Livv Housing Group (202121943)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121943

Livv Housing Group

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 handling of:
1. The resident’s report of a pest infestation at the resident’s previous property.
2. The resident’s report of a leak and rubbish found underneath the bath in the resident’s current property.

Background.

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 15 December 2014 and lives in a 3-bedroom house.
The resident was moved by way of a management transfer to a 3-bedroom house on 21 January 2022.
The resident is diagnosed with severe depression, trauma psychosis and anxiety.

Scope of Investigation.

From correspondence this Service has seen, the resident reported the infestation up until November 2018. However, there was a gap of several years until the matter was raised again in April 2021. This service acknowledges the length of time the resident states the infestation has been present and how frustrating this would have been. In the circumstances it would have been reasonable for the resident to have raised her concerns sooner so that the issues could have been investigated by the landlord while they were “live.” Given the passage of time, and the gaps in reporting between 2018 and 2021 this Service has only investigated the landlord’s response from April 2021 onwards.

Summary of events

The infestation at the resident’s previous property.

On 6 April 2021, the resident called the landlord’s out of hours team. She said she was having issues with pests inside her property. She had seen 2 baby rats in 2 days in her bedroom. She was petrified she said she was “overrun with rats.” She said pests were an issue a few years back, but she had not had an issue for the past year. In the past she was told she could not move due to rent arrears.
The pest situation was affecting her mental health and wellbeing. She had small children living at the property and it was unhygienic and unsafe. A neighbour down the road had been doing works and she thinks this is where it could have started from. She asked for a call back and a home visit.
On 7 April 2021, the resident called the landlord again to say that it was having an impact on her anxiety, and she did not want to live there with rats.
On 8 April 2021, the call records show that the resident called in again several times. She was advised that its pest control was due to call her that day and visit.
On 9 April 2021, the landlord visited the resident. it took pictures of droppings throughout the property. It said the rear garden was cluttered with rubbish, a sofa, a mattress, and bits of other furniture. The resident was advised that this rubbish would not help the situation. The resident said that she wanted to be moved.
On 13 April 2021, the landlord’s pest control visited the resident. It said that the bait it had left in the property last week had not been touched and was not an infestation. The resident advised the pest control that she had not seen any rats in the property either. It said that it had asked its repair team to visit to cover up any access points if necessary.
On 14 April 2021, the resident called the landlord she said she was not returning to the property that night because of the rats as they were in her wardrobe. She asked the landlord to call her back.
On 15 April 2021, the landlord called the resident it said that due to reports from its pest control that no bait had been taken and there was no infestation it would continue to monitor the situation. It would not be moving the resident. The resident said that the pest control had told her that her neighbours house was overrun with rats as was hers. The landlord asked if the pest control had inspected inside her neighbour’s property. The resident said they had not, but they could tell by looking over the fence.
The resident asked for a written plan. The landlord advised that it had explained it would monitor and it would send out an operative next week and also an inspector to assess the property. The resident advised that she would not allow access and that she would seek legal advice.
The resident called in several times in April 2021 very distressed. She asked if she could have it in writing as to why she would not be moved. She said that she had “tried to take her own life.” She said she was not paying her rent because of the infestation. She could not use her wardrobes or cook because of the rats. She asked to speak to a manager.
The landlord contacted her on 4 May 2021, but it is unknown what was discussed.
The resident called again on 3 June 2021. She said the property was infested and her mental health had got worse. The landlord tried to arrange for its pest control contractor to return but the resident advised she would not let them in.
On 17 June 2021, the resident’s support worker contacted and asked for a call back. She said that someone had visited the property last week and the resident was waiting for a solution. The resident had informed the support worker that she could not cope with the infestation.
On 29 June 2021, the landlord visited the resident with the local authority environmental health officer, the resident’s support worker and its pest control contractor. The resident became very irate, and the landlord had to leave the property. Shortly after the visit the pest control contractor advised the landlord that the resident refused to have any bait put down in case the children touched it. The contractor was going to enquire to see if the garden could be cut back.
On 29 June 2021, a repair job was raised to fill in the holes in the roof. It is unknown if these works were completed.
The resident called in several times in July 2021. She was transferred to a manager and was advised that it was arranging a meeting internally to discuss the case.
On 22 July 2021, the landlord’s contractor advised that they had provided a skip to the resident, but it had been misused and the garden had not been cleaned as agreed. The resident had been abusive to staff members and the pest control contractor.
