East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202211795)

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211795

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

26 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

1.             The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

1. Concerns about issues with external grounds, and bin maintenance leading to a pest infestation.
2. Reports of a pest infestation inside his property, and communal areas of the building.
3. Reports of damage and missing drain grates.
4. Associated complaint.

Background

2.             The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, which is a ground floor flat.

3.             On 15 November 2021, the resident reported the following to the landlord:

1. Neighbouring properties had been dumping large items of rubbish, including a sofa at the rear of the building. There were also similar large items being fly tipped around the estate.
2. A number of the metal drain grates were bent. Both the resident and his child nephew had tripped over the grates, on a number of occasions.
3. Trees had not been cut back, and the litter was not being tended to.

4.             On 14 December 2021, the resident told the landlord that he was paying a service charge for it to upkeep the communal areas, but it was not doing anything. He said it had not dealt with his reports, which he had been making since August 2021 of rubbish around the estate. This had led to the rubbish attracting pests.

5.             On 21 December 2021, the landlord confirmed the housing officer would be visiting the estate to address his complaints. It also said that it had an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case open for it to investigate his reports.

6.             Between January 2022 and June 2022, the landlord responded to a number of the resident’s reports to clear rubbish from outside the building, and around the estate. It also responded to his reports to clear the communal bin areas when they were full. During this period, the landlord wrote to all residents about their responsibilities in keeping communal areas clean and tidy. The landlord’s contractors completed grounds maintenance each month.

7.             On 13 June 2022, the resident asked the landlord to respond to his requests for it to deal with the fly tipping and rubbish in the street. He also wanted it to deal with the bins that had no covers, as well as the continuing pest problem in and around the communal areas. The landlord responded that it had cleared the rubbish. It had also installed CCTV cameras to help resolve the on-going problems with fly tipping.

8.             On 4 July 2022, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He said he had repeatedly complained to the landlord about litter in the streets, overgrown hedges, and the bins with no lids. He said he was suffering with anxiety caused by the continued pest infestation on the street, and inside his building.

9.             On 19 July 2022, the landlord’s pest control contractor attended the estate. They located fresh rat droppings in the drains. They placed toxic boxes within the communal bin areas, to monitor the reported pest infestation. The contractor recommended that the landlord empty the bins regularly to help control pests. They also recommended some bin areas required cleaning, and sanitation due to a risk that they were a health hazard.

10.        On 27 July 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said its contractor had cut the hedges on 12 May 2022. That same day, it had removed the fly tipping, and every 3 weeks since it had carried out litter picking of the estate. It said it had written to residents about disposing of rubbish responsibly, and to report any missing bins. The landlord asked the resident to keep it informed if the pests remained a problem. The same day, the resident requested the landlord escalate his complaint.

11.        On 1 September 2022, the resident stated he had pests inside his property, as well as the communal areas and street. He asked the landlord to fix it. The landlord responded that pests inside the resident’s property were his responsibility. It said it would raise a works order for the communal areas and fix any holes to prevent pests gaining access to his property.

12.        On 6 October 2022, the resident complained to the landlord, that a number of actions from its stage 1 complaint response remained outstanding. This included the following:

1. CCTV signage had not been put up following its installation of the CCTV.
2. Metal drainage grates had not been repaired or replaced.
3. There was still a pest infestation in the building.
4. No letter had been sent to residents to warn them about the on-going ASB.
5. He had not witnessed any regular estate inspections.

13.        On 13 October 2022, the landlord’s final complaint response included an award of £40 compensation for the time and trouble taken by the resident in making his reports. It said the following in response to the resident’s complaints:

1. Inspections were being carried out by its housing officer on a regular basis.
2. The drainage grates would be replaced on 17 October 2022.
3. Pest control attended in July 2022. They were carrying out a treatment that was being done in 3 stages around the estate. This was still on-going.
4. It had written to residents highlighting the issues raised by the resident.

14.        The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 17 October 2022, stating his desired outcome was for his complaints to addressed, and the outstanding repairs to be fixed. He wanted the pest infestation to be resolved, and for the landlord to use its CCTV system to take against fly tipping. He also wanted the landlord to do more to liaise with the local authority, about the overgrown hedges that were not the landlord’s responsibility, but that of the local authority.

