GreenSquareAccord Limited (202121460)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121460

GreenSquareAccord Limited

31 August 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 resident complained about:
1. How the landlord handled the report of a leak into the property.
2. How the landlord responded to the report of a bed bug infestation.
3. How the landlord handled the lack of communal cleaning.
4. How the landlord responded to the transfer request.
5. The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which commenced on 18 April 2016. The property is described as a ground floor one bedroom flat. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy has two repair categories: emergency and non-emergency. Emergency repairs are to be resolved within 24 hours and within 28 days for non-emergency repairs. It sets out that it is responsible for the structure, exterior and interior of the property and that residents are responsible for pest control except where there is a design fault within the property.
The landlord’s allocation and lettings policy available online sets out that it allocates properties primarily through choice-based lettings schemes (CBL) or via nomination from local authorities in areas it has properties.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure and at both stages it will provide its complaint response within 10 working days.
The landlord’s discretionary compensation procedure gives guidance on handling compensation requests and the different types of awards payable.
The resident’s complaints concern his neighbour who for part of this investigation was a tenant of the landlord. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement for his neighbour, but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same, or similar tenancy conditions apply as to the resident.

Scope of complaint.

The resident has said that the landlord failed to escalate his complaint made in April 2021. This service has not been provided with a copy of the complaint response, despite this being requested. From the available information, the complaint was not formally pursued by the resident at the time, therefore, there is no evidence that the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint process at that time and/or had been referred to this Service.
This investigation report will therefore only consider events from February 2022 onwards in light of the available evidence. This report may include some historical events for the purpose of context only.
Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is, therefore, unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matter are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that pest control attended to carry out communal block treatment for bedbugs on three occasions: 8 December 2021, 14 December 2021 and 21 December 2021.
The resident reported to the landlord on 18 February 2022 that the lighting in his kitchen was not working. The landlord’s out of hours service attended the same day and the operative noted that a new LED strip light fitting was required. The light fitting to the kitchen was replaced on 1 April 2022.
On 5 March 2022, the landlord arranged to inspect the resident’s property on 9 March 2022 following the leak from the flat above. The inspection was to check among other things the mould in the property that the resident could not reach to remove.
On 21 March 2022, the resident complained that:
1. As a result of a flood occurring in the property above in February 2022, he had not had lighting in his kitchen. This had been reported to the building manager and to the customer service team.
2. There was damage to the kitchen ceiling from the flood, the walls were discoloured and needed cleaning and repainting. Also, following the leak into the property, the living room lights were flickering.
3. The operative who had attended to remedy the mould and the hole in the kitchen ceiling had used a different colour filler. The resident requested that the landlord redecorate the kitchen ceiling to cover the patch that was filled.
4. He had previously requested that the air vents be changed, cleaned and secured as the bedbugs were using this to travel throughout the building. Also, that the building be fumigated as he and his partner had been bitten by the bed bugs.
5. With regard to the previous complaint, he had received £50 compensation and had been informed that his kitchen and bathroom would be renewed.
6. The front door had been broken for a month. The building was not safe as there were drug addicts, dealers and addicts coming out of Tenant A property. Consequently, he did not like to bring his partner and children to the property.
7. The resident requested that the landlord move him from the property.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 March 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 April 2022 to report that he remained affected by the bed bugs in the property. He did not know where they were coming from, his children were due to stay with him during half term week and he did not want them to be bitten. The week before, he had killed bed bugs and requested that the landlord provide suitable accommodation. He advised that the situation was affecting his mental health and requested compensation for the products he had purchased.
On 8 April 2022, the landlord emailed the resident advising that it had tried to call him and had left a message on his voice mail. The landlord’s records show that the communal door had been broken since 15 February 2022 and it had pictures of people sleeping in the communal areas, which may be contributing to the presence of bed bugs. It decided that pest control was required to fumigate the communal areas.
The landlord internal records show on 12 April 2022 that it discussed the source of the bed bugs and its operatives had not reported the resident’s allegation of defecation occurring in the communal hallway. It had sent a general letter to resident about correct disposal of rubbish in the scheme as it had no evidence that this had been caused by Tenant A.
Furthermore, it had visited the resident to advise he needed to apply for housing as it did not have any housing stock within the London area. It had provided a list of housing providers to the resident when it had been informed that he and his partner had been bitten by the bed bugs. Pest control had reported that the resident had advised that there were no bed bugs in his property, therefore it needed to check with pest control whether it had actually visited its property. It had informed the resident of a pest control appointment taking place on 25 April 2022 before the scheduled treatment to the block commenced.
The landlord’s internal records also noted that it had raised a previous pest control order in November 2021 but some residents did not allow access.
The following day, 13 April 2022 the resident thanked the landlord for its call and advised that he and his partner had been bitten by the bed bugs. Also, he had removed his settee the previous year when he first seen the bed bugs and he had the receipt for the new settee. The resident repeated his request to be moved due to the impact on his mental health.
On 24 April 2022, the landlord’s internal records show that it shared the email and photos provided by the resident. The resident reported that the fumigation had occurred the previous week and the bed bugs had returned. The landlord noted the resident’s request to move into temporary accommodation until the bed bugs were eradicated.
The following day, the resident emailed the landlord providing an Instagram link, which he said showed scarring on his partner’s back as a result of the bed bugs. In response, the landlord advised that it may need to extend the complaint response, following his request for temporary accommodation.
On 25 April 2022, the housing officer visited the resident whilst she was on site with pest control who were carrying out the fumigation of the properties and communal areas. The housing officer informed the resident that further treatment was planned and that there would be a gap of between three to four weeks between each treatment. The resident informed the housing officer that he had purchased a new settee as the previous settee had been infested and discussed the move to alternative accommodation. The resident confirmed that he had received the list of alternative providers but advised that he did not want to contact them as they were located in the West Midlands. The housing officer encouraged the resident to contact the social housing providers explaining that they may have properties in the areas that he wanted to move to.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 26 April 2022. It referenced its call to the resident on 12 April 2022 regarding the complaint. The key findings were:
1. Kitchen light.