On 29 July 2021, the landlord called the resident to advise that its pest control contractor had recommended tamper proof bait boxes. The resident refused and the landlord tried to explain that it could not do anything else if she was refusing bait boxes. The resident advised that she would contact the pest control contractor and terminated the call.
On 3 August 2021, the resident called to say that she was smashing walls in the house as her children were being bitten. She demanded a call back. The landlord called her back it explained that as she was refusing the tamper proof bait boxes it was unable to treat the issue. The landlord said it was due to discuss the garden condition today and that it would update her.
The landlord called her back on the same day but stated the resident would not let it explain. It said it would put its position in writing to the resident.
On 13 August 2021, the landlord’s internal records show that the landlord discussed the condition of the resident’s garden. It believed the rubbish in the garden may be harbouring rats. It said it had baited the property previously but had been unable to access the property to assess. It was working with the local authority environmental health team who had agreed to hold off on enforcement action as it was aware that the landlord was dealing with the issue. The garden was particularly large and overgrown, and the resident would need assistance to manage it.
On 13 August 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident. She said she was now willing to allow access to fit the tamper proof boxes. The resident said that she had found new holes that needed to be plugged. She agreed to send pictures so that the landlord could get the job raised. The resident apologised for her previous actions. She also said that she realised that the garden was part of the problem, but she needed assistance as she did not have the resources to tackle it on her own.
On 19 August 2021, the landlord’s pest control contractor placed 10 tamper proof bait boxes at the property.
The pest control contractor did a follow up visit on 25 August 2021 and advised that there was evidence that bait had been taken. It said that there was mice present but the infestation did not appear to be severe. It said the front and rear gardens were overgrown and not maintained. There were 2 sofas, a fridge, rubbish, and several bin bags in the front and rear gardens. The resident informed the contractor that she was unable to clear the garden. The items needed to be removed as it would attract rodents. It could not see any entry or exit holes within the exterior of the property.
On 26 August 2021, the mental health and wellbeing team contacted the resident about the issues. It said the resident was very upset and it was unsure whether she would accept any help.
On 27 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she had covid.
On 6 September 2021, the landlord spoke to its pest control contractor who advised that it had called the resident and was going to re-attend once the resident had finished her isolation period. It had also spoken to another department who had agreed that they would remove the rubbish as a one off. It still needed to discuss grass cutting moving forwards.
On 15 September 2021, the resident called the landlord to advise that the property had been baited 3 weeks ago but this was ineffective. The rats were now nesting in her wardrobe and her cat now had fleas. The landlord advised that it would arrange a second round of baiting and the resident should consider treatment for the cat and the property to manage the fleas. The resident said the fleas were from the rats.
On 15 September 2021, the landlord’s pest control contractor contacted the landlord to advise that the resident had been abusive when it had visited.
On 16 September 2021, the resident called the landlord to say that its pest control contractor had attended. She had asked for a copy of the report but had been refused.
On 27 September 2021, the safeguarding team from the resident’s children’s school contacted the landlord to discuss the infestation.
The landlord arranged a referral for tenancy support for the resident on 29 September 2021.
On 7 October, the landlord visited the resident. The resident said that she was getting support for her mental health. She said the whole road had rats. She said she wanted to be moved somewhere without rats.
On 10 October 2021, the resident called the landlord she said that she felt that the infestation was getting worse. The landlord suggested a further round of baiting. The resident was sceptical as she had this done previously and did not consider that it had any effect. She said she was willing to continue with the treatment but did not believe it would be successful.
On 12 October 2021, the resident called the landlord. She was upset as no one had turned up the previous day to carry out an inspection.
On 13 October 2021, the landlord referred the resident to its own mental health and wellbeing service.
On 20 October 2021, the landlord visited the resident to discuss the issues.
On 22 October 2021, the landlord’s pest control contractor contacted to advise that he will not be attending the property again as the resident had been threatening and abusive.
On the same day, the landlord’s internal records show that it agreed to a management transfer based on its discussions with the resident during its visit. It informed the resident and the resident advised that she wished only to be re-housed in the vicinity of her current home due to family connections and the school from whom she received support.
On 3 November 2021, the tenancy support team reported that the resident was unhappy about the delay in the management move.
On 4 November 2021, the landlord called the resident. it explained the process for allocations and that this may not be an immediate remedy as it was subject to availability of properties which it had no control over. It explained that the limited area of choice may slow the process. It was hopeful that she may get an offer before Christmas.
