Guinness Housing Association Limited (202201210)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201210

Guinness Housing Association Limited

10 October 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 concerns:
   1. How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a pest infestation at the property.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
3. On 13 April 2021 the resident called the landlord and informed it that there were rats in the loft. The landlord arranged for its pest control contractor to attend. The resident has stated that the contractor visited every “2/3 weeks” to put bait down. A work order was raised on 8 July 2021 to pull back the edges of the insulation in the loft in order to seal any entry points.
4. The resident called the landlord on 28 October 2021 to inform it that rats were still present in the loft. An inspection was arranged for 10 November 2021 which recommended that the loft insulation be removed, bait laid, then to revisit the property after two weeks.
5. The resident raised a complaint into how the matter was handled by the landlord on 6 December 2021. She described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. The length of time it took the landlord to resolve the issue.
   2. The effect on her health the pest infestation had caused.
   3. The poor level of service she experienced from both the landlord and its contractors.
6. The work from the November 2021 inspection was raised by the landlord and appointments booked for 22 and 23 December 2021 to remove the insulation then lay bait. However, the resident was not advised of the dates until 20 December 2021 and informed the landlord that she would not be available. The work was rescheduled for 22 and 23 February 2022.
7. The February 2022 appointments did not go ahead as the contractors did not wear the correct PPE (personal protective equipment) and the resident was unhappy that she had not been provided with a date as to when new insulation would be installed. The work to remove the insulation was rescheduled for 15 March 2022. New insulation was installed (after the confirmation that there was no evidence of pests) and a hole was repaired in the roof on 8 April 2022.
8. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
   1. Apologised for the “unreasonable delays” and the stress and inconvenience that this had caused to the resident.
   2. Acknowledged that its communication had been poor, which had resulted in two appointments not going ahead as the contactors did not wear the correct PPE, and the resident not being properly updated on scheduled appointments and what work was required.
   3. Offered the resident £200 compensation for its service failures.
9. In referring the case to this service, the resident described her desired outcome to the complaint was for the landlord to increase its compensation offer to cover the increase in heating costs for the period of time there was no insulation in the loft, and for the landlord to explain what lessons it had learned from the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

10. The landlord’s estate management policy describes how it handles pest infestations. This, in part, states that it will “will remove infestations at no charge to customers where there is evidence that it has arisen due to our failure to do something or due to disrepair”.
11. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy classifies repair types as “Emergency” (attend and make safe within 24 hours) and “Routine” (complete within 28 calendar days). Emergency repairs are defined by the landlord as a repair that presents an immediate health and safety risk.
12. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering financial redress in circumstances where “we are at fault and an apology or other remedy alone is not sufficient” and also in circumstances where there has been “quantifiable loss or damage and [it will] aim to restore the customer to the position they were in before any loss or damage occurred”.
13. The policy suggests compensation payments should be categorised as “up to £250”, “£250-£700” and £700+”. The policy recommends payments of up to £250 in situations where “the issue was resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the customer or the household”.

Scope of investigation

14. When raising a complaint with the landlord, the resident has described the effect on her health caused by the pest infestation and the length of time it took for the issue to be resolved. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. 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.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a pest infestation at the property

15. Once it was informed by the resident of the pest infestation, the landlord had a duty to respond to the issue in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. The landlord acted appropriately in correctly determining that as the entry points in the roof would be considered a property defect, it was its responsibility to resolve the pest infestation. Following the report by the resident, the landlord arranged for its pest control contractor to lay bait and raised work orders to seal the entry points.
16. However, the landlord recognised that there was service failure in how it handled the issue. It accepted that the work to seal the entry points was completed outside its published timescale of 28 calendar days, and that miscommunication between it and its contractors resulted in appointments not going ahead due to contractors not wearing the correct PPE and the resident being informed of appointment dates at short notice. The landlord also accepted that the resident had received poor service from it, which resulted in the resident initially not being made aware that there would be a period of at least two weeks from when the insulation was removed until it could be replaced to ensure that the pest infestation was resolved. The landlord also recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident having to chase it for updates on numerous occasions. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
17. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It looked to put things right by ensuring the pest infestation was cleared, repairs to the roof were completed and offering £200 compensation. It looked to learn from its mistakes by improving its communication with its contractors and the resident. The landlord’s internal emails show that following the complaint being raised, the complaint-handler assigned to the case remained in contact with the resident to provide her with updates, passed on the resident’s queries and questions to the contractor, and worked with the contractor to bring forward appointment dates in order to have the work completed as quickly as possible, after initially being informed by the contractor that it would not be able to install new insulation in the loft until May 2022.
18. It was appropriate, and in line with the guidance set out in its compensation policy detailed above, for the landlord to compensate the resident for its admitted service failures and the inconvenience that this had caused. The payment is also broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). The guidance suggests a payment of £100 to £600 for considerable service failure or maladministration which has adversely affected a resident, but resulted in no permanent impact. Examples of when this level of redress should be considered would include repeated failures by the landlord to reply to the resident’s letters, emails or phonecalls and failure by the landlord to meet its service standards and published timescales.
19. The £200 awarded by the landlord for its poor commination and delays in completing the work was made in line with this recommended payment guidance and therefore represents reasonable redress from the landlord and resolves these elements of the complaint.

Complaint Handling

20. The landlord’s records state that the resident raised concerns about heating the property without insulation in an email on 22 December 2021. She requested additional compensation for the increase in heating costs for the period of time the insulation was removed from the loft (25 days from 15 March 2022 to 8 April 2022). This email was sent following the resident’s receipt of the stage one response on 20 December 2021 and described the resident’s outstanding issues of the complaint. The resident then called the landlord on 6 January 2022 and formally requested an escalation of the complaint to stage two.
21. Therefore, the landlord should have considered an increase in heating costs while the property was without loft insulation as part of the stage two complaint and in the calculation of its compensation offer. That this did not happen and amounted to service failure by the landlord and a compensation payment is warranted to resolve this aspect of the complaint.
22. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends a payment of £50 to £100 in cases of minor service failure that has not significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. An example of when this level of redress should be considered would be a delay in resolving an aspect of the complaint. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay an additional £75 compensation to the resident for its failure to consider her concerns relating to the heating of the property while it was without loft insulation as part of the stage two complaint response.
23. If the resident has experienced an increase in energy usage during the time the property was without loft insulation this would be considered a quantifiable loss and, in line with its compensation policy detailed above, the landlord would be expected to offer compensation to cover the costs of the additional usage. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord write to the resident and inform her what evidence it would need (such as utility bills) in order for it to determine if further compensation is warranted for an increase in energy usage. On receipt of this evidence, it should then write back to the resident to inform her of its decision and explain how this decision was reached.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled her reports of a pest infestation at the property which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this element of the complaint.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. 

Orders

26. For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £75. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.

Recommendations

27. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the £200 compensation awarded by the landlord in its complaint process, if it has not done so already.
    2. Write to the resident and inform her what evidence it would need in order for it to determine if further compensation is warranted for an increase in energy usage. On receipt of this evidence, it should then write back to the resident to inform her of its decision and explain how this decision was reached.