Following the report that the kitchen light was not working, the electrician attended and assessed that a kitchen strip light was required. It acknowledged that its customer service team did not arrange the repair and the resident did not have a light in his kitchen until 1 April 2022. It apologised that it did not meet its repair timescales.
Damage caused to the ceiling and walls as a result of the leak from the flat above.
Recognised that the resident was dissatisfied with the quality of work carried out by the operative who attended to assess the mould and seal the holes in the ceilings and walls as cracks had reappeared in the living room ceiling. Also, the kitchen walls had become discoloured. It agreed to attend to inspect the property on 5 May 2022 and explained that it would not paint the living room ceiling as under the tenancy agreement this was the resident’s responsibility.
1. Air flow vents
Accepted that the resident believed the bed bugs entered his property from a settee placed near his living room window in November 2021. He had disposed of his settee due to the severity of the bed bugs. The landlord advised that it would consider his request for compensation for the settees and pesticides that he had purchased and would provide him with its response.
In November 2021, it raised an order for pest control to carry out treatment to the communal areas. It was aware of the cause of the bed bug infestation but due to the data protection act it could not provide further information.
It had carried out treatment to his property and the communal areas in April 2022 and the housing officer would monitor the situation.
It had carried out treatment to his property and the communal areas in April 2022 and the housing officer would monitor the situation.
It would include the inspection of the air flow vents when it inspected the property on 5 May 2022.
1. It advised that it had responded to the resident’s complaint on 14 April 2021 and made a gesture of good will. It did not receive a request to escalate the complaint and in line with its complaints policy, it will not investigate complaints that are more than six months old
2. The communal front entrance door had been assessed and a new video panel was required. It had experienced delays in completing the repairs due to the availability and stock of its suppliers. It advised that the door should be functional by 10 May 2022 and apologised for the delay.
3. With regard to the resident’s request for a transfer, it confirmed that its waiting list was closed and it had provided a list of housing providers for the resident to contact. It also informed the resident that he could register with home swapper to find accommodation.
4. The landlord made an overall compensation award of £271.50. This was broken down as £171.50 for 50 days at £3.43 for the loss of the use of the kitchen from 10 February 2022 to 1 April 2022. It offered £50 as a good will gesture for not escalating the previous complaint and £50 for the time and trouble the resident experienced in making the complaint.