On 11 November 2021, the landlord visited the resident to assist her to complete the transfer application. The landlord discussed her mental health support which was still in place and the need to speak to her GP again which the resident said she would.
On 22 November 2021, the landlord received communication from tenancy support that the resident had agreed to extend her areas of choice. Her application had been updated.
In December 2021, the resident was offered a property.
On 21 January 2022, the resident signed a new tenancy and was transferred via a management move to an alternative property.
On 25 January 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said:
1. Her landlord had not addressed her complaints around both rat and flea infestations at her previous property.
2. The problems went back several years, and this culminated in her being granted a move to another property.
3. The rat problem was not addressed which led to them living in the walls of the property.
4. The flea issue led to one of her children being sent home from school with flea bites.
5. She also had concerns about her new property as several jobs still needed to be completed and should have been completed prior to her moving in. She wanted this work to be carried out as soon as possible.
On 8 February 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said:
1. The resident’s concerns about rats were brought to its attention in August 2021. It discussed the matter with the local authority environmental health team, and it was agreed that its pest control contractor would attend and bait the property. This was completed on 25 August 2021.
2. In September 2021, the resident contacted it and advised that despite baiting there were still rats in the property. Further baiting was arranged for the week commencing 13 September 2021. The resident also raised concerns that the rats had passed fleas on to your cat. It advised the resident to look into flea treatment for her cat and the property.
3. In October 2021 there was a further appointment raised with its pest control contractor which did not go ahead. It had reviewed the account and noted that this was not followed up despite a job being raised. It apologised for this failure.
4. In October 2021 it met with the resident at the property. Following further visits and discussions around the issues she was experiencing it agreed to approve a property transfer.
5. This was not within its policy as it would not usually request a move, given the high level of rent arrears. However following consideration of the resident’s concerns and her wellbeing while at the property it was agreed that it would make an exception and arrange a property move.
6. In December 2021, the resident reported that one of her children had been sent home from school with flea bites. It agreed that this would cause significant upset given the ongoing issues in the property and the frustration because of the time it was taking to find and allocate a new property.
7. It was unable to prevent instances of fleas and although it understood her concerns it was of the view that it had done what it could to try to address the rat problem but treating fleas on a pet was not one of its responsibilities as a landlord.
8. It was continuing to work with the local authority environmental health team to manage the issue of rodents.
9. There were notes which showed that the resident had raised concerns about the time it was taking to allocate a new property. It had explained that the requirements around the area she wished to move to would limit options. The resident then agreed to change her requirements and following this change the resident had been advised of a property which she was then offered and moved into on 21 January 2022.
10. It was approximately 3 months from the decision to move the resident until she moved into a new property. It understood that given the concerns in her previous property that the wait may have seemed longer. It was unable to control these timescales as it had to wait for a suitable property to become available. Once it was in possession of the new property it was only 4 weeks until she was able to move in, considering this included the Christmas holidays it was of the view that it had managed the move in a reasonable time frame.
11. In relation to the resident’s concerns about the support offered it was evident that the support team became involved with the resident in October 2021 following a referral from its housing adviser. The support staff remained in contact throughout the process of exchanging the property, escalating her concerns, and trying to obtain further updates of the property exchange regularly. She was also provided general support throughout this period.
12. It was unable to uphold the complaint as it was evident that it had taken reasonable steps to both address the problems with the previous property and provide support throughout the process of changing property.
13. It had also reviewed the resident’s account for the new property, and it could not see any jobs awaiting completion. The last had been carried out over the weekend when there was a problem with the front door. As there were no outstanding work there were no further actions for it to propose around that area of her complaint.
On 7 April 2022, the resident raised a stage 2 complaint as she was unhappy with the stage 1 response.
On 13 May 2022, the landlord sent a stage 2 response. It said:
1. It had completed a full review of the complaint and in visiting the resident at home it wanted to give her the opportunity to discuss her complaint further to see if there was anything else it could do.
2. It could not go back and change what had happened it had offered support with her mental health. It had listened and apologised for stress caused. It had also moved her and her family to a new home.
3. It could not uphold the complaint as it had been unable to identify any service failure.

