident was also worried that this was a health issue.
On 14 November and 19 November 2020, in further correspondence between the resident and the landlord, the landlord said:
1. It had used biocide for the fouling.
2. It believed no further treatment was required.
3. The redecoration to the resident’s property would also include disinfection and a coat to neutralise any foul smell in the property (this Service has not seen evidence of the completion date of those works).
On 4 December 2020, the landlord completed clearance of “the rainwater routes” in the communal areas. On 15 December 2020, the landlord received a pest control report from its contractor. The report provided photos of the works completed. However, this Service has not seen the full report or the technical recommendations as the link to it had expired.
The landlord’s documents suggest that the pigeon issues in the communal areas were further discussed. However, there is a gap in the evidence from December 2020 until July 2021. On 15 July 2021, following a communal meeting the resident requested information from the landlord about whether it would send someone to look at the pigeon issue. He reported mess outside his front door and landing and asked who was responsible for the cleaning.
On 27 September 2021, the landlord issued its service charge actuals for £2180 and provided a breakdown of the services. The resident’s service charge enquiry was raised on 15 October 2021, but this Service has not seen it. The landlord acknowledged the enquiry the same day.
On 7 December 2021, the resident contacted this Service and explained that he had experienced difficulties in raising his complaint and asked for assistance. This Service forwarded the complaint to the landlord the same day.
On 6 January 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:
1. It acknowledged it received the service charge enquiry on 15 October 2021, but it had not responded to it.
2. The resident paid variable service charges and the cost varied from year to year. It spent more than the estimated service charges for the financial year 2020/2021 and this had been highlighted in the actuals letter of 27 September 2021. It attached the letter with the breakdown of the total costs.
3. Its neighbouring response manager (NRM) had confirmed the resident had reported the issue of pigeons on 8 December 2021. It acknowledged the pigeons in the loft was an issue dating back to 2019. Its pest control contractor had been attending and completing surveys since the issue was first reported. As it was a communal area, it would need to confirm with all the residents before netting was installed and then it would instruct its contractors.
4. There had been a failure due to lack of communication and returning of the resident’s calls. It offered £50 for delays in communication and £50 for inconvenience caused by repeatedly having to chase responses and the impact of the complaint.
On 20 January 2022, the landlord completed jobs related to:
1. Cleaning and treatment of all the bird fouling. However, it noted that some of the staining would remain due to the acidity of the fouling.
2. Any remainder and birds left were dispatched humanely and the area treated with Biocide.
3. The installation of a 50mm knotted netting in the affected area. However, the contractor had advised that the birds could be displaced as such and could move to other areas which were not protected.
In February 2022, the resident raised further issue with scaffolding being erected and asked the landlord for the purpose of it. The resident subsequently contacted this Service for further assistance with the issues of scaffolding and service charges. On 2 March 2022, the resident escalated his complaint following this Service’s advice. On 28 March 2022, the resident further wrote to the landlord following its request to explain that the service charge actuals seemed too high and asked the landlord to review them. On 31 March 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and explained that due to staff absence it had delayed looking into his complaint.
On 16 April 2022, the landlord completed further bird trapping. On 21 April 2022, it called the resident to discuss the complaint and apologised for the delay. The landlord noted:
1. During the telephone call, the resident reported the issues with the pigeons had been resolved after the netting had been installed. However, this was not the case in other parts of the buildings.
2. The resident “was still very concerned” about the service charges due to the discrepancy of £1000 between the estimates and the actuals of costs. He wanted this checked and explained.
On 11 May 2022, the landlord issued it stage 2 response. It stated:
1. The issues raised related to service charge costs and pigeons’ issues. However, the resident had stated that the area affected by the pigeons had been netted off and this had resolved the issues. No further consideration was provided to the handling of the issue.
2. With regards to the service charges, the landlord highlighted the charges that had seen a significant increase in the actual costs.
3. There was an error in the apportionment of the communal fire protection charges and the pest control charges. For the fire protection it would refund the resident with £517.57 and for the pest control it would refund him £124.90.
4. The costs for the lifts were higher in 2020/2021 due to some servicing. It provided the breakdown of works.
5. Some of the charges for communal electricity were reapplied from the previous financial year. It provided a breakdown of readings and explained the error. It would refund the resident with £19.77.
6. It apologised for the errors made and explained that it was currently undergoing a full department process review to try to ensure that such errors did not happen again.
7. In recognition of the time taken to resolve the complaint and the failure in the process, it offered £150 compensation “over and above that which was awarded at stage 1”.
In July 2022, the resident chased the reimbursement of the service charges. In October 2022, the resident reported to this Service that the payment of refund had not been received. The resident also provided a letter from his landlord stating that due to cyber-attack the service charge actuals for 2021/2022 that were usually issued in September would not be issued on time. The landlord also confirmed that the refund of £662.24, as detailed in its stage 2 response, had been credited to the resident’s account at the end of September 2021.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the course of the complaint, the resident raised issue with the increase of his variable service charges from previous years and the difference between the estimates and the actuals. Paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme further states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern level of rent or service charge or service charge increase. This falls more appropriately for the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), (FTT). The FTT has the expertise to take legally binding decisions on the reasonableness or the increase of service charges.