15.        The repair to the drainage grates was completed on 8 December 2022. The CCTV signage was erected in the final week of December 2022. Pest control contractors were reported it was satisfied that all areas of the estate had been appropriately cleaned and were clear of pests, on 25 January 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

16.        The resident contributes towards the landlord’s costs, broadly maintenance, management, and repair of the building and its grounds, through a weekly service charge. This service is not able to consider complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge, as this falls outside the jurisdiction of this service. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable and the resident can contact the tribunal if he wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint further. The Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s communication in relation to the charges and whether it responded to any questions about the service charge appropriately in line with its legal obligations, its internal policies and industry best practice.

17.        Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident has been persistent about his reports since November 2021. This investigation has therefore, considered it reasonable and has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports, as listed in this investigation, from this date.

18.        This investigation report will therefore only consider events from November 2021 up until the final complaint response on 13 October 2022. The only exception has been to comment on when the outstanding repairs, or relevant matters of the complaints were resolved as agreed in its final response. The Ombudsman is aware further complaints have been made following this date, in relation to similar matters. However, the resident has not exercised his right of referral of his further complaints to the Ombudsman. Therefore, they will not form part of this investigation report. The resident may be able to refer these recent issues to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to these issues.

Policies and Procedures

19.        The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It will provide a written response at stage 1 within 10 working days of it logging the resident’s complaint. The landlord states it will provide its written response at stage 2, within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. The landlord states it will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond to a resident’s complaint, at either stage. This will be no longer than a further 10 working days, unless it has a good reason for it to go beyond this period.

20.        The landlord’s repairs policy describes responsive repairs as day-to-day repairs, carried out on an ad hoc basis, usually in response to customer demand. It describes 5 categories in which it responds to repairs as follows:

1. Emergency – It states it will respond within a maximum of 24 hours.
2. Appointed – It will arrange a suitable date and time with a resident.
3. Programmed – Non urgent repair, that it will complete within 3 months.
4. Small works – This involves a complex repair, involving multiple trades.
5. Cyclical maintenance – This is its regular cycle of planned works.

21.        This policy also states that pest control is not generally considered a repair within the landlord’s repairs policy. As such it will not respond to reports of rodent and insect infestations within a resident’s property. The landlord states its practise is to ‘signpost’ residents to the services of the local authority’s environmental health department. It will carry out building works to help prevent re-infestations. The landlord states it will carry out works to eradicate pest infestations within the common parts of its developments.

22.        The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy states that through its environmental management, it aims to create a well-maintained neighbourhood in which residents feel safe. This includes by carrying out maintenance of communal areas such as hard, and soft landscaped areas.

Issues with external grounds, and bin maintenance leading to a pest infestation.

23.        On 15 November 2021, the resident asked the landlord to address the continued fly tipping, litter on the streets, and bin areas that were overflowing with rubbish. The landlord responded on 18 November 2021, stating that it would send a housing officer to visit the estate and address his concerns. This was a reasonable response by the landlord, and in line with its neighbourhood management policy which states that these types of reports made by the resident will be owned by its housing officer. The housing officer will then investigate and seek to resolve these the reported problem, through the use of its community action module.

24.        The landlord informed the resident on 21 December 2021, that it had contacted the local housing officer, and had opened an ASB case to investigate and seek to reduce the concerns by the resident. This was reasonable and was evidence of it seeking to resolve the resident’s problem in line with its neighbourhood management policy as mentioned above.

25.        The repair logs, emails and correspondence shared with the Ombudsman, evidence that between November 2021, through to its final response of the resident’s complaint, that the landlord responded to reports of excess rubbish and fly tipping within no more than a few days. This was a reasonable time period for it to respond to resident’s individual reports.

26.        In December 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that his building, as well as the excess and overflowing rubbish in bin areas, was attracting pests. The landlord’s pest control first visited the site on 19 July 2022. Between this period, the resident submitted a number of reports and photographs of a pest infestation. Therefore, it was not reasonable that the landlord took 7 months, to carry out an inspection of the areas. This was a potential health hazard. The Ombudsman would expect that an inspection following the resident’s reports should have been completed within 28 days in line with industry best practice for routine repairs. This delay will have cause distress and inconvenience to the resident.

27.        The pest control team carried out its initial inspection on 19 July 2022. This was followed by monitoring, and treatment of the infestation until it was satisfied it had eradicated the infestation. The contractors carried out 5 sperate visits during this period and made recommendations to the landlord to clean and sanitise the bin areas.

28.        The evidence provided shows that the pest contractor advised the landlord to sanitize the bin areas after its initial inspection on 19 July 2022. The records provided show that the landlord raised the job and carried out this work in January 2023. It should not have taken nearly 6 months to disinfect and sanitise the bin areas. The Ombudsman would expect this type of work to be completed within 28 days, which as above, is in line with best practice.

