London Borough of Newham (202205387)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205387

London Borough of Newham

29 February 2024

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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of rats in the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of a leaking toilet at the property.
3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The residents are joint tenants of the landlord who is a local authority. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the eighth floor of the building. The secure tenancy started in April 2015. The term ‘resident’ used in this report refers to both joint tenants. At the time of the complaint the landlord was not aware of the resident’s health vulnerabilities.
The resident has reported health (including dementia) and language difficulties via an appointed family member who is helping with their complaint. For the purpose of this report the family member will be referred to as “the representative.”
The resident reported issues with pests in the property on 3 August 2021. Following an initial inspection by the landlord’s pest controller it advised that frequent treatment was required for suspected rat activity in the kitchen and bathroom. Rats remained persistent until 12 April 2022.
An emergency repair was raised on 10 February 2022 to attend to reports of a leaking toilet at the property. The landlord attended the same day to trace and remedy the leak. The representative chased the landlord as the leak continued. Attempts to remedy the repair were made on 11, 13, 16, and 17 February 2022. The landlord recorded that it made safe the leak and arranged to complete additional work to replace a split soil pipe and the corner toilet. It provided the resident with a temporary chemical toilet on 13 February 2022 and renewed the toilet when in stock on 22 March 2022.
The representative raised a complaint on 14 February 2022. They advised that the toilet continued to leak and they were concerned about the level of support provided by the landlord. They expressed concern that the resident had to wait until March 2022 for the toilet to be renewed. They said that the temporary toilet was unsuitable for the resident due to them being elderly and having dementia.
On 18 February 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said that the toilet had been repaired on the 16 February 2022 and the resident should contact the repairs operation centre if they had any further issues.
On the same day the representative expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and raised concerns with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs. They advised the toilet was still leaking, the carpet had sustained water damage, and the leak had caused an altercation with a neighbour. The representative advised rats remained in the property and said the resident had been given a “bucket” as a toilet that came with no instructions on how to dispose of waste. The representative repeated that the resident had difficulties with their health and memory.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 5 April 2022 as the representative raised further concerns regarding its communication regarding the rats and toilet repair delays. It issued a stage 2 response on 27 May 2022 and upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord offered £220 compensation and a further £60 for carpet cleaning if the resident provided it with a receipt.
The representative remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman in June 2022. They said the landlord had not considered the resident’s health or the language barrier. They considered that the compensation did not reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced.
The representative informed us that the resident had moved home before the completion of our investigation. The household concerns were taken to the local MP and a move made a priority. The resident no longer lives in a property owned by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42 (f) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
Within the representatives communication to the landlord and the Ombudsman they said that “due to neglect (by the landlord), an adult safeguarding concern was raised to public health authorities.” The representative considered the landlord’s response to the reported repairs had caused a decline in the health of the resident.
This investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and how this related to the complaints reported. The Ombudsman has not determined whether the landlord was responsible for any deterioration in health. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. However, where the Ombudsman identifies a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if they consider that their health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and cannot comment on this matter further.

