Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202213699)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213699

Barking and Dagenham Council

29 April 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of bedbugs in the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Due to various vulnerabilities, she is being represented by her son, who made the complaint to the landlord on her behalf.
  2. On 5 May 2021, the landlord’s pest control technician attended the resident’s property to undertake extermination works regarding an infestation of bed bugs. On discovering that the bed bugs were in the resident’s furniture, the technician advised that her bed and a three-piece suite should be disposed of. As part of the pest treatment, the technician attended the property on 21 June 2021, 29 June 2021 and 2 August 2021.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 10 December 2021. She stated that the treatment was proving ineffective as there was a continuing problem with bed bugs at the property. She also complained that she had suffered financial loss, as she had to throw away her bed and a three-piece suite due to the infestation. The landlord sent its response on 14 December 2021. It explained that in acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint, it would arrange a suitable treatment plan with pest control. However, it did not address the resident’s concerns that the infestation kept reoccurring or assess her financial losses.
  4. Pest control visited the property on 15 December 2021, but could not undertake treatment as the resident’s rooms had not been cleared in preparation for treatment. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day. She stated that the landlord’s response did not address her fears that the infestation would reoccur, as the resident felt that the bugs were coming from the property next door. She also stated that the landlord had not addressed her financial loss of having to replace her furniture. As part of the landlord’s treatment plan, its pest control team returned to the property on 22 December 2021, 5 January 2022 and 19 January 2022 and undertook further treatment.
  5. The landlord sent another stage one response on 4 January 2022. It detailed the further appointments that it had scheduled to eradicate the bed bugs. It failed to state if it upheld the resident’s complaint about the reoccurring infestations and did not assess the resident’s complaint about her financial losses. Nevertheless, the landlord promised to inspect the property to ascertain if any pest proofing was required. However, the landlord did not undertake the inspection. After intervention from the resident’s local MP, it escalated the resident’s complaint to the next of its complaint procedure on 27 June 2022.
  6. The landlord sent its final response on 23 September 2022. It detailed the steps it had taken to eradicate the bed bugs and stated that after the first set of treatment, it had not found any further bed bug activity at the property. The landlord explained that although the neighbour’s property had undergone pest control measures, it had also not had any further activity since January 2022. The landlord stated that although it partially upheld the resident’s complaint, it could not compensate for the furniture loss, as it had not caused the bed bug problem. It stated that it had offered to support the resident in applying for a hardship fund, which the resident had declined. The landlord again promised to inspect the property to ascertain if any pest proofing was required. It inspected the property on 4 October 2022, concluding that pest proofing should be undertaken to remedy a gap in the wall of one of the bedrooms. However, the landlord is yet to undertake this work.
  7. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has complained about the reoccurring nature of the bed bug infestation, which she believes is due to ineffective treatment by the landlord. She is also dissatisfied that she was advised to discard her furniture and would like to be compensated accordingly.

Assessment

The landlord’s handling of bedbugs in the resident’s property.