On 27 April 2022, the landlord considered the resident’s request for the reimbursement of the cost of the settees and the pesticides that he had purchased. It determined that it could not meet the cost of the replacement settee as the damage was due to the bed bug infestation and not because of any failure in its service. Also, it had taken reasonable steps regarding the bed bug infestation and tenants contents insurance was a solution for situations such as this. It noted that pest control was still taking action to resolve the bed bug infestation.
The following day 28 April 2022, the landlord obtained a quote to undertake a 12-month treatment for bed bugs to the communal areas of the building. This included monitoring and trapping in between fumigation and the placing of bed bug traps and lures to every flat.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 May 2022 regarding his compensation request. It advised that it could not agree to his claim for damage to his settees and the cost of pesticides. It advised the resident to take out contents insurance and that it was working to eliminate the bed bug infestation within the building.
The following day, 6 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate his complaint. He expressed that:
1. Kitchen

The kitchen light that had been replaced did not fit flush to the wall and the kitchen wall had been damaged due to the products used by his neighbour.
No one had inspected the kitchen following the leak into the kitchen and requested that the landlord bring the kitchen back to the standard it was at before the leak. The condition of the kitchen had meant that he had been unable to have his family and friends to his home and this had affected his mental health.
The compensation awarded did not reflect the length of time that he did not have lighting in the kitchen.

b. Bedbugs

The landlord had not shown any empathy regarding his situation and he found its response unacceptable. The presence of the bedbugs was not his fault and he did not accept that the data protection act prevented it from naming the source of the bed bugs.
He had been affected for weeks by the bed bugs and his body was permanently scarred. The award of £271.50 did not reflect his experience.
The communal entrance door was again broken and had not been cleaned. This would result in the bed bugs returning.
The landlord had not escalated his previous complaint as he had requested, therefore the landlord relook at his concerns.
The resident requested that the landlord provide him with a letter that he could take to another social housing provider to enable him to move to another property. Also, he was aware that his neighbour had moved and he did not believe that this was fair as he had been informed that this was not possible.

The landlord emailed the resident on 8 May 2022 to advise that a message had been left on his mobile as she had been unable to speak with him.
The landlord records show on 9 May 2022 and 10 May 2022 that:
1. the cleaning of the communal areas had stopped in November/ December 2021 due to the bed bugs. It anticipated that the cleaning should recommence in January 2022.
2. Pest control had attended the resident’s property on 13 April 2022 and that he had reported bed bugs outside the property which had been treated.
3. The last pest control treatment had been carried out on 25 April 2022. Bed buts were still present in the block and treatment was ongoing.
4. It raised a works order to stain block the kitchen and living room ceilings and walls where they were stained from the leak above. Repaint the ceilings and walls in white emulsion and fill cracks to the ceiling caused by the leak from above.
5. Replace the six plastic vents with plaster vents with fly mesh. Clean out ducting before fitting new vents. Make sure the external brick vents are clear.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 11 May 2022. It advised that it had reviewed its previous complaint responses and that the resident had included new items in the complaint escalation. The key findings were:
1. Kitchen