Handling of the resident’s reports of rats in the property

The landlord reports that it first became aware of pests in the property on 3 August 2021. It attended the property to apply mastic to holes in the bathroom and kitchen. On inspection, it said that it informed the resident that pest control would need to attend before it could complete the repairs. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord taking steps to ensure the identified issue was addressed.
The landlord’s policy on pest control states that it will provide pest control services free when rats are in the resident’s property. It states that it will continue to visit the property until the pest problem is under control (as long as the resident has followed through all hygiene, housekeeping and proofing recommendations). It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to provide this service to the resident.
Pest control attended the property within 24 hours of the report. Although the landlord’s policy is silent regarding how quickly it will respond to a report of rats, the landlord’s attendance within 24 hours demonstrated its commitment to address the identified concerns.
From its initial inspection on 4 August 2021, pest control identified rat activity in both the kitchen and bathroom. It informed the resident that multiple visits would be required over a period of time to treat the areas. It was reasonable at this stage for it to explain that an appointment to ‘proof’ the holes would be delayed and would be required once it was sure the rats had been eradicated.
Between 4 August 2021 to 15 September 2021 pest control attended the resident’s property on 6 occasions. During these appointments rat carcasses were removed and various treatments used to continue to eradicate the pests.
This was reasonable in the circumstances and the frequency of the landlord’s attendance at this stage demonstrated its commitment to put things right for the resident. As of 15 September 2021 pest control considered that the landlord could complete proofing works to the holes as no rats had been seen by the resident or identified during recent inspections.
However, when the landlord attended on 7 October 2021 this work could not be completed as it identified further rat activity. It was therefore appropriate that the pest controller returned within 24 hours of the landlord’s report and further treatments undertaken. On 8 December 2021 it was recorded that there had been no sightings or catches recorded. It was therefore reasonable that proofing works could commence. However there was a delay starting this.
The landlord’s records show that pest control attended the resident’s property on 7 further occasions between 8 October 2021 to 12 April 2022. During this time the pest controller recorded speaking to the resident’s daughter on the telephone to provide an update and advised to contact the landlord as proofing works remained outstanding.
The landlord attempted to proof the identified holes in the kitchen and bathroom with foam on 8 February 2022. This was a wait of a further 41 working days after the pest controller considered the property ready for proofing works.
While the landlord’s repair policy is silent regarding the time frame a resident can expect a repair of this nature to be completed, it is reasonable to expect a routine repair (one which does not pose an immediate hazard to the resident or property) to be completed within 28 working days. When a landlord is unable to complete a repair within a reasonable time, it would be expected to explain the reason for this to the resident and provide regular updates while the repair remains outstanding. This is to manage the resident’s expectations and minimise any uncertainty. There is no evidence that this happened.
Pest removal can be complicated. The timeline shows the baiting was effective over a few spells as it reduced or stopped activity over various periods. However, given the persistence of the pests and the location of the property on the eighth floor of the building, it is unclear why no evidence of camera’s being used has been presented. The landlord has not demonstrated how it identified the cause or entry points to the building or what steps it took to ensure pests could not return.
Furthermore there is no evidence the landlord inspected the outside of the property to identify or rule out the need for additional works. For example to address bin stores, repair pipework, or damaged brickwork. Without identifying the cause or entry points the landlord was simply relying on treatments within the property. This was insufficient action to provide the resident’s with a lasting remedy and therefore unreasonable that they lived with the intermittent presence of rats for over 250 calendar days.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess and minimise hazards and risks within its rented properties. The HHSRS assesses 29 housing hazards and the effect that each may have on the health and safety of current or future occupants of the property and the best way of dealing with them. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
In this situation the prolonged presence of rats increased the risk of infection to the resident and falls under the category of domestic hygiene, pests, and refuse within the HHSRS. Given that the rats were a persistent and reoccurring problem the landlord has failed to demonstrate how it considered its obligations under HHSRS. Proofing works were repeatedly delayed, or redone as they had been ineffective, and there is no evidence of it completing external inspections to identify or rule out entry points.
It is also noted that on 2 occasions the pest control report specifically stated a language barrier when communicating with the resident. On 13 May 2022 this resulted in the resident initially being unsure whether to let the operative enter the property. Given that they had held a tenancy since April 2015 it is unclear how the landlord was using the knowledge and information available to it to ensure its services met the needs of the resident. This raised concerns that the landlord was not recording household information from its visit or sharing the information with its contractors.
Individual circumstances should prompt how a landlord assesses and responds to the needs of resident. In this situation the resident was put in a vulnerable position of not knowing whether they should allow the person at their door to enter their home. While there is evidence that the resident’s daughter was spoken to on 1 occasion by telephone, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the need to amend its written communication for future or ongoing appointments. It is therefore unclear how the resident was able to clearly understand what action was being taken, what they should do to help minimise the risk, and also how to keep themselves safe around treatments used in the property. This was not appropriate.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (acknowledgement of failings and an apology) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that wire wool should have been used instead of foam to proof the identified holes in the property. It apologised and accepted that this failure, in part, increased the number of appointments required and delays completingthe work.
However while it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise where it had gone wrong and offer an apology, the landlord made no reference to lessons it had learnt and how it would apply learning to prevent similar situations happening again.
Furthermore, it made no offer of compensation to recognise that the situation had lasted more than 250 days. Therefore the landlord’s apology alone was not sufficient redress in the circumstances and did not recognise the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced. Therefore it failed to put things.
In view of this, we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rats in the property. Compensation is warranted and the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £300. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600 where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident. Consideration has been made for the landlord’s response to the initial and subsequent reports, and the frequency it attended.