Report of a leak and rubbish found underneath the bath.

On 21 March 2021, the resident reported a leak, and the landlord attended the property under an emergency appointment. It found patches on the ceiling directly below the bathroom and determined the leak was coming from the bath.
A job was raised to replace the bath panel and the landlord attended and completed this on 30 March 2022.
On 4 April 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said:
1. When she removed a bath panel after a leak was fixed, she found a shower head, blue roll, and builders’ rubble underneath the bath.
2. She was bitten by something but was not sure what.
3. The leak was not fixed and had just been stuffed with blue roll.
On 20 April 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said:
1. It attended on 21 March 2022. It was identified that additional repair works were required, and these were completed on 30 March 2022.
2. It understood that the repairs had been completed to a satisfactory standard but as the resident had raised concerns about the quality of work it had agreed to re-attend to review the works. It offered a date and time for it to attend.
3. In respect of debris behind the bath panel it said that its operative would not be expected to remove items that were present. Because the resident was a new tenant it had spoken with its empty homes team to establish whether debris was present during the period the property was vacant.
4. Its team had reviewed the hand over pictures and confirmed that the bath panel was in place when the property was vacant and there was no reason for it to remove it during this period as there were no defects or leaks present at the time.
5. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
On 25 April 2022, the resident raised a stage 2 complaint. She said:
1. She was not happy with the stage 1 response. She was bitten by something when she removed the bath panel, and this would not have happened if the “job was done properly.”
2. She had been in the property since 21 January 2022 and still had a list of outstanding jobs.
On 4 May 2022, the landlord attended to inspect the property but was unable to gain access.
On 9 May 2022, the landlord visited the resident to discuss the complaints raised.
On 13 May 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said:
1. When it visited the resident on 9 May 2022 it discussed the resident’s mental health support and the resident advised that she had a good GP who had recently reviewed her medication. The resident had also advised that she was waiting for a psychiatrist appointment.
2. The resident informed the landlord that she was happy that her children were now safe and settled into the new home.
3. It had asked the resident whether there was anything practical within the property that it needed to resolve, and the resident advised that there was not.
4. In relation to the issue where the resident was bitten by something after removing the bath panel it understood that this was not a pleasant experience. However, as a landlord it could not guarantee that there would not be instances where the resident would need to investigate potential problems in the property. It could not be responsible for the resident receiving what was likely to be an insect bite as this was something outside of its control.
5. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.

Post Complaint.

On 25 July 2022, the resident was moved to alternative accommodation due to an unrelated incident. The resident then requested that the alternative accommodation be made permanent, and the landlord agreed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an infestation in her previous property.

