London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202119074)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119074

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

28 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
2. The resident’s application for re-housing due to medical grounds.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and the property is a one bedroom sixth floor flat.
The resident has vulnerabilities relating to mental health and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).
She says she suffers from panic attacks and anxiety which is affecting her sleep. This is caused by the height at which her flat is located, also she cannot open any windows due to the height. Furthermore, she says that “strangers” walk freely in her building and as a result her issues of repeatedly checking the door is locked are made worse.
The landlord’s transfer policy of June 2021 says it aims to allocate general needs homes to those in the greatest housing need by operating an efficient, fair, transparent, and objective allocations and lettings policy.
The landlord works with local authorities in exercising their statutory housing duties by offering accommodation to people with priority need. It offers practical housing options advice to its existing residents when they wish to move and will promote mutual exchange and downsizing opportunities.
It will only directly rehouse existing residents who are in high priority need for alternative accommodation.
The resident applied for a transfer in February 2019 and was advised the same month she could access the landlord’s choice-based letting scheme.
The resident was awarded a medical priority for a transfer in January 2020. This was removed following the landlord’s changes to its transfer policy in April 2020.
The repair log shows that, between October 2019 and May 2022, the landlord’s pest control contractor treated the property six times following the resident’s reports of mice activity at the property.

Summary of events

On 24 July 2020, the local MP wrote to the landlord requesting an update in relation to the resident’s property transfer request and how she could increase her chances of getting a move. The landlord responded on 3 August 2020. It said that:
1. It had limited housing stock available within the resident’s requested area and this was further limited by the size of property she required.
1. It confirmed that the resident had a live transfer application with the landlord since 21 February 2019, that allowed her to bid for any suitable property that became available.
2. Its bidding system had been closed since lockdown commenced and further communications would be provided to residents when it was to be reinstated.
3. In the meantime, the resident should explore other moving options, such as contacting its mobility team who would be able to provide support and advice on all available options to maximise opportunities in relation to mutual exchange.
On 12 April 2021 the resident contacted her landlord to report mice in her property. This treatment is evidenced as completed on 15 June 2021.
On 13 April 2021 the resident contacted her landlord to make a complaint regarding her medical priority. She said that she had not long been accepted for her medical priority and found it very unfair that she had to be reapply.
The landlord sent its stage one response on 13 April 2021. It explained that:
1. It was changing its transfer process and therefore had closed its transfer list. Instead, it was re-evaluating all previous and new medical applications, ensuring applicants still required medical priority and checking if any circumstances had changed.
2. Residents with severe medical priority would be assessed for rehousing by the landlord, rather than needing to bid for a property.
3. It was sorry for the inconvenience it caused the resident but hoped she would understand its reasons behind having to resubmit a medical application. It advised her to do so via its website.
4. It had closed the complaint, but she should make contact if she remained dissatisfied.
On 14 April 2021, the resident contacted her landlord as she was unhappy at her complaint being closed, therefore requested her complaint be escalated.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation the same day, saying that:
1. It was sorry that the resident felt it had not acknowledged her individual needs. It assured her it “absolutely” recognised that mental health could play a part in making it impossible for someone to remain in their home.
2. It was keen to get the resident’s medical assessment across to its independent advisor for a reassessment. It therefore asked the resident to send a copy of her updated GP report directly to them.
On 25 May 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord saying that she was unhappy that her medical priority had been removed. She gave details of her vulnerabilities and how having to reapply was affecting her daily life due to increased anxiety of not knowing what was happening with her move.
On 12 June 2021, the resident chased the landlord for a response.
The landlord responded to the resident on 17 June 2021 saying that:
1. The complaint the resident had was in relation to its decision to close its internal transfer list and to ask all existing applicants to submit medical information again to be reassessed.
2. It considered the medical assessment carried out by its independent advisor, and the information the resident felt it should consider.
3. Unfortunately, it did not feel that there was sufficient evidence that her case should be presented to its rehousing panel. The panel would not approve a direct offer on the information it had.
4. Following its change of policy, it would consider applicants for a direct offer under medical grounds; if there was a significant medical condition which meant the resident was unable to remain in her home.
5. It fully recognised that her condition was affecting her day-to-day life and a move would be beneficial; however, it was not felt on balance that the resident had an immediate and urgent need to move.
6. The criteria for a move on medical grounds was very strict, as it had a shortage of properties available for internal transfer. It therefore had to limit this route to those with the most significant need.
7. It encouraged the resident to pursue other options available, saying a mutual exchange would be the most realistic route forward.
8. If not already done so, she could register with Homeswapper or House Exchange for free, to seek a suitable exchange partner.
9. The resident could also register her on the local authority’s waiting list, should she meet their criteria.
10. It appreciated that this was a difficult time for the resident and had increased her anxiety levels. However, it had been important for it to reassess medical applications considering its new criteria, which was much stricter than it had been under its previous policy.
11. It was sorry that it had not resulted in the landlord offering the resident an alternative property.