While the Ombudsman cannot consider the amount of, or increase to, service charges nor whether the amount being charged is reasonable, the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s communication, including its response to the concerns raised about specific charges and the services provided in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. In this respect, the Ombudsman will consider whether a landlord has acted fairly given all the circumstances of a case including whether it has put right and identified service failures and, where appropriate, whether it has learnt from the outcomes of the individual complaint so as to improve its overall service delivery.
With regards to the pigeon infestation, this Service had issued a previous determination on the issue. According to the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not re-investigate issues. However, consideration will be given here to the period after the previous Ombudsman investigation. As such, the focus on this investigation would be the landlord’s actions following the previous determination of 29 April 2020, and its response to any further resident’s reports after April 2020.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of pigeons’ infestation

In the previous determination, the Ombudsman ordered the landlord to take action within reasonable time once it received the reports from the specialist contactors and provide plan of action to the resident. The Ombudsman also ordered the landlord to consider its obligations under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The specialist contractors report was issued on 1 June 2020. It raised an issue with the extent of the birds’ activity and the acidity of the fouling which was health hazard. It recommended that a net was installed over the affected parts of the resident’s roof. It recommended regular treatment and cleaning of the area. This Service has seen evidence of treatment and cleaning to the area in November and December 2020. However, there is no evidence of regular cleaning being performed, as recommended. This exacerbated the situation with the bird fouling and as such the landlord could not demonstrate that it had considered its obligations under the HHSRS nor that it had fully followed through on the plan of action identified following the previous Ombudsman investigation.
In June 2020, the resident reported infestation of the pigeons in his loft. In July 2020, the resident chased further action from the landlord “as a matter of urgency” as the continues noise from above and “the mess” from the birds were affecting his mental health. It is appreciated that the landlord visited the property and inspected the loft but could not identify any holes. The resident chased the landlord on a few further occasions and despite some works being completed to the communal area like trapping and spiking, the loft infestation remained unresolved. On 15 September 2020, the resident reported maggots falling from the loft area and in internal correspondence the landlord acknowledged the seriousness of the problem and its health and safety implication.
Furthermore, in September 2020, the blockage to the gullies and the “mess” left by the pigeons caused a leak into the resident’s flat. He had to chase the landlord to take action and resolve the issue in his property. The proofing works in the loft and the roof holes were completed in November 2020. This was 6 months after the resident reported them. This was unreasonable and caused continuous distress to the resident throughout this period of delay.
The landlord further delayed the work at the resident’s property while trying to establish its responsibilities to put things right. The works were completed sometime in December 2020. This caused further frustration and distress to the resident. The walls at the property had to be disinfected and work performed to rectify the staining from the bird fouling and the smell. This was completed over 3 months after the resident reported it. Given the nature of the issue and the hazard the bird fouling causes to health, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have rectified this at an earlier stage and as a matter of urgency.
With regards to the specialist reports recommendation of net installation, the landlord completed this initially in June 2020. However, it did not seem to rectify the issue and further netting works were completed in February 2022. This was 2 years following the recommendation from the specialist contractor. The complexity of the issue, the resources required and the pandemic period are all appreciated, however, the overall delay was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s obligations or the requirements of the previous Ombudsman investigation.
Overall, due to the above failures, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pigeons’ infestation. The landlord acknowledged the health hazard the bird fouling was causing and the extent of the issue, however it considerably delayed the proofing works and the net installation over the affected areas. Additionally, in its complaint response, the landlord failed to review its handling of the matter when provided with an opportunity to do so and as such, it missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident. This will be further discussed in its complaint handling section below. For the landlord’s delay in providing resolution to the pigeons’ infestation above the resident’s property, the Ombudsman awards £650 compensation due to the distress caused to the resident for a prolonged period of time. A recommendation is also made for the landlord to continue monitoring the situation in the communal areas of the building.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of discrepancy between the service charge estimates and actuals.

It is not disputed that on 15 October 2021, the resident raised concerns about the increase in service charges from the previous year and the discrepancy between the estimates and the actuals in 2020/2021. As said above this Service does not have the remit to look into assess the level of any increase of service charges. However, we can assess the landlord’s responses in relation to the breakdown requested and the calculation of the costs.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord provided correct information as to the nature of the service charges and the resident’s obligation. However, it did not go into any detail to explain the big discrepancy between the estimates and the actuals. As such, it failed to provide a resolution at an earlier stage by identifying the issues raised by the resident’s complaint and putting things right. Whilst it missed the opportunity to do so at stage 1, within its stage 2 response, it provided an extensive response and acknowledged its errors in the service charge calculation. It went further and also acknowledged failures in its communication and delays in its handling of the matter. It awarded compensation of £100 at stage 1– £50 was offered for the complaint handling component and £50 for delay in communication and the handling of the issues. At stage 2, the landlord added £150 compensation but did not provide a breakdown of this further compensation payment.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This service will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience and the resident’s circumstances will be taken into account.