The landlord’s website details the landlord’s responsibilities in respect of rats. It states the landlord is responsible for sealing openings which allow pests into one of its properties. It is also responsible for removing any pests following this work. It confirms residents are responsible for removing pests after any entry points have been identified and sealed. Residents are also responsible for preventing infestation.
The landlord’s estate services policy states:
1. When a resident reports an infestation within their house or garden it will advise the resident to contact the local authority or a pest control company.
2. Where an infestation can be directly attributed to a customer’s living conditions or habits, it will advise them on how best to address the problem to ensure that it does not reoccur. It would visit all residents who report an infestation within their home or garden.
3. Where a resident fails to meet any of the obligations to rectify an infestation appropriate action will be taken to encourage the resident to adhere to the conditions of the tenancy. Support and advice would be offered when required. Continual failure of the resident to meet their responsibilities would be viewed as a breach of tenancy.
4. Where required it would work with the local authority to assist with any statutory nuisance arising from an infestation.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Pests, such as rats, are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS because they can spread infection. HHSRS identifies missing or damaged external brickwork, including air bricks, as a known source of pests. Landlords are expected to affect repairs to minimise the ways pests can access a building.
The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting the property have impacted her health. The resident’s description of the impact on her and her family are acknowledged. 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 may wish to seek independent advice in respect of this.
The landlord visited the resident 3 days after she reported the infestation in April 2021. Given the history of the infestation and the uncertainty as to whether it was resolved in November 2018 this was appropriate. The landlord’s records state that the landlord took pictures of droppings during this visit, so it was evident that an infestation was present at that point. Bait treatment was also placed in the property, and the pest control contractor informed the landlord 6 days after the resident’s first report that the bait had not been touched. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of its pest control contractor, and it appropriately agreed to monitor the situation by completing a follow up visit and inspection.
The resident asked at this point for a written plan as to how the landlord was going to monitor the situation. It is unknown why the landlord did not provide a written plan. The resident was clearly distressed and wanted some re-assurance that the situation was going to be monitored moving forwards and that all possible causes had been investigated. The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable and that historically there had been an infestation in the property. It would have therefore been reasonable for it to provide an action plan of how it would monitor the situation, particularly in these circumstances. The most recent treatment had only been in place for a week so it could not be certain that the situation was resolved. The failure to provide a written plan would have caused the resident further distress and uncertainty.
The resident also advised the landlord that neighbouring properties were affected. This Service asked the landlord if it had investigated neighbouring properties, to see if there was a wider issue. It confirmed that it had not. The landlord advised this Service that it believed the cause of the infestation was due to the condition of the resident’s garden. Its pest control contractor also stated that this may be a contributory factor. Given that the cause was unknown It would have been reasonable for the landlord to request that neighbouring properties were investigated to ensure that it had satisfied itself that it had done all it could to investigate the potential cause and resolve the issue.
The pest control contractor had requested that any necessary access points be covered up as had the resident. The repair records provided to this Service show that a job was raised to do this in June 2021 and that it was invoiced in September 2021. It does not show however when and if these works were completed. When this Service requested this information from the landlord it provided invoices from its pest control contractor, but these did not evidence that proofing works had been completed. The fact that the landlord was unable to show that it had completed or at least investigated whether any proofing works were required was a further failing which could have contributed to delays in finding a resolution.
The resident had also asked for copies of the pest control reports which the landlord did not show that it had provided. Internal landlord records on the information from its pest control contractor provided to this Service were minimal. This Service would recommend that the landlord ensures that its contractor findings, treatment plans and recommendations are clearly reported. Not only will this enable the landlord to monitor the situation it will also ensure that the treatment plan and any relevant works required are clearly communicated to the resident.
It was evident that the resident was very distressed. The call records in April 2021 evidenced that she had informed the landlord that she had attempted to take her own life and she also expressed that she was unable to cope with the situation in June via a support worker. The resident was vulnerable which the landlord was aware of. It would have been reasonable if evidence was seen of how the landlord had risk assessed the situation at this point and what referrals or interventions were appropriate as a result of this assessment given the resident’s own perception of the infestation, her known vulnerabilities and distress. That it did not was a failing and a missed opportunity for it to satisfy itself that appropriate support was in place at the earliest opportunity. The evidence showed that the landlord formally referred the resident to its own mental health and wellbeing service in October 2021. The call records also show that the landlord’s mental health and wellbeing service had said they would contact her earlier in August 2021, but this was almost 4 months after the resident had expressed her concerns and informed the landlord that she was unable to cope.
It is acknowledged that the resident refused access on occasions which would have contributed to delays in treatment however it was evident that she required support given her expressed distress. The landlord failed to show that it had done all it could to try to gain access during this period.
When the resident reported the flea infestation in September 2021 the landlord failed to consider whether this may have been linked to the rat infestation and whether on that basis it needed to be included in the treatment. That it did not was a further failing.
It was appropriate that the landlord agreed to move the resident in October 2021. It was concerning to note however that the infestation was still an issue in October 2021, but the landlord failed to complete any treatment from October until January 2022 when the resident was re-housed.
The landlord said that its pest control contractor had refused to attend due to the resident’s behaviour in October 2021. There is no evidence however to show that it had communicated this to the resident. The landlord also failed to show that it had considered appropriate intervention to try to work with the resident to ensure that it could continue treatment given that it knew re-housing may take several months. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to evidence that it had done all that it could to try to eliminate the pest issue while the resident still had to remain in the property. That it did not was a failing which caused the resident who was already very distressed to have to live a further 3 months with the infestation left untreated.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rat infestation amount to maladministration. The rats were a potential hazard under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) and the landlord was aware that the resident had children in the property. She had also expressed the impact it was having on her mental health.
It is acknowledged that the condition of the resident’s garden was exacerbating the situation and that the landlord had assisted by supplying a skip and arranging clearance. The difficulties that the landlord was experiencing managing the resident’s expectations and her relationship with its pest control contractor is also acknowledged.
However, while the landlord attempted to treat the matter, it failed to reasonably assess the impact on the resident at an earlier stage despite the resident’s known vulnerabilities. It also failed to show that it had investigated/repaired any access and entry points needed to be filled within a reasonable period of time. It did not show that it had considered whether the infestation was a wider issue and whether the report of a flea infestation was linked. It did put support in place and agreed to move the resident in October 2021. It did not however show that it had done all it could to continue treatment in the period that the resident was waiting to move which extended the period that the resident had to remain living with the infestation.

The resident’s report of a leak and rubbish found underneath the bath in the resident’s current property.

The landlord’s repair policy states:
1. Emergency repairs same day attendance are repairs that affect the safety or security of the property or impact the health of the resident. These include uncontrollable water leaks.
2. Emergency repairs within 24 hours are repairs that are an emergency but do not require immediate attendance because it is not causing a safety or security issue or affecting the health of the resident. These include containable leaks.
3. Urgent repairs will be attended to within 7 days. These are repairs which are not classed as an emergency, but further damage or inconvenience will be caused if the problem is not dealt with urgently.
4. Routine repairs will be attended to within 28 days.
The landlord attended to the leak in the property within its policy timescales and returned to complete works to replace the bath panel within its own time scales.
The landlord also appropriately agreed to re-inspect the works when the resident raised her complaint if she remained dissatisfied. It went further in its stage 2 response and visited the resident at the property to check that there were no outstanding repairs which was in accordance with its complaint policy and reasonable in the circumstances.
It is unclear whether the rubbish under the bath was in situ prior to the resident moving in. The response stated that the landlord had not moved the bath panel when the property was void which would indicate that it was unknown when the rubbish had been left there. It was reasonable that the landlord’s operative did not remove it when replacing the bath panel as it was unknown at that point whether it belonged to the resident. However, once it became apparent that it may have been left there historically It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer to remove and dispose of the items. That it did not was a failing which would have caused the resident further time and trouble having to dispose of the items herself.
In respect of the resident being bitten by something this Service can appreciate that this would have been distressing however the landlord’s response to this was appropriate within its complaint response as it was unknown what the cause of the bite was.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of an infestation in her previous property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s report of a leak and rubbish found underneath the bath.

Reasons

The landlord failed to consider the impact the infestation was having on the resident at the earliest opportunity despite the resident’s known vulnerabilities and that children were living in the property. It failed to show it had investigated/completed any relevant repairs to entry and exits points within a reasonable period of time. It failed to consider whether the issue was a wider issue within the neighbourhood and investigate whether the flea infestation was related. It then failed to show that it had done all it could to ensure that pest control treatment could continue while the resident waited to be re-housed.
The landlord failed to offer to remove and dispose of items that had been left under the bath prior to the resident moving in.

Orders.

The Landlord is ordered within 5 weeks of the date of this report to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total sum of £450. This is comprised of:
  1. £400 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the failings in responding to the resident’s reports of an infestation in the property.
  2. £50 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of rubbish left under the bath.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Consider how it handled the resident’s reports of an infestation and identify points of learning. It should share its findings with the Ombudsman, also within eight weeks.