29.        The landlord has provided evidence that it carried out the following further actions in response to the resident’s reports:

1. Every 3 three weeks from April 2022, its contractors carried out ground maintenance. The contractor completed a monitoring form of the works they had carried out. This included the following:
   1. Cutting the communal grass areas.
   2. Cutting hedges / shrubs.
   3. Site sprayed for weeds.
   4. Stimming.
   5. Sweeping and litter picking.
2. It installed CCTV and signage to address ASB, including fly tipping.
3. On 12 May 2022, the landlord held an estate action day.
4. The landlord wrote to all residents in July 2022 and October 2022 about their responsibilities, in respect of rubbish and the cleanliness of communal areas.

30.        The above were all appropriate actions taken by the landlord. There was a delay in it installing the CCTV signage. Evidence provided to this service shows this was due to the landlord waiting for the signs to be made. These were installed at the end of December 2022. The CCTV was installed in June 2022; It was unreasonable that it took 6 months to put up the signage for the CCTV, which was required for it to be able to use the footage for any enforcement action.

31.        For the reasons stated above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of concerns by the resident of issues with external grounds, and bin maintenance leading to a pest infestation.

32.        The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 in compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which set out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. This reflects that the resident suffered distress and inconvenience whilst waiting for a significant time for the landlord to fully address his concerns. Examples of this level of compensation include where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident but resulted in no permanent impact. Amounts in this range are also appropriate where the landlord has attempted to put things right, but its offer has failed to provide a proportionate offer of compensation, as in this case.

The resident’s reports of a pest infestation inside his property, and communal areas of the building.

33.        On 4 July 2022, in the resident’s stage 1 complaint he advised the landlord that there was a pest infestation inside the building. The landlord’s pest contractor attended the building on 19 July 2022. They laid snap traps in communal areas, monitored, and treated the infestation. This took a number of visits by contractors, which is often expected when dealing with pest infestations as it may not be possible to eradicate all the pests during an initial visit. The contractors were satisfied they had dealt with the pests by 25 January 2023, during their last inspection. The landlord responded within a reasonable period of the resident raising concerns about pests being inside the building and took appropriate action to resolve this issue.

34.        On 1 September 2022, the resident stated that the there was a pest infestation inside his own property, as a well as the communal areas both inside and outside the building. The landlord told the resident that it would not deal with the pest infestation inside the resident’s property. The landlord’s repairs policy, as mentioned above states, “It does not generally consider pest control a repair and so will not respond to it as a repair.” This was an inappropriate response. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 provides legislation that states landlords are required to take action to deal with disrepair problems that are causing infestations such as where pests are entering through defects in the structure of the building.

35.        The resident made previous reports of the on-going pest infestation caused by overflowing rubbish in communal areas as mentioned above. He had also reported that the infestation included communal areas of the building, and then his own property. The landlord should have considered that the infestation of the resident’s property, was due to disrepair. This was because pests were attracted by the overflowing rubbish in communal areas. The landlord, therefore, should have checked if the pests were entering through defects in the structure of the building.

36.        The Ombudsman, therefore, considers that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have used its own pest control contractor to carry out works to the resident’s property, whilst dealing with all other areas. This would have been a more reasonable and practical approach.

37.        The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence in the correspondence provided by the landlord, that it ‘signposted’ the resident to the environmental health department of the local authority for pest control. This was not in line with its repairs policy as mentioned above and was therefore, also unreasonable.

38.        The Ombudsman is sorry to hear that the resident has stated he suffered significant anxiety, in relation to this part of his complaint. He also reported that he suffered a negative impact on his mental health. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments about his health, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the issues reported and the resident’s health. Consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s response to his concerns as well as to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his health. The Ombudsman understands the pest infestation within his property has since been eradicated.

39.        For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of reports by the resident of a pest infestation inside his property, and communal areas of the building. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 in compensation. This is in line with Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance as mentioned above. This reflects the resident’s significant distress and inconvenience caused by delays in the landlord resolving the problem.

The resident’s reports of damaged and missing drain grates.

