Islington Council (202217948)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217948

Islington Council

20 December 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about squirrels at his property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the 13th floor. The block is situated on an estate owned by the local authority, which is also the landlord.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s pest control service specification says that it covers buildings and estates owned by the landlord. It will provide this service for its residents in relation to pests that pose a risk to public health, including rats, mice, cockroaches, garden, ants, fleas, bed bugs, wasps and pharaoh ants. The service will provide advice on other pests, such as squirrels.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 21 days, complete stage 1 reviews in 10 working days and respond to complaints at the chief executive stage within 28 days.

Summary of events

Prior to July 2021, the resident reported that squirrels were climbing up external cables and pipework on the building and accessing his balcony, where they were digging in his plants and defecating. In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord instructed a specialist pest control contractor to install domes over cables and spikes as a preventative measure to stop the squirrels climbing the building. When this did not work and the resident reported that the squirrels continued to climb the building, the landlord instructed its contractor to carry out a program to trap and dispose of squirrels on the estate.
In July 2021 the landlord’s contractor told the resident that it had carried out further trapping on the estate and removed 2 more squirrels. It did not believe this was a viable option long term as more squirrels would move into the area. It suggested residents remove planters from balconies to make them less attractive to the squirrels and to encourage residents not to feed them.
On 23 September 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord, which said:
1. Squirrels were able to climb up the building onto his balcony because of the external cables and pipes the landlord had installed.
2. The domes and spikes put on the building were not installed correctly and there were not enough of them, so this had not resolved the issue. The trapping program had reduced the numbers but this had now stopped and the squirrels had returned.
3. The contractor had suggested that residents remove planters from their balconies, which he felt was unreasonable.
4. The ideal solution would be to remove the external cables and pipes but he was aware this was not going to happen. Therefore, the squirrel trapping should be carried out at regular intervals, indefinitely. It should also install the domes and spikes properly, with enough of them to prevent the squirrels from climbing the building.
The following day the contractor updated the landlord that it had seen someone feeding squirrels on the estate that day and it did not see the trapping program as a long term solution when people fed them. While spikes had been installed to pipe work, the squirrels were able to find other ways to climb the building. One of these was via the lightening conductors, which it could not interfere with for safety reasons.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 September 2021 and provided its stage 1 response on 11 October 2021, as follows:
1. It had installed domes and spikes to act as deterrents but could not install these on lightening conductors that ran down the building, as this could cause issues with fire safety. The squirrels were also climbing up the uneven brickwork.
2. Its contractor had made approximately 8 visits to the estate and captured 11 squirrels. Despite this, the squirrels had continued to come to the estate because residents were feeding them and it had written to residents about this.
3. The external pipework and cabling supplied residents with power for cooking, lighting, heating and electrical services. The utility suppliers would have adhered to building regulations at the time these were installed.
4. The complaint was not upheld as there was no evidence of any service failure.
The resident responded 5 days later, saying that:
1. Not all points had been addressed and he did not believe his complaint had been fairly investigated. He asked whether it was the correct procedure for the landlord to investigate a complaint about itself as this was not impartial.
2. The landlord had created a fire safety issue by installing cables externally as the squirrels could chew through these. Installing the cables and pipes externally was “not fit for purpose”, which was not the same as building control compliant. These had been installed close to resident’s balconies, which enabled the squirrels easy access.
3. How did it know it was resident’s feeding the squirrels and not people passing through; and it would not be possible to manage the behaviour of other people in the area.
4. It was incorrect that squirrels were climbing up the brickwork, it was only the lower wall, which was rendered, and then they climbed onto the cables and pipes.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 19 October 2021 and provided its stage 1 review response on 1 November 2021, which said:
1. An external review of his complaint would not normally be carried out until it had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, and set out what this was. It reassured him that the stage 1 reviewer was in a team that was separate and independent from the service he had complained about.
2. The service pipes and cabling had been installed 15 years ago and all works were completed under planning conditions and with no objections from residents. All works were compliant with fire safety standards and the major works team had confirmed no external cabling had been flagged up in the fire risk assessment as part of ongoing fire safety works.
3. The uneven brickwork of the building provided leverage for the squirrels to climb. Major works would be required to repoint the brickwork which could not be justified as it may not resolve the problem.
4. Residents were consulted 3 to 4 years ago during the installation of the gas feed pipes and no objections were raised regarding the location of these in relation to the balconies.
5. It would review the spike and dome locations and the trapping program to identify whether there was anything else it could do to tackle the issue.
