East Riding of Yorkshire Council (202120030)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120030

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

09 September 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation (sewer flies) in his property.

Background

2. The resident became a tenant of the landlord in April 2005, and the tenancy was terminated in February 2022. The landlord is a Local Authority and the property is a bungalow.
3. The resident initially reported a pest infestation (sewer flies) in his home in October 2021. He raised a formal complaint with the landlord in late November 2021, as he was dissatisfied that despite the pest control treatment in mid-November, he still had issues with pests. He reported fly larvae in his carpets, and maggots in the property. The resident advised that he had health conditions which he believed was impacted by the pests in his home. He raised concern regarding the conduct of the operative that attended his home and disputed the landlord’s findings of no pests found during its visit in mid-November 2021.The resident explained that a private pest control contractor had visited and carried out a report, though he would not provide a copy to the landlord unless it paid him.
4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord advised that its pest control officer who attended the property in November 2021, had not found evidence of pests but had treated the carpets as requested by the resident. It recalled that the resident had provided samples of the pests, which were identified as “ordinary house flies, not sewer flies” and no further treatment was required. Following further reports of pests raised by the resident, the landlord scheduled three visits to the resident’s property; two of which were cancelled by the resident. One visit was declined by the landlord due to it stating threatening and abusive behaviour by the resident toward staff. The landlord maintained its previous position that it was satisfied there were no pests present in the property. It recalled that the resident had sought medical advice regarding his health. The landlord advised that it had done everything it could to address any concerns the resident made regarding an infestation in the property.
5. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he disputed the landlord’s finding that there were no pests present. He said he believed the landlord’s plumber had caused the infestation, and that the landlord had allowed the infestation, endangering his health.

 Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

6. The resident has said that he considered the issues affecting his property to have impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his medical conditions. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the pest issues and the impact on the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. Whilst we 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 errors by the landlord.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation (sewer flies)

7. The tenancy agreement advises that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property, and that the resident is responsible for the interior of the property.
8. The landlord does not have specific policies and procedures regarding pest infestations. Generally, a landlord would be responsible for pest infestation in communal areas and or where there is clear evidence of pests entering via a defect to the building and where there is evidence it is a direct result of disrepair. Nevertheless, a landlord would be expected to investigate and establish the source of an infestation. If it agrees to carry out work to address a reported infestation, it would be expected to provide the resident with timescales for completion of the work, and evidence of its continued monitoring of the matter.
9. In this case, the resident complained of a pest infestation (sewer flies) in his property on 26 October 2021. According to the landlord’s records, its pest control operative attended and inspected the resident’s property on 17 November 2021. While the landlord’s policies and procedure do not set specific timescales to address the pest issues, the landlord attended within a reasonable timeframe of 16 working days which is the standard procedure for its repairs guidance. Although pests were not identified during its visit, it was appropriate for the landlord to treat the carpets, as this could potentially help to alleviate the issues the resident reported. Following further reports of pests from the resident, the landlord acted reasonably by arranging to revisit the resident’s property on 14 and 15 December 2021. However, the visits were cancelled by the resident.
10. The resident chose to end his tenancy on 22 February 2022. Although the landlord was not obligated to, it was reasonable that it applied pest control treatment to the resident’s car as requested before he moved out of the property. This helped to put the resident’s mind at ease and would also help to prevent any pests if present travelling with him to his new property.
11. It is noted that the resident disputed the landlord’s operative’s findings of no pest present during its visit in November 2021. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the pests were present or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
12. Ultimately, the landlord has relied on the findings of its qualified staff and operatives, who deemed that pests were not found during its visit to the resident’s property. A landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. Accordingly, its decision to request pest samples from the resident was appropriate, as it would help to determine the type of pests and establish the measures it could take. However, as the samples were identified as regular household flies rather than sewer flies, the landlord’s decision not to carry out further pest treatment was appropriate in the circumstances.
13. In relation to the resident’s assertion that the pest control operative had agreed with him regarding the presence of sewer flies in his property. Although, we do not doubt the resident’s testimony, this is disputed by the landlord and there is no evidence which supports the resident’s statement. In conducting investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In this instance, there is no written record of the contractor ever stating that sewer flies were present in the resident’s property, nor has the resident provided any documentation to support this. Our role is to consider all the circumstances of a case and determine what was reasonable in the circumstances. When there are conflicting accounts of what happened, with insufficient evidence to confirm either way what the contractor said during their visit, it would not be possible for the Ombudsman, as an independent arbiter, to establish that the operative advised of the presence of sewer flies. Therefore, in the absence of any formal recommendation that pests were present, there were limited steps the landlord could have taken in this instance.
14. Overall, the landlord’s handling was appropriate. It acted reasonably by actioning best practises and investigating the issue, arranging pest control visits, and by confirming its position to the resident.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in his property.