40.        On 15 November 2021, the resident told the landlord that a number of metal drain grates around the estate were bent. He said both he and his nephew had tripped over them a number of times. The landlord responded that a housing officer would visit the estate following his reports. This was a reasonable response, so the landlord could identify in particular which drain grates needed replacing and repairing. The landlord has not provided evidence to the Ombudsman that any action was taken around this time in respect of the drain grates. The service would have expected the landlord to have completed the repair in line with its repairs, and estate management policy as mentioned above in this report. The landlord taking no action is evidence of poor communication, and poor record keeping. This was unreasonable and would have caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.

41.        The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 4 July 2022. As part of his complaint, he stated that the landlord had taken no action to repair the drain grates. On 27 July 2022, the landlord stated that it had raised a repair, for the drain grates. The repair was completed on 8 December 2022. This was 95 days after it had said it had raised the repair in its stage 1 complaint response. This was also 270 days after the resident first raised the repair. This time period for a responsive repair is inappropriate and unreasonable. The Ombudsman would expect this type of routine repair to be completed within 28 days, in line with best practice.

42.        For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage and missing drain grates. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 in compensation. This is in line with Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance as mentioned above. This reflects that the resident suffered distress and inconvenience, by the landlord’s failing to initially carry out the repair, the delays, missed deadlines, and poor communication.

43.        Examples of this level of compensation include where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident but resulted in no permanent impact. Ultimately the repair was completed so there was no permanent impact, although there was distress and inconvenience for the resident at the time when the repair was outstanding.

The associated complaint.

44.        On 4 July 2022, the resident raised his stage 1 complaint. He repeated his complaint to the landlord on 12 July 2022, because it had not responded to him. On 13 July 2022, the resident’s member of parliament (MP) intervened, and asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 27 July 2022. This was 17 working days after the resident had first raised his complaint to the landlord. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord has calculated its stage 1 response from 13 July 2022, which would have been within 10 working days and in line with its complaints policy. However, it was unreasonable that it did not respond to the resident’s initial correspondence and treat this as a complaint. The landlord has provided no reasonable explanation as to why it failed to respond to the resident prior to intervention from his MP. The resident would have been caused distress and inconvenience at the lack of initial response by the landlord. It would also have taken up additional time and trouble by the resident, asking his MP to assist in asking the landlord to respond to his complaints.

45.        On 27 July 2022, the resident requested the landlord escalate his complaints. The landlord’s records show that it logged and acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on 5 August 2022. It then provided its stage 2 written response on 13 October 2022. This was 48 working days after the landlord had acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling Code (published on our website) sets out an expectation that landlords will provide its final response to a resident’s complaint within 20 working days. This delay was, therefore, unreasonable. It was also not in line with the landlord’s own complaints policy as set out above. The landlord offered no reasonable explanation for this delay as per its complaints policy.

46.        The landlord’s stage 2 response letter stated that if the resident remained dissatisfied, his complaint would be reinvestigated by its relevant head of service or director. This was contradictory to it also stating that its stage 2 response had meant the resident had concluded its complaints process. This misinformation was confusing to the resident. This would have caused him further distress and inconvenience. In line with the Code, the landlord should have signposted the resident to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied with its resolution of his complaint following its stage 2 response. This is evidence of poor communication and complaint handling.

47.        Therefore, for the reasons described above, there is a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This includes the poor levels communication and delays in its complaint handling. It also failed to work within the guidelines of the Code and failed to adequately recognise the negative impact caused to the resident in its response. In line with Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance as mentioned above, the landlord is to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint. This is in addition to the £40 it awarded to the resident for time and trouble in its final response.

Determination (decision)

48.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about issues with external grounds and bin maintenance leading to a pest infestation.

49.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation inside his property and communal areas of the building.

50.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged and missing drain grates.

51.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

52.        The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing within 28 days from the date of this report. The apology is to be in line with this service’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration, by expressing a sincere regret for its handling of the following:

1. Issues with external grounds, and bin maintenance leading to a pest infestation.
2. A pest infestation inside his property, and communal areas of the building.
3. The resident’s reports of damage and missing drain grates.
4. The associated complaint.

53.        The landlord is to pay the resident a compensation payment of £650 within 28 days of this report. The breakdown of this compensation is as follows:

1. £150 for errors in its handling of concerns by the resident of issues with external grounds, and bin maintenance leading to a pest infestation.
2. £250 for errors in its handling of reports by the resident of a pest infestation inside his property, and communal areas of the building.
3. £150 for errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of damage and missing drain grates.
4. £100 for errors in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

54.        The landlord is to pay the landlord the £40 compensation it awarded the resident in its stage 1 and 2 complaints process if it has not already done so.