It explained that its compensation award was based on 25% of the rent for the time that the resident did not have lighting in his kitchen. This calculated at £171.50 for the 50 days that he did not have lighting, neither did he have the use of alternative lighting. It advised that if the resident had purchased an alternative light to use in the kitchen during the period, it would reimburse the resident in line with its compensation policy once it received the receipt.
It had arranged an appointment for 10 May 2022 to inspect the works required to the property. It set out the schedule of works regarding the kitchen and living room ceiling and the replacement of the plastic air vents.
1. Bedbugs.
It explained that it could not provide compensation for the presence of the bed bugs as it had acted to eradicate the problem. It accepted that the situation was difficult and its responses could have been more empathetic.
It repeated to the resident the importance of home contents insurance and that any personal injury claim would not fall within the complaint investigation. It provided the resident with its contact details if he wished to make a personal injury claim.
It had reviewed the previous complaint and it could not find a specific request from the resident to escalate the complaint. However, the communication from the resident indicated that he was unhappy with the good will gesture of £50 that it had made. It apologised and increased the compensation award to £250 for its failure to check with the resident regarding the escalation of the previous complaint. Since the middle of 2021, the customer care team had responsibility for its formal complaints policy to reduce the possibility of such situations reoccurring.
1. Communal cleaning
It acknowledged that 27 visits to the communal areas had not taken place as the cleaners had been unable to attend due to the presence of the bed bugs. The cleaning of the communal areas would restart once the treatment of the bed bugs had been completed.
The service charge will be adjusted to reflect the actual cleaning schedule and the landlord will write to all residents to confirm the adjustment.
1. It confirmed that it could not provide information about other residents due to data protection and that if he wished to move to another social housing provider it would provide a reference.
2. The compensation award was increased to £421.50. This was broken down as £171. 50 for the loss of the use of the kitchen. £50 for the gesture of good will offered in its previous stage one response. £200 additional gesture of good will for its failure to check whether the previous complaint should be escalated. It acknowledged that its complaint policy states that compensation payments should be offset against any rent arrears. However, in this case, it decided to waive the condition as a further gesture of good will.

The resident contacted the landlord on 12 May 2022 to advise that it had not calculated the compensation award correctly in its final response. He advised that it should be £471.50: £171.50 for the kitchen, the £50 awarded in the stage one complaint response and £250 good will gesture for the previous complaint.
After the complaint response was exhausted, the following occurred:
1. The landlord received a quote in July 2022 for a further 12-month pest control block treatment.
2. The landlord’s records show that the works order to carry out works to the kitchen and living room ceiling was completed on 12 July 2022. The operative comments show that he painted the ceiling, walls in lounge and painted kitchen.
3. The resident was dissatisfied with the quality of the painting and it agreed to repaint the affected areas.
4. A communal cleaning review was undertaken on 5 August 2022. It noted that the cleaning of the communal areas had stopped between 1 November 2021 to 1 June 2022 due to the presence of bed bugs in the block. The landlord calculated that the resident was entitled to a refund of £68.36 for the period 1 November 2021 to 28 March 2022 and £18.64 from 4 April 2022 to 23 May 2022. The payment would be offset against the arrears on the rent account in line with its compensation policy.
5. The replacement of the plastic air vents with plaster vents had a target date of 13 September 2022 to be completed.
6. The resident raised a new complaint in September 2022 to the landlord regarding an incident that occurred at the property.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Leak into the property.