Reports of a leaking toilet at the property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It must also keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms this responsibility.
On receipt of the resident’s reports of a leaking toilet, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. It was therefore appropriate that it attended within 24 hours and treated the leak as an emergency.
There is evidence that the landlord attended on 11, 13, 16, and 17 February 2022 due to further escapes of water. While it was appropriate that the landlord attended on 2 occasions as an emergency, other necessary appointments only took place because the representative chased for updates. This included a missed appointment by the landlord due to staff sickness. However the resident was not informed. The lack of communication while the resident was experiencing an active leak was not appropriate. This would have caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this in its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s stage 2 responses states that the delay to replace the resident’s toilet was, in part, because a corner toilet was a “special order” and not an item it could acquire “off the shelf.” It acknowledged that the overall delay was unacceptable and offered compensation of £100. While acknowledging the failure was appropriate there is no evidence the landlord made any attempts to procure a suitable replacement toilet from an alternative supplier or communicate with the resident during the delay.
The landlord offered further compensation of:
1. £50 to recognise its delay to repair the toilet had led to an altercation with a neighbour as water had penetrated the property below.
2. £20 to recognise that it had failed to provide instructions on how to use the temporary toilet.
3. £60 (upon the resident providing a receipt) for carpet cleaning.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using the HHSRS risk assessment approach. HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Personal hygiene, sanitation and drainage form part of the HHSRS. This includes threats of infection and threats to mental health associated with personal hygiene, including personal and clothing washing facilities, sanitation and drainage.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the delayed repair, it is unclear what action it took between 13 February 2022 to 22 March 2022 to communicate and update the resident. The representative had informed the landlord the resident had dementia and expressed concerns regarding the suitability of the temporary toilet. While it was reasonable to provide a temporary toilet solution as an emergency, this was in place for 40 days. This was not reasonable and the landlord failed to demonstrate monitoring how the resident was coping or responding to the representatives concerns for their mental wellbeing. Therefore it failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and its obligations under HHSRS.
The representative chased the landlord for updates on 24 February 2022, 15, 16, and 25 March 2022. They advised the landlord that a meeting had been arranged with the local MP to discuss the outstanding repairs. Within these communications the representative referred to raising a safeguarding concern about the resident and their living conditions.
While the representative has not supplied evidence regarding the outcome of these meetings/conversations, the landlord has not evidenced responding to the representatives concerns. Given the information that had been shared with it, it has failed to demonstrate how it considered the vulnerabilities of the resident or how it may be able to assist further.
The landlord informed us that it has an independent living team. On receipt of a referral this team provide support and assistance to resident’s if required. If appropriate the team make referrals to adult social care, mental health services, or referrals for property adaptions. This support would be ongoing short term to support the resident until the identified issues are resolved and long term support is in place.
It is therefore unclear why such support was not considered or a visit arranged by the landlord to assess the needs of the resident. The representative had reported health concerns and the difficulties this presented with coping with the temporary toilet. Therefore it failed to demonstrate responding to reports of vulnerabilities that were clearly presented to it.
The term ‘vulnerabilities’ has no standard definition. Broadly, they are characteristics that a resident possesses, either permanently or temporarily, that may mean they need care or support to deal with the landlord or landlord’s processes. By not appropriately recording a resident’s vulnerabilities, wrong or poor decisions can be made when providing services. The landlord’s failure to recognise the needs of the resident has resulted in it providing a poor standard of service in this case. The landlord did not demonstrate giving due regard to the resident’s household vulnerabilities and its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
It is noted that within the landlord’s evidence response to us that it says it has since arranged for its client relations team to contact the resident. This was to ensure that its records regarding any vulnerabilities were correct and updated. While this demonstrates learning and is appropriate for the landlord to identify this need, it had received information regarding a language barrier and health vulnerabilities from August 2021 which it should have reacted to. Its failure to do so caused distress and inconvenience to the resident leaving them for an unreasonable time before their repair needs were fully resolved.
The landlord has not disputed that its delay to source the required toilet and its overall poor communication caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered has put things right and has resolved the resident’s issue satisfactorily in the circumstances.
It was appropriate for the landlord to uphold the resident’s complaint and apologise for the repair delay. Howeverits offer of compensation (£170 + a further £60 for carpet cleaning)was not proportionate.Its failures caused distress and inconvenience for over 40 days before the toilet was renewed.
Overall there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking toilet at the property. The landlord failed to provide the resident with instructions how to use the temporary toilet and failed to consider whether the resident was able to understand the information. It failed to react to information that the resident had vulnerabilities and failed to proactively communicate repair delays. This caused distress to the resident.
The landlord’s offer of redress failed to adequately recognise the detriment to the resident. Where circumstances of maladministration apply and the redress needed is higher to put things right is higher than, the remedies guidance available to us provides for awards of compensation between £600 to £1,000.
Therefore in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay a further £600. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience that this situation had on the resident.

