Hyde Southbank Homes Limited (202001363)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001363

Hyde Southbank Homes Limited

30 July 2021

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:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an infestation of carpet beetles and dust mites in his property.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a second floor one-bedroomed flat. This property has an access hatch into the communal loft space above.
3. The landlord obtained a quote from a pest control contractor in response to the resident’s report of being bitten on a regular basis. They provided their report to the landlord on 24 March 2020. In this, they noted that a previous contractor had attempted to eradicate “dust mites”, as described by the resident, from the property. The pest control contractor advised that its subsequent investigations had identified the presence of carpet beetles in the property and provided a quote to the landlord for a course of treatment over three visits.
4. The carpet beetle treatment was commenced but subsequently halted when the contractor advised the landlord on 30 April 2020 that, due to unacceptable contact from the resident, they were withdrawing their services to him.
5. The resident contacted this Service on 27 May 2020 to express his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s refusal to carry out “fogging” to eradicate the dust mites and carpet beetles in his property. He said that he was prepared to contribute to the cost of this treatment. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord later that day to request that his dissatisfaction be raised a formal complaint.
6. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 10 June 2020. In this, it confirmed that it had previously arranged for two different pest control contractors in succession to attend his property to address his reports of dust mites and carpet beetles due to his dissatisfaction with the actions of the original contractor. The landlord confirmed that the second contractor had withdrawn its services due to the resident’s behaviour to their staff.
7. The landlord confirmed that it could not offer any further help with the resident’s pest issue as the matter was not covered under its repair policy and it had arranged for works as a gesture of goodwill. Due to his behaviour, it had withdrawn its gesture of goodwill and informed him that any further work required to rid the property of pests was now his responsibility. The landlord noted that, during a conversation with the resident, he had explained that he started experiencing problems with pests after the purchase of a carpet in December 2019 which he had since disposed of, as well as his bed. It directed him to its website which confirmed that it was the resident’s responsibility to treat and remove pests from the property. The landlord explained that it was only responsible for treating pests when an infestation was affecting several homes, a communal area, or was a risk to public health.
8. After further contact from the resident, this Service requested, on 10 September 2020, that the landlord escalate his complaint to the final stage.
9. The landlord acknowledged the escalation of the complaint on 13 October 2020. It was evident that it subsequently instructed another pest control contractor to inspect the property and on their visit on 24 November 2020, they found evidence of pigeons in the communal loft of the property. The resident relayed that he had been asking for this to be inspected “for a long time” but this had not been done. The contractor advised that the pest issue which the resident was reporting may actually be bird mites.
10. The landlord sent a holding letter to the resident on 27 November 2020 in which it advised him that a delay had occurred in the investigation of his complaint due to the need to investigate the communal loft for evidence of pigeons and their access point. It said it hoped to provide him with a full response by 11 December 2020.
11. On 17 December 2020 the landlord sent a further holding letter to the resident to advise him that it had sent a specialist pest control contractor to the property on 14 December 2020, and it was awaiting its report before considering what measures it would be taking. Therefore, it informed him that it would try to provide a full complaint response to him by 12 January 2021.
12. This Service wrote to the landlord on 21 December 2021 to highlight our concern at the lack of progress with the resident’s complaint. We requested that it provide its final response to him within five days or we may issue it with a complaint handling failure order (CHFO).
13. The landlord’s pest control contractor provided it with a report and quote for works on 7 January 2021.
14. The landlord wrote the resident on 14 January 2021 to explain why it was yet unable to provide a full response to his complaint. It informed him that it was still awaiting feedback from its surveyor’s visit on 12 January 2021 so that it could form a plan of work based on this in conjunction with the report from its pest control contractor. The landlord said that it hoped to provide a full reply to the resident by 28 January 2021.
15. The landlord provided a further update to the resident on 26 January 2021 in which it detailed the works that it was planning to address the pigeons in the communal loft. It advised that, while some works had been raised, it would need to extend the complaint resolution date until all remedial works had been booked in, which it hoped would be by 18 February 2021.
16. On 3 February 2021, the Ombudsman issued a CHFO to the landlord for its failure to issue its final response to the resident’s complaint within the timescales specified by our Complaint Handling Code. We concluded that the complaints process had stalled and asked the landlord to provide its final stage complaint response to the resident by 10 February 2021 at the latest.
17. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 9 February 2021 in which it apologised for the situation being “drawn out”. It acknowledged that it had taken a long time to identify that there was a pigeon infestation in the communal loft and said that although it did not have “concrete evidence” that this was the cause of the pests he had reported, it believed that it was “highly likely”. The landlord noted that the resident had disposed of his possessions in efforts to eradicate the pest infestation but highlighted this was a decision made by him.
18. The landlord confirmed that pest control within the resident’s property was his responsibility, but it had assumed this responsibility, arranging for two different pest control contractors to carry out treatments “with differing results”. It expressed disappointment that its contractors did not investigate the loft area despite the resident requesting that they did so. The landlord advised that it had contacted both contractors to highlight the impact on residents of not carrying out extensive investigations.
19. The landlord noted that the resident had demonstrated unacceptable behaviour towards one of its contractors which resulted in it withdrawing its assistance, which returned the responsibility for combating the pest infestation to him. It, however, found that it could have done more to understand the nature of the problem he was reporting and apologised that it did not do so.
20. After the escalation of the resident’s complaint, the landlord confirmed that it arranged for another pest control contractor to inspect the property, whereupon it found evidence that there were pigeons in the loft. This led to it arranging for more detailed inspections by its contractor and surveyor. Resulting from the recommendations from these inspections it had now identified several works required to the property, not all of which were directly linked to pest control. The landlord advised that delays to these works had occurred due to the impact of coronavirus restrictions and access issues with the resident’s neighbour but confirmed that these works were now booked.
21. The landlord acknowledged that its contractors’ initial visits failed to investigate the communal loft areas and identify the potential pest infestation caused by the pigeons. It also acknowledged that any pest infestation affecting a communal area was its responsibility to tackle. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by its not identifying the cause of the pest infestation sooner.
22. The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation made up of £150 for the delay in providing a response to the pest infestation, £150 for distress and inconvenience, £150 for the resident’s “patience” during the complaints process and £50 for his time and trouble.
23. The resident informed this Service on 16 April 2021 that he had incurred excess costs during the pest infestation and sought compensation to cover the cost of damage to his soft furnishings, floor coverings and excess cleaning costs. He stated that he sought compensation of between £5,000 and £10,000.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

24. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident states that he is responsible for insurance cover for his own fixtures, fittings and contents. This agreement also states that he must not “abuse, assault, threaten or obstruct [its] staff, contractors or agents”.
25. The landlord’s pest control and identification procedure confirms that it is to recharge residents for pest control treatment if “they have caused or contributed to the pest infestation because of lifestyle issues”.  Its “dealing with household pests” webpage confirms that it is the resident responsibility to “keep [his] home clean, in good condition and free of rubbish that could attract pests.” If the resident does not do this the landlord may recharge him for dealing with pests in the property.
26. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy statement provides for two formal complaint stages with responses due within ten working days at stage one and 20 working days at the final stage. At both stages, if it requires more time to complete the investigation, it may explain this to the resident and provide a date for its response which is to be no more than a further ten working days.
27. The landlord’s compensation procedure states that it may pay compensation if it finds that it has not taken appropriate actions or it delayed taking appropriate actions, which led to an adverse effect on the resident. This also states that if a resident alleges financial loss, damage to property or personal injury, it will refer the resident to its insurance policy.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an infestation of carpet beetles and dust mites in his property.

28. It should be clarified that when the Ombudsman considers awarding compensation, the purpose of this is not to award ‘damages’ in the way that a court might or reimburse all the resident’s cost in the way an insurance claim might. The purpose of compensation is to award an amount that proportionately recognises the likely level of distress and inconvenience experienced by a resident due to any identified failures on the landlord’s part. Therefore, the amount awarded are unlikely to meet the amount sought by the resident. If the resident seeks the recovery of any costs or damages he has incurred, he may wish to seek independent legal advice on making an insurance claim or pursuing the matter through the courts.
29. When a landlord receives a report of a defect, its first action should be to inspect the issue. It is evident that it had arranged for historical visits by pest control contractors in efforts to remedy the pest problem reported by the resident. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the opinions of its suitably qualified staff and contractors. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider, after its second contractor withdrew its services on 30 April 2020, that it had no further obligation to address the pest issue reported. At this stage it would not have been aware that the pests may have been originating from a communal area and therefore, in accordance with its “dealing with household pests” webpage, above at point 25, it was reasonable for it to defer responsibility for dealing with the dust mites back to the resident, particularly considering his informing it that he had experienced the issue after his purchase of a carpet in December 2019, which it noted in its stage one complaint response on 10 June 2020.
30. In response to the escalation of the complaint through this Service on 10 September 2020, the landlord arranged for another pest control contractor to inspect the property. This was a reasonable response, given that, under the information it was aware of up to that point, this was in excess of its obligations. Once this new pest control contractor discovered evidence to suggest that the dust mite infestation was originating from a pigeon infestation of the communal loft space, the landlord took reasonable actions to investigate the issue and seek a resolution.  
31. There was, however, a significant delay between the landlord discovering the likelihood of the mite infestation spreading from the communal loft space to the resident’s property and it subsequently arranging for works to tackle this. It discovered evidence of pigeons in the loft on 24 November 2020 but did not confirm a schedule of works to deal with this to the resident until 9 February 2021 in its final complaint response to the resident. It did, however, provide regular updates to the resident on the progress of this on 27 November and 17 December 2020, and 14 and 26 January 2021. Furthermore, its explanation, in its final complaint response to the resident on 9 February 2021 that delays had arisen due to access issues with neighbouring properties and corona virus restrictions was reasonable. 
