First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202321742)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321742

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited

29 August 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A mice infestation in the resident’s property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy began on 28 April 2022. The property is a 2 bedroom, first floor flat. The resident lives in the property with her young child.
The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported issues with mice in her property in August 2022, just over 3 months after she moved in.
The resident has told this Service that she first submitted a complaint to the landlord, about the ongoing pest issue, in March 2023, although the landlord has not provided any evidence to support this. The landlord’s records show that the resident first raised a complaint on 24 May 2023, when she told it that she still had mice in her kitchen even though work had been carried out to pest proof the property.
The resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord on 15 August 2023. She told the landlord that the infestation was much worse as the mice had been found in her kitchen cupboards. She said she avoided going into her kitchen as she was scared that she would find a mouse. She said she felt that pest control had not done a thorough job of pest proofing her property, and the landlord had not followed up unless she chased it. She asked the landlord to remove all the kitchen units, pest proof, and then refit the kitchen.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 24 August 2023. It said that further pest proofing would be completed once it had received and approved a quote from its pest control contractor. Following escalation of the complaint, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 4 December 2023. It said it agreed that the ongoing pest issues were unacceptable and it accepted that a resolution was needed urgently.
The resident referred the matter to this Service on 22 January 2024, as the pest problem remained unresolved.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a mice infestation in the resident’s property