  1. According to the landlord’s website, local authority tenants may have pest control treatment funded by the landlord. While the resident will be asked at the time of booking which rooms, they believe the pest infestation to be in, the technician has the final decision as to what rooms need to be treated and what chemicals will be used during the appointment.
  2. It is the resident’s responsibility to ensure that they have followed all the instructions for bedbugs in preparation for the technician’s visit. Pest control will not be able to carry out treatment if the rooms have not been properly prepared. The landlord’s website details the steps the resident needs to take to clear the rooms before treatment commences. This includes emptying all bedrooms of clothes and personal belongings.
  3. Treatment of a bedbug infestation takes six weeks, consisting of three visits each approximately 14 days apart. Pest control cannot guarantee against re-infestation if the treatments are not carried out within this period. Missing an appointment may lead to an ineffective treatment. For treatment to be successful, pest control encourages compliance with any recommendations made by pest control technicians regarding proofing or repairs.
  4. In response to the resident’s reports of a bug infestation, the landlord acted reasonably and in-line with the above guidance by arranging for its pest control contractor to attend the resident’s property. The contractor undertook three initial appointments during May to June 2021. They attended the property again in July 2021, but were denied access, and therefore attended once more in August 2021. After the resident’s complaint regarding further infestations in December 2021,the landlord again acted reasonably by scheduling a further course of treatment to start on 15 December 2021. The landlord’s response was appropriate in exterminating the immediate problem of the bedbugs, as it responded quickly to reports of the bed bugs, scheduling appropriate treatment.
  5. However, in-line with general good customer service, the landlord would be expected to consider the resident’s concerns that the bed bugs would continue to re-infest her property, as she has stated that they were coming through from neighbouring properties. In January 2022, the landlord promised to assess if pest proofing works were necessary in the resident’s home. However, it failed to do so until the resident escalated her complaint in October 2022. This was not appropriate, as this was over nine months later, and the resident was forced to chase for the inspection. The assessment highlighted a gap at the back of the resident’s bedroom cupboard that would need proofing to prevent any potential re-infestation. The landlord has stated that it did not undertake works to the area, yet it has not provided its rationale for failing to undertake the works. Subsequently, the delay in undertaking the inspection and failure to undertake the resulting works is a failing in the circumstances. The landlord should assess if the works are still necessary to put things right.
  6. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident asked to be compensated for her furniture, as she had to throw several items out due to the original infestation. The landlord would not be expected to compensate for the resident’s personal belongings unless it was responsible for the damage. After completing the landlord’s complaint procedure, the resident clarified that she deemed the landlord to be responsible for the loss of her furniture, as its pest controller had advised her to dispose of the furniture in May 2021. She stated that different contractors later told her that that this may have not been strictly necessary.
  7. The above guidance states that pest control contractors can use their discretion to decide the most effective method of treatment of the bedbugs. The landlord has also added that its contractors are at liberty to advise residents to dispose of furniture that is badly infested, to prevent future occurrences. As such, the contractor acted reasonably by advising the resident to discard of her furniture as it was working to rid the resident’s home of a severe infestation and had found the majority of the infestation in the bed base. Therefore, it was reasonable of the landlord to state that it could not compensate for the resident’s furniture, as it had acted within its obligations. However, it would have been good practice for the landlord’s operatives to have given consistent advice to the resident, to avoid causing unnecessary distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s has two stages to its complaint procedure. The landlord must respond to the resident’s stage one complaint within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to the review stage. The landlord should then respond within 30 working days. The policy states that if it cannot meet this target, it will send the resident a progress report. It is worth noting that these timescales exceed those advised in this Service’s complaint handling code (the code). As of October 2022, the code should be adhered to by all member landlords.
  2. The landlord initially responded within the above timeframes to the resident’s complaint on 10 December 2021, sending its reply on 14 December 2021. It has explained that instead of escalating the resident’s complaint to stage two on 15 December 2021, it again sent a second stage one response on 14 January 2022. The resident explained on 15 January 2022 that the landlord had failed to assess her financial losses. However, due to an administrative error, the landlord did not respond again to the resident’s complaint.
  3. The resident’s MP intervened on 23 May 2022, with the landlord eventually escalating the complaint on 27 June 2022 to its final complaint stage. It sent its final response on 23 September 2022, which was nine months after the resident escalated her complaint. While a delay does not always constitute service failure, the landlord would have been expected to properly update the resident and to be continuing to manage their complaint. In the circumstances, the landlord’s failure to respond due to several administrative errors, constitutes a failing in the circumstances.
  4. The code states that landlords should use their complaint procedures to identify any errors, acknowledge these failings and to put things right. Landlords must also address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. Accordingly, the landlord’s complaint response in December 2021 was not appropriate, as it did not assess the resident’s complaint, but simply scheduled the pest control team to attend the property.
  5. The landlord sent a second stage one response in January 2022, which is not in-line with its two-stage procedure set out above. Within the response, the landlord again failed to address the entirety of the complaint, although it did recognise the resident’s concerns regarding re-occurring infestations. However, despite promising to consider pest proofing the property, the landlord failed to inspect the property until October 2022. This was not appropriate, as the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that any remedy to a complaint must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.
  6. In its final complaint response in September 2022, the landlord detailed the steps it had taken to eradicate the bed bugs. It also again promised to inspect the resident’s property to see if there were any preventative measures it could take to stop further infestations. However, it did not acknowledge that it had already promised to inspect the property in January 2021, and was thus delayed in doing so by nine months.
  7. In the same response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns that the bed bugs were being transferred through neighbouring properties. However, its response was inaccurate and misleading. The landlord stated that there had not been any further infestations in the neighbouring properties since January 2022. However, in the evidence provided it can be established that the landlord was aware of a re-occurrence of bed bug infestations in neighbouring properties as recently as August 2022. It was not appropriate for the landlord to have misrepresented the facts to the resident. As it was aware of continued activity in the neighbouring property, it is more concerning that it did not follow through on its promise to consider pest proofing the resident’s property in January 2022. Overall, the landlord neglected to handle the resident’s complaint effectively in the circumstances, which is a failing.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of bedbugs in the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified within the report.

b.     Pay the resident £150 in recognition of its delays in considering pest proofing works to the property.

c.      Pay the resident £150 in recognition of its failure to provide effective complaint handling.

d.     Undertake the recommended pest proofing works to the resident’s property if the pest infestations are continuing to reoccur.

22. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider updating its current complaint policy to be in-line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code timescales, as it is currently operating outside of the guidance.