The resident reported a leak into his property in February that affected the lighting into the kitchen. In accordance with its repairs policy, an emergency repair was arranged, the landlord attended the same day and assessed that a new strip lighting was required.
The landlord has accepted that the resident had no lighting in the kitchen between the date of the report in February 2022 to April 2022. In its complaint response, it calculated that this amounted to 50 days that he was without lighting and that he did not have 25% use of the property. This amounted to £171.50. In its final complaint response, it advised the resident that if he had purchased additional lighting to use within the three-month period that he was without lighting, on production of the receipt it would reimburse the resident. The landlord acknowledged that it was obliged to ensure that the resident had lighting in the kitchen and that it had unreasonably delayed in doing so.
The resident complained that the leak had damaged the kitchen ceiling and informed the landlord that he was dissatisfied that the filler used to remedy the leak was not the same colour as the ceiling. The landlord agreed to inspect the ceiling which was reasonable for it to establish whether the work carried out was adequate and to establish whether there was any further steps that it needed to take.
Following the inspection, the landlord agreed to stain block the kitchen and living room ceiling, fill the cracks and paint both ceilings. The work to the resident’s property was completed in July 2022. The resident’s tenancy agreement informs the resident that he is responsible for ensuring the property is kept in a good decorative state. This is echoed in its repairs policy which confirms that it is responsible for ceilings and plasterwork, but it does not carry out painting and decorating. Therefore, the landlord went beyond its obligations when it agreed to paint the ceilings of the resident’s’ property.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
The landlord has demonstrated that it has done so, by apologising for the unacceptable delay experienced by the resident for not having lighting in the property for a three-month period. It considered that during that period that the resident may have acquired an alternative source of light and agreed to reimburse the resident if he had done so. In line with its compensation policy, it calculated the award of compensation for the loss of the property he had experienced. Whilst its compensation policy advises that compensation payments should be offset against any debt owed to it, it agreed to make the payment direct to the resident. Furthermore, after inspecting the property it agreed to paint the ceiling in the kitchen and the living room. The landlord’s actions have been reasonable and proportionate and represent reasonable redress for the delay in replacing the light to the kitchen.

Bed bug infestation.

It is the role of this Service to determine whether the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the bed bug infestation in a reasonable time frame and in accordance with its repairing obligations and any other applicable procedures.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that residents are responsible for resolving any pests within the property. As it remained responsible for the communal areas, it was appropriate that it undertook treatments in November 2021 and December 2021 to resolve the bed bugs in the communal area. It commissioned pest control to undertake further work in April 2022 following further reports from the resident that the bed bugs had returned.
From what can be seen, the landlord appropriately arranged for pest control to undertake individual treatment to the resident’s property to eradicate the bed bugs. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the landlord checked with its pest control provider whether it had actually treated the resident’s home for it to establish whether the bed bug infestation had been resolved.
The resident requested that the landlord provide him with alternative accommodation until the bed bug infestation was addressed. The landlord advised that it would consider this. However, its final complaint response did not address this issue. This was not appropriate as the resident had informed the landlord that the presence of the bedbugs had affected his personal life; his partner and children had been affected when staying with him and it should have assessed whether the resident circumstances met the threshold of needing temporary housing.
The resident requested that the landlord disclose the cause of the bed bug infestation. The landlord appropriately informed the resident that the requirements of the General Data Protection Act meant that it has a responsibility to protect the data of its residents and only in specific circumstances should that data be disclosed. Therefore, its assessment was correct that it could not disclose personal information relating to any of the residents in the properties that it managed to the resident as he was not entitled to have that information.
The landlord assessed the resident’s request for reimbursement for the costs of the products he had purchased and the settees of which he had disposed. The landlord determined that it was not liable for the cost of products or the replacement settees as the bed bug infestation did not result from its actions. From what can be seen, the resident disposed of the settee before informing the landlord that he was doing so therefore it had no opportunity to assess whether it was liable for the infestation. Also, there is no evidence that pest control had advised the resident to dispose of the settee. The landlord has not accepted that it is responsible for the cause of the bed bugs to the resident’s property and referred to its tenancy agreement which informs residents to obtain contents insurance as the resident will be responsible for the replacement of furniture if loss is suffered.
The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to its insurance team to make a personal injury claim regarding the personal injury claim for himself and his partner. The landlord’s insurers can reach a decision on the landlord’s liability in circumstances such as this, in line with its policies.

Lack of communal cleaning.

The resident complained that cleaning to the building had not taken place. The landlord in its complaint response confirmed that cleaning to the block had been suspended from November 2021/December 2021 and did not restart until June 2022. The landlord explained that the cleaning schedule was interrupted due to the presence of the bedbugs in the communal areas.
The landlord calculated the amount of the service charge paid for cleaning services by the resident and calculated the refund due to him. This was appropriate as the landlord recognised that it had failed to provide the service for that period, therefore the amount should be returned to the resident.
It is noted that the landlord decided to offset the refund against the arrears, in line with its compensation policy. The compensation policy says that it will clear any debts owed by the resident and the remainder sent directly to the resident.