The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of a pest policy. However, it has confirmed that it provides its residents with a free pest control service for rat, mice, and cockroach infestations. It employs a pest control specialist to carry out inspections, treatments, and pest proofing works. However, it has not provided this Service with details of any service level agreements in place which would indicate any agreed timeframes for initial inspections/visits or follow up visits to residents following treatment.
The resident first reported mice in her property in August 2022. The evidence provided suggests she reported pest issues to the landlord on 8 separate occasions between 8 August 2022 and 16 January 2023. It is unclear, from the evidence provided what actions were taken during this period. However, the evidence suggests that some pest proofing works were carried out.
The pest control specialist attended the resident’s property again on 8 February 2023. They found evidence of mice activity. They noted that the area was “relatively well proofed”, so they had taken a different approach of using rodenticide (poison). The pest control specialist completed a second visit on 23 February 2023 and found that all bait stations around the kitchen were in good order. They noted that the resident had not seen or heard any mice for 2 weeks. However, they left the bait down to ensure that the pest issues had been successfully eradicated.
The pest control specialist attended the resident’s property again on 31 March 2023, for a third follow up visit. The operative noted that there were holes to the floor at the rear of the kitchen units, where the pipes came up through the floor, which needed to be blocked up. The operative reported that a joint visit with the landlord was needed so that a kitchen unit and end panel could be removed to allow further pest proofing works to be carried out.
The operative returned to the resident’s property on 12 April 2023 to refill the bait stations. It was noted, during the visit, that they were still waiting for the landlord to remove the unit/panel to allow further pest proofing to take place. The landlord’s records suggest that the joint visit was not completed until 16 May 2023, which was over 6 weeks from the date the pest control operative first requested a joint visit. This was an unreasonable and unfair delay, particularly as the mice infestation had been ongoing for around 9 months at this point. This demonstrates a lack of urgency from the landlord and a failure to acknowledge the seriousness of the infestation.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 24 May 2023 via a complaint web form. Although the evidence suggests that the landlord logged this as a service request, rather than a formal complaint. The resident said the landlord and pest control operative had attended her property the week before to cover some holes in the kitchen. However, the issues were still not resolved. She told the landlord that she thought the area she lived in, which was dirty and had discarded food waste left in the street, was part of the problem. She said she was worried about the health issues and disease associated with mice infestations, and she was worried that her young child would be bitten during the night. She asked the landlord to consider moving her to a different property.
In response, the landlord raised a further pest control appointment and said it had asked the neighbourhood coordinator to investigate the issues surrounding the waste food and overall cleanliness of the area. This was a reasonable course of action to take in the circumstances. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest that it carried out an investigation of the immediate area, or that it reported any issues or concerns, in relation to fly tipping or discarded food waste, to another agency such as environmental health. This was unreasonable and unfair. It should have been clear to the landlord that finding the root cause or source of the issue was fundamental to resolving the resident’s long standing pest issues.
The pest control specialist attended the resident’s property again on 22 June 2023. They noted that the landlord still needed to remove an end panel to the side of the washing machine so they could proof the holes to the rear of the unit and the pipe access holes in the floor. It is unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord did not remove the end panel during the joint visit with the pest control operative on 16 May 2023. This would have minimised the disruption to the resident and may also have provided her with some relief from the mice accessing her kitchen. The landlord’s delay in removing the end panel was unfair and unreasonable. It again demonstrates the landlords lack of urgency in resolving the matter and its failure to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the ongoing infestation.
The Housing Ombudsman’s pest guidance for landlords (on our website) recommends that landlords should conduct a risk assessment of the situation, taking into account the resident’s circumstances, to assess whether it would be appropriate to decant the resident whilst treatments and pest proofing are carried out. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord carried out a risk assessment, or that it considered decanting the resident, even though she had expressed her fear of the mice causing health issues in relation to her young child.
The landlord attended the resident’s property with the pest control specialist on 18 July 2023. It removed the end panel and noted that the area had already been proofed, although the pest control operative did add more sealant around the pipe.
The resident submitted a further complaint on 15 August 2023 in relation to the ongoing pest infestation. The resident told the landlord that she avoided using her kitchen and cooking at home as she had found mice droppings and urine on her pots, pans and dishes. She said she could not let her young child in the kitchen in case they came into contact with the mice droppings. The resident asked the landlord to remove all her kitchen units so that the pest control specialist could thoroughly inspect and pest proof the entire kitchen.
The pest control operative attended again on 23 August 2023 and carried out a survey. Further mouse activity was found within the kitchen. The operative recommended further proofing works.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 24 August 2023. However, the response only referred to the pest control visits from 22 June 2023 onwards and confirmed that it was waiting for a quote for further pest proofing works. The landlord did not acknowledge that the pest issues had been ongoing for over 12 months at this point. It also did not acknowledge the delays in providing a solution to the issues or offer any meaningful resolution to the resident.
The resident reported mice in her bathroom on 25 September 2023. On 29 September 2023 the pest control specialist noted that it needed a joint visit with the landlord so it could remove the bath panel and boxing in to the rear of the toilet to allow pest proofing to be carried out. It is unclear from the evidence provided when this work was completed, however, the landlord’s records show that the resident confirmed on 18 October 2023, that the work had been done.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 10 November 2023, as the pest infestation was still active. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 4 December 2023. It acknowledged that the ongoing pest infestation was unacceptable and that it needed to resolve the matter as soon as possible. It said it had asked its pest control specialist, and its property care team to attend the resident’s home on an urgent basis to remove some kitchen units, carry out pest proofing in those areas and then replace the kitchen units. It said it had also asked the pest control specialist to review the activity within the bathroom area.
Although the stage 2 response acknowledged that the ongoing infestation was unacceptable and the landlord attempted to put things right, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, by making a further appointment with its pest control specialist, it did not fully acknowledge what had gone wrong. There was no evidence within the response to suggest that it had spoken to the pest control specialist during its investigation, or that it had spoken to its property care team to fully understand the issues. In addition, the response did not consider the wider issues associated with pest infestations, such as the environmental issues within the immediate area, or look at whether the landlord had done enough to identify the root cause of the problem. It also did not consider awarding the resident any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the longstanding issue.
The landlord and pest control specialist attended the resident’s property on 7 December 2023 to complete further pest proofing, although it is unclear from the evidence provided how extensive the work was. The evidence suggests that only visible holes were blocked up even though the stage 2 response said the landlord would “remove some kitchen units, carry out pest proofing in those areas and then replace the kitchen units”.
On 15 December 2023 the landlord sent the resident flowers as an apology. Whilst this was thoughtful, it was insufficient to provide reasonable redress in the circumstances considering that the resident had been subject to a significant mouse infestation for over 12 months at this point.
The landlord continued to instruct its pest control specialist to attend, and the pest control specialist continued to complete proofing and place bait stations within the resident’s property. However, from the evidence provided the same areas of the kitchen appear to have been repeatedly proofed, and there is no evidence to suggest that the kitchen cupboards were removed, as promised within the stage 2 response. There is also no evidence to suggest that this matter was escalated to a senior member of the landlord’s staff when it was clear that the approach being taken was not working, which would have been a reasonable approach to take in the circumstances.
In summary, although the landlord attempted to resolve the pest infestation it delayed unreasonably in attending joint visits with the pest control specialist. The landlord demonstrated a lack of urgency and it failed to fully acknowledge the seriousness of the issue. It failed to look at the wider environmental issues raised by the resident and it failed to consider the resident’s circumstances. It also failed to fully pest proof the resident’s kitchen even though it had promised to do so in its stage 2 response. Although the landlord acknowledged that the infestation was unacceptable, it failed to offer reasonable redress.
As a result of these failings, and the level of detriment caused to the resident by the delays in resolving the infestation, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident said she submitted a complaint to the landlord in March 2023, about the ongoing infestation. However, as the landlord has not provided this Service with evidence of this contact, it would be reasonable to assume from the evidence provided that the landlord treated the resident’s correspondence as a service request, rather than a complaint.
The resident raised a further complaint with the landlord on 24 May 2023, via its complaint web form. She referred to her previous correspondence in March 2023, and she told the landlord that although it had carried out pest proofing to her property, the problem persisted.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will log a complaint when a customer expresses dissatisfaction about its standard of service, actions, or lack of action. It also says if the customer is dissatisfied with the response to a service request, even if it is still being addressed, a complaint will be raised.
As the resident’s correspondence clearly expressed that she was unhappy that the mice were still present following pest proofing work, and the landlord had previously logged a service request in relation to the same issues, the landlord should have logged this correspondence as a complaint. As the landlord treated the resident’s complaint as a service request, it did not act in accordance with its complaints policy. This was inappropriate and unfair to the resident as she had to submit a third complaint, on 15 August 2023, before the landlord raised a formal complaint.
In summary, the landlord delayed unreasonably in logging a stage 1 complaint as it treated the resident’s complaint as a service request, rather than a complaint. The effect of this was to delay resolution for the resident and to cause unnecessary inconvenience. As a result of this failure, and the delays caused to the resident in raising a complaint, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure by the landlord in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a mice infestation in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £675 made up of:
  1. £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of a mice infestation in the resident’s property.
  2. £75 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of the associated complaint.
  3. The landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident.
3. Fully pest proof the resident’s property. This includes removing the kitchen units and any other fixed units within the property, to ensure all possible entry points are blocked. The landlord should discuss with the resident whether it would be appropriate to offer a decant whilst the work is carried out. The landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the schedule of works with dates for completion.
4. Investigate whether there any environmental issues within the immediate area that are contributing to the infestation. Following the investigation, the landlord should make referrals to other agencies, such as environmental health, where required. The landlord should provide this Service with a copy of its findings and any referrals made.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord implements a pest policy in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance (available on the website) to sit alongside its service offer. This should include an escalation process for pest issues that do not respond to usual treatments.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendation.