Havering Council (202213065)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213065

Havering Council

30 November 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 complaint is about the redress offered by the landlord following its handling of:
1. Repairs and pest control.
2. The complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupies a property under a secure tenancy that commenced on 9 October 2006. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the second floor. The landlord has recorded on its systems that the resident has vulnerabilities.
The resident reported to her landlord the following on or around 11 June 2021:
1. A leak in her property that was causing water ingress damage to her ceiling.
2. Pigeons in her loft and kitchen.
3. Suspected rodents in the property.
Due to the delay in resolving the issues, the resident raised a formal complaint on 20 June 2021. In its stage 1 response on 6 July 2021, the landlord addressed the points of her complaint and explained:
1. The repair appointments for the leak were due to be made after a recent assessment.
2. The reports of vermin were not classed as an emergency, and it was the tenant’s responsibility in any event.
3. The reports of pigeons in the kitchen and loft were right to be reported to the landlord as they are protected species. As a result, it would consider reimbursing the resident for the pest control appointment she paid for totalling £125, following evidence of the report from the pest specialist.
The resident escalated her complaint on 16 July 2021 because she felt that the landlord had not resolved the outstanding repairs to her ceiling and asked for it to assess pests in the loft space. In its stage 2 response on 9 March 2022, the said:
1. It attended the resident’s home to complete the replastering and painting after fixing the leak on 7 January 2022.
2. It visited the resident’s home on 31 January 2022 to bait the property and re-instated netting to the balcony.
3. The resident had not provided evidence of the pest control report, so it had not had the opportunity to consider reimbursing this cost. It also apologised for the delays she had experienced and offered her £50 for this.
The landlord completed the works as follows:
1. It resolved the leak affecting the ceiling on 19 July 2021 with follow-up plastering and redecoration on 7 January 2022.
2. It re-instated netting to prevent pigeons on 31 January 2022.
3. It assessed the loft insulation on 28 September 2023.
4. Set traps for the rodents on 31 January 2022.
The resident was still dissatisfied, and she told this service that with the help of a local councillor, she accessed stage 3 of its complaint procedure on 20 April 2022. She said that the stage 2 response was “inaccurate, unfair, and unreasonable”. This was because she was unable to provide the evidence to support her former escalation request, she was unclear about what the landlord was accepting responsibility for, and the appointment on 31 January 2022 was not for a pest inspection but to re-instate netting on the balcony for the pigeon infestation.
She asked to be reimbursed for the cost of the pest control visit, the landlord to assess the home for rodents; and to be refunded a quarter of her rent for 4 months because she said her living room was uninhabitable whilst the leak remained unfixed. She also said that she did not feel £50 compensation was a fair offer for the distress she had experienced.
In its stage 3 response on 4 May 2022, the landlord said:
1. There was insufficient evidence to show the resident had suffered unfair treatment.
2. A pest control visit had been attempted, there was no evidence presented to consider the pest control reimbursement. However, if the resident provided the evidence of the payment for the pest control appointment, then this would be reimbursed.
3. The compensation offered at stage 2 was in line with its discretionary payment policy.
The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on the basis that she felt the offer of compensation was not sufficient to address the distress and inconvenience of the failures she experienced. This included the impact of the ongoing pest infestation and the delays in fixing her ceiling.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy states that:
1. Emergency repairs would be completed within 4 hours of the report. A ‘make safe’ repair would be offered with any additional work to follow.
2. Urgent repairs would be completed within 3 working days of the report.
3. Routine repairs would be completed within 28 working days.
The evidence is unclear about when the resident reported the leak to the landlord. However, the landlord refers to ‘emergency calls’ made by the resident, in its internal records. This evidence suggests the resident first reported water staining with the ceiling on or around 11 June 2021. The landlord referred to an appointment on the afternoon of 5 July 2021, but there is no record of this in the repair log provided. Instead, the repair records refer to an appointment made on 17 June 2021. It is not appropriate that the landlord does not have clear evidence of when the resident reported the repairs. Having considered the evidence, on the balance of probabilities – it is more likely than not that the resident first gave notice of the leak to the landlord on 11 June 2021.
In the report dated 17 June 2021, the landlord said that it attended the property to assess the leak and found that there was an issue with defective guttering. To fix this, scaffolding was required and that meant that the bird netting on the balcony would need to be removed. The resident said she would not be happy for the works to proceed unless the netting was replaced.
On 6 July 2021, the landlord confirmed the netting would be reinstated after the works had been completed. Therefore, the guttering was fixed on 19 July 2021, but it did not complete the additional replastering and repainting of the ceiling until 7 January 2022. Additionally, the netting was not reinstated until 31 January 2022.
The Ombudsman would expect that a leak causing water ingress to the resident’s ceiling to have been classed as an emergency. Whilst the landlord responded to the initial report of the leak within 4 working days, it ought to have attended within 4 hours under its policy. There is no evidence this affected the resident, however, as it is not clear that a temporary repair could be completed if scaffolding was required at that time.
The leak was resolved 26 working days after the initial report. The evidence shows that the resident initially declined the works until the landlord confirmed the netting would be re-instated. The evidence does not show that the landlord had followed up with the resident about the netting and instead, it suspended the work. This issue was only picked up internally as part of the complaint investigation. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should have responded much sooner in respect of the concerns about the netting. There is no evidence that the water ingress was uncontrollable or that 26 working days was wholly unreasonable.
The plastering works were resolved 91 working days after the initial report. This was 53 working days outside of its repairs policy. There is no evidence that the landlord treated this repair as a routine repair and attended to it within 28 working days.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to have an effective system to monitor and record information about reports of repairs. Although this service made requests to the landlord for the reports and assessments regarding the repairs, it failed to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the Ombudsman that it creates and maintains adequate records. This is not in line with our Spotlight Report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management (KIM)’. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review the KIM report and shares learning internally with its repairs teams.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has failed to follow its repairs policy because it did not act within its own repair time limits. This is because it did not attend and inspect the water ingress within four hours. Secondly, it left follow-on work outstanding for 91 working days.
The Ombudsman notes that £50 was offered to the resident for its delay. This service considers that this was not sufficient to acknowledge or remedy the consistent failure to follow its repair time limits, as well as its record keeping of the resident’s initial report.