6. The outcome remained that the complaint was not upheld, as no service failures had been identified.
The resident replied 3 days later that he did not agree with some of the points made and the decision to not uphold the complaint. He had noted the suggested actions and would review the matter in a couple of months to see if the situation had improved. If it did not, he would escalate his complaint and asked the landlord to agree an extension to the time limit for him to do this. The same day the landlord confirmed it would be flexible with the timeframes for him to escalate his complaint.
On 9 November 2021 the contractor told the landlord that the domes had been damaged and the squirrels were able to climb around the spikes using the brickwork. In light of this, it did not recommend reinstalling these as it would be a waste of the landlord’s budget. It suggested the way to control the problem was to install traps.
There was an email exchange between the landlord and the resident in November 2021, in which the landlord said it had taken action outside of its pest control process because of the concerns the resident had raised. It had been in contact with the specialist company, which had advised that further preventative measures would not resolve the issue and be a waste of resources. It had agreed a further trapping program over a 6 week period, which had begun. It would write to residents about not feeding squirrels to reduce the squirrels food source in the area, which it did on 1 April 2022.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 15 December 2021 and the landlord sent a holding reply the following day. The following month the landlord told the resident that the complaint investigation had not started because of a high number of complaints and it would send a formal acknowledgement once the investigation had begun. The resident chased the response in February 2022 via a councillor and the landlord provided the same response the following month.
In August 2022 there was internal communication between landlord departments which asked when the next cyclical works were planned and whether this could involve moving the utility cabling and pipes. The response was that the next works were scheduled for 2027/28 and it was not sure about moving the cabling as this was owned by the utility company.
In the same month the resident chased the landlord for a response to his complaint. On 9 September 2022 the landlord apologised for the delay and confirmed that the investigation had begun, and it would respond within 7 days. A week later the landlord gave an updated response deadline of 23 September 2022.
On 20 September 2022 the resident reported that he was attacked by a squirrel on his balcony and had sought medical attention for this. He asked for immediate action to be taken.
Three days later, on 23 September 2022, the landlord provided its chief executive stage complaint response, which said:
1. It apologised for the delayed response and awarded £100 compensation for this.
2. There was no evidence that it had acted negligently in placing the cabling and pipework next to resident’s balconies.
3. The domes and spikes had been installed correctly but were broken by children playing football in the area. Its contractor had advised any additional spikes and domes would not be enough of a deterrent because the squirrels would find another way to climb the walls. Installing further measures was not an effective use of its resources.
4. It had not instructed a further trapping program as residents continued to feed the squirrels, despite being told to stop this.
5. His complaint was not upheld because there had been no service failure.
The resident escalated his complaint to a councillor 3 days later. The councillor forwarded this to the landlord and said that they had received a report from another resident in the area about being scratched by a squirrel. The landlord said that it contacted its pest control contractor to arrange a further trapping program and 11 days later the contractor advised traps would be fitted the following week.
The landlord sought advice from the local authority pest control service in late September 2022, which said it did not provide pest control services for squirrels as they were not classed as a public health pest. Squirrels were territorial so even when some were trapped and killed, over a period new ones would move in, so trapping would only achieve a short term outcome. Squirrels did not generally attack people but there may be rouge ones from time to time. It suggested that residents be advised that squirrels were wild animals and caution should be taken in their presence.
In January 2023 this issue was discussed at a residents meeting and the landlord noted in the minutes that a notice about not feeding the squirrels had been put on electronic noticeboards between November 2022 and January 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s decision to install service cables and pipework on the external parts of the building. Complaints should be brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 6 months, so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme). As the cables were installed between 5 and 15 years ago, this matter falls outside the scope of this investigation. While the Ombudsman has not investigated the landlord’s decision to install the cables and pipework externally, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s more recent concerns about this issue, in relation to the squirrels using them as a way of climbing up the building.
Between December 2022 and June 2023, the Ombudsman carried out an investigation into the landlord, under paragraph 49 of the Scheme, which allows us to conduct investigations beyond individual complaints to establish whether there is any evidence of a systemic failing within a landlord. This investigation included the landlord’s complaint handling and it reviewed 30 cases brought to the Ombudsman. It identified common points of failure and made recommendations for improvement. The report was published in October 2023 and can be viewed here 20231018-Islington-P49-final.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The events in this case took place prior to this period and some of the findings of the Ombudsman’s special report are relevant to this case and are referred to in this report. However, we have not made any orders or recommendations which would duplicate those already made to the landlord in the Ombudsman’s special report.