Transfer request.

The resident requested that the landlord move him to another property in March 2022. From what can be seen, the resident was visited a month later in April 2022 regarding his transfer application. The landlord advised that its waiting list was closed and provided advice to the resident regarding his options of finding alternative accommodation. This was appropriate as the route available to the resident to obtain a transfer is either to register on choice-based lettings or use home swapper to obtain a mutual exchange. Therefore, the advice given was accurate.
The resident informed the landlord that he had not pursued the transfer as he did not like the location of the providers. The landlord provided clarification to the resident regarding the locality of the accommodation provided by social housing providers to provide reassurance that by contacting them, he may find accommodation in the areas of his preference.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s published timescales are to respond to complaints within 10 working days at both stages of the complaints procedure.
The resident made a complaint on 21 March 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 March 2022 and called the resident on 8 April 2022. This was 14 working days after the complaint was made and exceed its complaint timescale.
The landlord had a further conversation with the resident on 12 April 2022. During the conversation, the resident requested temporary accommodation and the landlord informed the resident that it would need to extend the complaint response timescale to consider his request.
The landlord responded on 26 April 2022, 25 working days after he had made his complaint. While he had informed the resident that it needed to extend the timescale to consider his request for alternative accommodation, this was not addressed in the complaint response. This was not appropriate as it was not in accordance with its complaints policy or with the complaint handling code. The landlord is expected to address the issues raised by its resident and either provide or explain its position on issues bought to its attention.
The following day 27 April 2022, the landlord considered the resident’s request for reimbursement for the cost of the settees and the products he had purchased to eradicate the bed bugs. It considered that it was not liable for the bed bugs as it assessed that it had acted reasonably to eradicate the bed bugs in the building. From what can be seen, the landlord acted reasonably in considering all the relevant factors before making its decisions.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint on 6 May 2022. The landlord tried to make contact with the resident on 8 May 2022 but was not successful. The landlord provided its complaint response on 11 May 2022. The landlord increased the compensation award to £421.50. This was broken down as: £171.50 for the loss of the use of the kitchen; £50 awarded at stage one of the complaint procedure and it increased its compensation award regarding the previous complaint to £250.
The resident contacted the landlord to advise that the calculation in its final complaint response was inaccurate as the complaint response advised that the compensation award was increased from £50 to £250 for the previous complaint, therefore the compensation award should be £471.50. This is a service failure as the landlord should ensure its complaint responses contain accurate information and it is not for residents to identify inaccuracies in its response.
The landlord acted appropriately when it used its discretion not to offset the compensation payment against the rent arrears and paid the amount direct to the resident. This is in accordance with guidance provided by this service regarding compensation payments when the resident has debts owed to the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(B) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s’ handling of the leak into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the bed bug infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the lack of communal cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the transfer request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged that the resident experienced an unreasonable delay in getting his light replaced. It has apologised, paid compensation and decorated the resident’s kitchen and living room ceilings.
The landlord failed to assess whether the resident qualified for temporary housing following his reports of bed bugs infestation. The landlord did not address this in its complaint response.
The landlord accepted that whilst pest control treatment was taking place in the communal areas the communal cleaning did not take place. It has refunded the service charge paid by the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s transfer request and gave appropriate advice about how to obtain alternative social housing.
The landlord’s compensation award did not reflect that the resident experienced an unreasonable delay in receiving its complaint response and it did not address the resident’s request for temporary housing.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident a compensation award of £200 in addition to its previous award of £471.50 for its failure to address his request for temporary accommodation in its final complaint response.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

If it has not already done, the landlord to arrange a mutually convenient appointment to install the plastic vents as it agreed to do in its final complaint response.