The Pigeon Infestation

Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) it is an offence to intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst that nest is in use or being built.
In June 2021, the resident reported an infestation of pigeons. The resident also told the landlord and this service that the reason the pigeons had accessed the property was due to holes in the kitchen wall and ceiling whilst the landlord was dealing with other repairs in the property.
The landlord attended the resident’s property and undertook the following actions:
1. It liaised with contractors to assess the infestation on 8 June 2022 and 11 August 2023. The contractor explained on both occasions that it could not take further action because the pigeons were nesting.
2. It reinstated the netting on the balcony on 31 January 2022 following repair works for another issue.
3. It arranged an appointment to assess the loft for the infestation for 29 August 2023.
The landlord’s contractors told it (the landlord) on 8 June 2022 that there was no treatment available due to the infestation being pigeon related. On 29 August 2023, the landlord undertook an assessment of the loft area and found that the insulation was contaminated with bird fouling and recommended its replacement. The landlord explained to this service that this has been delayed due to the present of asbestos in the property. The landlord has explained it would arrange for the asbestos to be removed and would then replace the loft insulation.
The evidence shows that the landlord did assess the property in respect of the pigeons. Although the landlord’s contractors stated they could not take any action to remove the pigeons because of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the resident paid an independent pest control agency £125 to deal with the infestation. The landlord offered to reimburse this at all stages of the complaint procedure subject to the resident providing a receipt or some other proof of payment. It was appropriate that the landlord offered reimbursement. However, it is not clear why the landlord’s contractors could not resolve the issue if the resident’s own firm could.
There is no evidence that shows that the landlord was responsible for the infestation. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed whether it was responsible for the infestation at the time the resident raised her original complaint and failing to do so was a service failure.