In this case the landlord acknowledged the errors in calculation of the estimates and provided an explanation. It was transparent as to the reason for the errors and evidenced how it identified them by providing copies of charges, electricity readings and breakdown of works. This was a reasonable and customer focused approach. It apologised and further provided reassurance to the resident that it would learn from its mistakes. It intended to review its process and improve its practices. In addition, it committed to refund the resident with the full amount of £662.24 for the errors identified. Whilst it confirmed to this Service that it had done the refund payment in September 2021, its final response was in May 2022. As such, it was not clear when and how the refund was processed. The resident chased it in July 2022 but there is no evidence of clear correspondence. This was unreasonable and caused additional confusion.
The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had refunded the money in an appropriate timeframe nor that it had provided clear explanation on the refund. It failed to show that it had taken learning from the complaint or ways of improving its communication. Whilst the resident chased it, there is no evidence that the landlord provided clear information on the refund to him. As such, despite acknowledging its failings, it did not demonstrate that it had improved its service charge practices. This caused additional delays in communication and frustration in the resident as to the reliability of the landlord’s services.
The landlord also did not demonstrate what action it had taken to improve its process. As such, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge concerns. An order has been raised for the landlord to provide a review of the case and identify what steps it would take to improve its services, or if any steps have already been taken, to provide evidence of its actions. An additional order for £150 compensation for the inconvenience its handling of the service charge refund caused to the resident has also been ordered.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling amounted to maladministration due to the following reasons:
1. There were delays at stage 1, which the landlord had acknowledged in its responses.
2. The escalation request was submitted on 2 March 2022, and the landlord’s response was issued on 11 May 2022, this took 6 weeks longer than the timeframes set out in the landlord’s complaint’s policy. It is appreciated the landlord contacted the resident in March to explained that the delay at stage 2 was due to staff absence. However, the landlord should have a system in place for similar circumstances to provide continuous service in a timely manner. It is noted that despite the reasons for the delay in its response, the landlord acknowledged it and offered compensation included in the total amount at stage 2.
3. The landlord did not address the pigeon issues in its final response. During the telephone conversation for stage 2 escalation the resident confirmed that the issues had been resolved following the installation of the netting in February 2022. Whilst the situation had clearly improved, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed the handling of the pigeons infestation. By not doing so the landlord missed an opportunity to adopt a customer focused approach, investigate its infestation handling in full and put things right for the resident. This is not in line with the Code which requires landlords to address all the issues of a complaint in full.
4. Additionally, the landlord did not follow up on its stage 2 response in relation to the service charge refund and as such could not demonstrate that it had taken out a learning from its complaints handling.
The landlord acknowledged the delay and apologised for its failures in the communication. In recognition for the time and trouble it awarded compensation as stated above. Whilst this may have been sufficient for the failure it had identified it did not amount to sufficient redress in relation to the overall complaint handling failures identified here. As such the Ombudsman has ordered £250 compensation for the complaint handling in line with the Ombudsman remedy guidance and in recognition of the time and trouble the resident experience having to chase repeatedly the landlord. A recommendation is also made for the landlord to provide staff training in relation to providing clear remedies for its complaint handling failures, including a breakdown of compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in its response of the resident’s reports of pigeon infestation.
2. Service failure by the landlord in its response of the resident’s concerns of service charge administration.
3. Maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not provide a resolution to the pigeons’ infestation within a reasonable period of time. The difficulties related to the pandemic and the nature of the works offered mitigating circumstances for the landlord’s failures, however, in all the circumstances the Ombudsman considers that more could have been done to resolve the situation at an earlier stage and prevent the issue becoming a potentially serious health and safety concern.
The landlord provided a prompt and extensive explanation of its errors in the actual yearly costs relating to the service charge. It offered a full refund in line with those errors and compensation for the distress its handling had caused to the resident. However, it had not demonstrated any learning or evidenced the payment of the refund within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord acknowledged its delays in responding the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord failed to address all the issues of the complaint and review its handling of the pigeons’ infestation. As such it could not take any learning or put things right for the resident. Additionally, it did not follow up on its final response to pay the service charge refund. As such, it failed to put things right for the resident and demonstrated that it had taken learning from its overall failures on the case.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,050 compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation does not include the service charge refund paid by the landlord as part of its stage 2 response. The compensation should be reduced by the £250 offered during the complaints process if paid already. The compensation comprises of:
3. £650 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident by the landlord’s failures in handling of the pigeons’ infestation.
4. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience experienced by the resident by the landlord’s handling of his service charge concerns.
5. £250 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of its complaint handling failures.
6. The landlord to review the case and identify what steps it would take to improve its services related to administration and communication of service charges, or if any steps have been already taken, to provide evidence. The review to result in a written report outlining its findings, which is to be shared with both this Service and the resident.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord explore further steps, regularly clean where necessary and monitor the pigeon infestation situation at the building.
It is recommended that the landlord provide learning to its staff in order to handle complaint in line with the Code, and particularly related to escalation requests and addressing the issues of the complaint in full, follow up on final responses, explanation of remedies and breakdown of compensation.