Response to the resident’s concerns about squirrels at his property

The landlord was not required to provide pest control services in relation to squirrels, as set out in its pest control service specification detailed above. While not required to take action, it was appropriate that it did, to address this issue, in light of the resident’s concerns.
The landlord initially tried installing preventative measures but when this did not resolve the issue, it implemented a trapping program; which was appropriate and showed that it was taking the matter seriously. When the resident raised concerns about the preventative measures and asked for more to be installed, the landlord followed up with its specialist contractor, which was appropriate. The contractor’s response was shared with the resident and while frustrating for him, it was reasonable that landlord relied on the advice and opinion of its specialist contractor regarding this.
The trapping programs were implemented for a set period of time, which was reasonable as the landlord has a responsibility to consider its financial resources. The landlord implemented a second program when the resident reported that the squirrels had returned, which showed that it continued to take his concerns seriously. In its stage 2 response, it explained why it had not agreed a further trapping program and, while frustrating for the resident, the landlord was within its rights to make this decision as it was not required to provide any services in relation to squirrels. Despite this, when the landlord was made aware of a second attack, it reviewed its decision and implemented a further trapping program, which was appropriate and showed it was properly considering the issue. After the landlord was notified of the second attack, it also sought advice from its pest control service, which was appropriate.
When the resident raised concerns about the external cables and pipes on the building, the landlord responded that the works had been completed in line with building regulations and planning conditions, which was appropriate. It also said that there had been no objections from residents at the time, which was important information to share as it showed that residents had been consulted at the time. As these works had been completed many years previously, the landlord could have declined to consider this concern as part of its complaint investigation, but it did not. This was a fair decision as its response sought to provide reassurance to the resident.
As part of his complaint, the resident suggested that the landlord remove the external pipes and cables and install them internally. While the landlord was under no obligation to consider this, from the records provided, it appears that it did make internal enquiries about this. While enquiries were made, it is not clear what the outcome of this was so a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to provide a written response to the resident in relation to this.
When the landlord was told that the squirrels were climbing up the uneven brickwork, it considered whether it could carry out works to address this, which was appropriate. Its decision not to progress with these works was reasonable as it could not be certain this would resolve the issue and they would be very costly, which would potentially be passed on to leaseholders.
It was appropriate that the landlord give advice to residents about how they could help to resolve this issue. It sent a block letter and after this put a notice on electronic noticeboards, which was sensible to continue to remind residents about the importance of this advice. The landlord’s contractor suggested residents could remove plants from their balconies and while the resident felt this was unreasonable, it was a sensible suggestion to make.
Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about squirrels.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s special report highlighted unreasonable delays in the landlord’s complaint responses, which is relevant in this case.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 13 working days, which was in line with the committed response time set out in its complaints policy, as detailed above. When the resident asked to escalate his complaint, the landlord carried out the stage 1 review in 11 days, which was 1 day over the committed response time, as detailed above; and so only a very minor delay.
The landlord agreed to be flexible with the resident around the timeframe for him to escalate his complaint to the chief executive stage, which was fair and reasonable, to allow him time to see whether its committed actions resolved the issue.
However, once the resident had raised a chief executive stage complaint, it took the landlord 193 working days to respond, which was significantly over the committed response time set out in its complaints policy, as detailed above. This substantial and unreasonable delay amounts to maladministration. While the landlord warned the resident about the delay and provided 1 proactive update, it did not provide regular or consistent updates and this resulted in the resident chasing the landlord on at least 2 occasions. This prolonged period with no updates would have left the resident feeling as though the landlord was not taking his complaint seriously.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its final response, which was appropriate. It offered £100 compensation, which was insufficient considering the length of the delay. Therefore, orders have been made below for the landlord to pay the resident the £100 compensation already offered and an additional £150 in relation to its handling of his complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about squirrels at his property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took action in response to the resident’s concerns about squirrels, even though it was not obligated to do so. The actions it implemented and considered were reasonable and showed that it took the matter seriously. It sought advice from its own pest control service as well as a specialist pest control contractor, and it was reasonable that it relied on the advice and opinion of these specialist services. It was appropriate that it gave advice to residents about how they could help to resolve the issue and the advice given was sensible. The landlord responded to the resident’s concern about the installation of the external pipes and cables and sought to reassure him regarding this.
There was a significant and unreasonable delay to the landlord’s chief executive stage complaint response. This resulted in the resident chasing the landlord on at least 2 occasions. It did not do enough to keep the resident updated on the delay, which would have left him feeling ignored.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation, made up of:
1. £100 already offered for its complaint handling.
2. An additional £150 for its complaint handling.

The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord to provide a written response to the resident’s suggestion that the external pipes and cables be removed and installed internally.

The landlord to update this Service regarding its intentions with the above recommendation within 4 weeks.