The Rodent Infestation

The tenancy states that the resident is responsible for pest control including minor infestations to internal areas by insects or rodents. On the landlord’s website it states that it does not provide a pest control service and cannot identify types of pests for individuals.
The resident reported a suspected rodent infestation to her landlord on 11 June 2021. She told the landlord that she thought the reason that there was an infestation was due to the landlord’s failure to keep the property in good repair. The landlord responded by:
1. Assessing the property for an infestation on 29 June 2021 whilst attending for other repairs. The contractor confirmed that it did not see any signs of an infestation at this appointment.
2. Laying bait and traps in the property on 31 January 2022. The pest control agency stated that 2 further appointments were required to eradicate the issue. The evidence does not show if the follow-on visits occurred. The resident chased these appointments on 9 May 2022 as she did not believe that further traps had been laid. The contractors advised the landlord that she was not in the property at the time of their attendance.
3. Offering an appointment for a further assessment of the infestation at stage 3 of the complaints process.
There is no evidence that the landlord assessed the resident’s claim that the infestation was due to the negligence of its contractors relating to repairs. There is no evidence that shows that the landlord was responsible for the infestation. Notwithstanding this, its action in laying bait and traps was a reasonable approach had the landlord been responsible for the infestation.
The Ombudsman considers that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed whether it was responsible for the infestation at the time the resident raised her original complaint. That it failed to do so is a service failure. Additionally, the evidence is unclear whether the follow-on appointments for laying traps in the property occurred.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s complaint handling policy states:
1. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to in writing within 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to in writing within 25 working days.
3. Stage 3 complaints will be responded to within 30 working days.
4. In complex cases it may be necessary to extend the timescales, but the landlord must update the resident on why the deadline cannot be met and when they should receive a full response.
The landlord’s formal complaint responses were issued in the following periods:
1. Stage 1 – 11 working days from the initial complaint.
2. Stage 2 – 165 working days from the resident’s escalation request.
3. Stage 3 – 9 working days from the resident’s escalation request.
The resident told this service that she initially was unable to access stage 3 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. She said that she was only able to access this through the assistance of a local councillor and that she felt she had been prevented access to its full complaint procedure by the landlord. There is not enough evidence for the Ombudsman to make a finding on this part of the complaint.
From the point of escalation to the second stage of its complaint process, the landlord contacted the resident on 11 occasions to keep her updated on the progress of the investigation. It also apologised to her. However, it did not provide her with an updated deadline.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord did correspond with the resident regularly during this time. The Ombudsman expects landlords to agree any extensions to response times. In failing to agree an extension with the resident, the landlord was responsible for a service failure.
The landlord’s remedies did not fully address the detriment of the delay on the resident. This means there was an extended period where the resident did not have an outcome or closure on the complaint, as well as delaying recourse to stage 3.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the redress offered following its handling of:
1. repairs and pest control.
2. the complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

As the Ombudsman has found the redress offered by the landlord was not suitable to recognise the impact of the failures on the resident, the Ombudsman orders that the landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. provide a written apology to the resident for the failings found in this report
2. pay the resident £500 made up of:
  1. £250 to recognise the impact of the delays in completing the works following the leak.
  2. £100 for failing to assess whether either infestation was the responsibility of the landlord following the resident’s initial reports.
  3. £150 for failing to provide its stage 2 response within a reasonable time.
3. pay the resident any outstanding compensation awarded to the resident during the complaint procedure.
4. assess whether the property requires further pest control in respect of the rodents and provide this.
5. provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this service.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review the Ombudsman’s recent spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) to see whether it can make any changes to its recording system to ensure all relevant reports are maintained on its systems.