Handling of the associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage formal complaints procedure. At stage 1 a resident can expect a response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 18 February 2022 within its 10 working day timeframe. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy. However, the content of this response lacked accuracy or empathy to the resident’s situation. It suggested that the repair had been completed on 16 February 2022 and appeared to close the complaint. The landlord’s response was inappropriate and lacked any evidence of an investigation taking place.
On the same day, the representative expressed dissatisfaction and reiterated their concerns about the leak and the resident’s vulnerabilities. In line with the landlord’s complaints policy, it would have been appropriate to acknowledge the representatives dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response and escalate the complaint. While there was general communication with the representative, this did not happen.
The landlord did not formally escalate the complaint to stage 2 until 5 April 2022. There is evidence that the representative had continued to chase the landlord for updates and informed it of meetings with an MP and safeguarding. It should not have taken this effort by the representative to have the resident’s complaint escalated. Therefore the landlord did not demonstrate giving due regard to the concerns presented to it by the representative.
Having escalated the complaint, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 May 2022. This was not appropriate and 16 working days beyond the response timeframe set out within its policy.
Within the response the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and demonstrated that it had undertaken an investigation. It recognised its failures, apologised for repair and complaint response delays. While it offered £50 compensation specifically for the identified complaint handling failures, it did not evidence how it would use learning to prevent such a situation happening again.
Completing complaint investigations within reasonable timeframes and offering appropriate redress demonstrates that landlords are taking matters raised seriously. It also shows that it understands the importance of putting things right. However in this case, the landlord failed to appropriately address the resident’s complaint at stage 1, failed to respond to the representatives expression of dissatisfaction, and issued its stage 2 response outside of its policy timeframes.
The accumulation of complaint handling service failures therefore requires a finding of maladministration. The compensation offered by the landlord fails to appropriately recognise the detriment to the resident. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance the landlord is ordered to pay a further £150.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rats in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking toilet at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s management team should contact the representative and apologise for the findings within this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,270 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rats in the property.
  2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking toilet at the property.
  3. £150 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  4. £220 offered in its stage 2 response of 27 May 2022.
3. If it has not already done so, the landlord is to reoffer the additional £60 compensation for carpet cleaning, on production of a receipt from the resident.
4. The landlord is ordered within 6 weeks of the date of this report, to carry out a ‘lessons learned’ exercise using this case. It should provide a report to senior management and to us on the way it handled the complaint and repairs, to determine what action it needs to take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified. As part of this, the landlord should review the Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge Information Management (KIM) and Ombudsman’s January 2024 Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect, and Rights (Relationship of Equals). The review should include but is not limited to:
  1. How it identifies and records any vulnerabilities to ensure that any barriers to access the landlord’s services are removed and meet the needs of the resident.
  2. How it ensures residents needs are communicated to services and contractors acting on the landlord’s behalf.
  3. What needs to be done to identify whether written communication should be presented in a preferred language and how appointments should be arranged and managed in the future.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider refresher training around its complaint handling responses and the importance of providing timely responses.