32. In its final stage complaint response on 9 February 2021, the landlord assumed responsibility for not discovering the pigeon infestation sooner. This was reasonable as, although it had carried out the initial pest control works as a gesture of goodwill, this implied that it assumed responsibility for resolving the problem. It also acknowledged that it could have acted sooner on the resident’s requests to inspect the loft.
33. The landlord offered £500 compensation to the resident, of which £350 was for issues related to its response to the pest infestation. Given that it had originally made reasonable efforts to deal with the pest infestation, which were halted due to unacceptable contact from the resident to the landlord’s contractor which was likely to have delayed the process of discovering the communal infestation, this was a reasonable offer of compensation. 
34. The offer of £350 compensation was in accordance with our remedies guidance where there were “serious failures… which have already been recognised and resolved by [the] landlord”. In considering the offer of compensation, the Ombudsman must also consider whether there were any mitigating factors, such as whether the resident’s behaviour exacerbated the situation. In this case, there was a significant delay between the resident reporting the pest infestation and the landlord arriving at a solution, but this delay was contributed to by the actions of the resident, which led to the withdrawal of a contractor’s services. Had this not been the case, it is conceivable that the true cause of the infestation may have been discovered sooner. Therefore, the compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable under the circumstances and represents an offer of reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

35. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was issued ten working days after the stage one complaint on 27 May 2020 in accordance with its complaints and compensation policy, above at point 26. Its final stage complaint response, however, was issued 105 working days after the complaint was escalated on 10 September 2020. This is 85 working days in excess of the timeframe specified in its policy, which provides for no more than a ten working day extension if a complaint require longer to resolve.
36. The final stage complaint response was issued after a CHFO was issued by this Service which found that the complaints procedure had stalled. While it is noted that the landlord provided regular updates to the resident before the final stage complaint response was issued, and the landlord issued its response within the timeframe specified by the CHFO, this Service encourages the timely resolution of complaints to minimise any distress and uncertainty on the part of the resident In this situation, where more time was needed to fully formulate a schedule of works, the landlord may have issued a final response which specified the investigative works it was undertaking to resolve the complaint, rather than awaiting their completion before issuing a response.
37. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the resolution of the complaint becoming “drawn out” in its final stage complaint response on 9 February 2021 and offered compensation of £150 in recognition of this. This offer is broadly in accordance with our remedies guidance where there has been a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”. This was therefore a reasonable offer of compensation which was proportionate to the likely level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay and represent an offer of reasonable redress to the resident.

Determination (decision)

38. In accordance with paragraph 55(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 concerning its response to the resident’s reports of an infestation of carpet beetles and dust mites in his property satisfactorily.
39. In accordance with paragraph 55(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 concerning its handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily. 

Reasons

40. The landlord took reasonable actions to attempt to resolve the pest infestation in the resident’s property, however there was a delay in carrying these out, which was partly exacerbated by the resident’s actions. It acknowledged its failure to act promptly and offered a reasonable and proportionate amount of compensation.
41. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its delay in resolving the complaint and offered a reasonable and proportionate amount of compensation to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result.

Recommendations

42. If it has not done so already, the landlord is to pay the amount of £500 compensation to the resident. The determination of reasonable redress being dependent on the landlord doing so.
43. That the landlord ensures that it follows through with its schedule of works to eradicate the pigeon infestation in the communal loft and the resulting pest infestation in the resident’s property.