12. It reiterated that it could review her medical circumstances at any time. Therefore, if she felt that her condition had worsened or could provide additional medical evidence which showed that her need was immediate and urgent, she should make contact.
13. On that basis it closed her case but said she could escalate it to stage two of its complaints process should she remain dissatisfied.
The local MP wrote to the landlord on 8 July 2021 reiterating her concerns regarding the lack of progress on the resident’s transfer request. She emphasised the resident’s vulnerabilities and how the current property was not suitable.
On 14 July 2021 the resident reported to her landlord that there were mice in her property. This treatment is evidenced as completed on 16 August 2021.
On 27 July 2021 the landlord wrote to the MP saying that:
1. It apologised for the situation the resident was facing and appreciated how upsetting and frustrating it would be.
2. Unfortunately, upon reassessment the resident was not awarded medical priority as the threshold had changed and the resident did not meet the qualifying criteria.
3. If the resident felt her medical needs had changed since her last assessment or if she had any further supporting information, it could send it over again for her to be reassessed.
On 24 August 2021 the resident called her landlord to say that there was no sign of mice in her flat, but she could hear them in the walls.
The landlord responded the same day saying that it would need evidence of the noise as it could not break the walls without evidence of mice.
On 3 September 2021, the resident emailed her landlord saying that she was unhappy with its response. She was unable to get evidence of the mice as the noise was coming from within the walls and there were not droppings. She also said that she had had no and sleep and therefore stayed in a hotel due to the issue which was affecting her mental health.
On 12 October 2021 the MP wrote to the landlord echoing the resident’s concerns.
On 20 October 2021 the resident called the landlord to chase the escalation of her complaint.
On the same day the landlord responded to the MP saying that:
1. It was sorry the resident was experiencing ongoing issues with mice and that this was affecting her mental health.
2. It sent its pest control contractors to the resident’s home on several occasions and on their most recent visit they confirmed that there was no evidence of mice in her flat.
3. However, the contractors agreed that it was possible, due to the structure of the building, that there could be mice in the walls. They submitted a report outlining two possible courses of action and the area supervisor and property manager would meet to discuss which option to pursue.
4. It would keep the resident informed of the next steps.
On 8 November 2021 the resident called her landlord saying that she was unhappy with how the complaint was being handled and the lack of communication to get the matter resolved. She still believed there were mice in the property.
The same day the repair log shows the resident also called to report issues of mice in the walls of her property.
On 16 November 2021 the resident called her landlord requesting an update regarding the complaint. The same day the landlord contacted the resident, saying that it had contacted its relevant internal departments for updates and no recent inspections had taken place.
On 16 November 2021 the landlord contacted the resident in relation to her being unhappy with the stage one response. It said that:
1. The case would be reviewed by another team, with the process usually taking around 20 working days. However, it had a backlog of complaints and that it was taking closer to 60 days to review.
2. It apologised for the anticipated delay and confirmed the resident’s case had been escalated.
On 15 December 2021 the resident contacted her landlord again as she was “very unhappy” with the lack of communication in relation to the pest issue.
On 13 January 2022 the resident called her landlord requesting an update to the resolution to her complaint. She wanted to speak to the operative that visited her “before Christmas”.
On 19 January 2022 the resident called her landlord again saying that there were mice in the walls and her neighbour had complained also. She wanted to be rehoused as she could not sleep.
The resident called the landlord on 21 January 2022 as she was “expecting a call from them”. She said she was being “fobbed off” and the mice issue had been ongoing for seven months.
An internal email noted that:
1. On 2 February 2022 the landlord inspected the building but could not get access to the resident’s address.
2. The resident had said she may not be at home at this time but as her property had already been inspected there was no need for access.
3. It checked the communal corridors and cupboards and there was no sign of mouse activity.
4. It would be checking the roof area on 11 February 2022.
The case notes for 8 February 2022 says that:
1. The resident called as she was due to an inspection on 2 February 2022 in relation to the pest issue. However, there were no notes on the system regarding this.
2. the resident would like a call back as the problem had not been dealt with.
The same day this service contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident.
Internal emails on 9 February 2022 note that:
1. It had spoken to its pest control contractor who said that his view was that cutting holes in the walls to carry out further inspections was counterproductive and could cause fire safety issues.
2. He felt that understanding where mice were getting food source was the key action that it should take.
3. The landlord had written to residents in the block to ask if they also have any issues with mice.
4. The pest control contractor felt that mice would not be actively living in the walls as there is nothing for them to eat, therefore they had to be getting food from someone’s flat.
5. No resident responded to its letter drop, hence the proposed inspection.
The same day the landlord telephoned the resident thanking her for speaking with them and sending photos of the issue. It said it would contact her with any updates.
On 11 February 2022 the landlord inspected the resident’s block and spoke to various residents regarding the mice issue. Most residents advised there were no issues in their properties. However, neighbouring properties on another floor to the resident said they had mice but had not reported it.
On 16 February 2022 the resident chased an update following the landlords visit of 11 February 2022.
The same day the landlord responded saying that:
1. It had concentrated its investigation on the right-hand side of the building since this is where the resident’s home was located. It did not feel it necessary to inspect inside the resident’s home, as her property had already been assessed.
2. It had identified residents which had either reported mice previously or heard scratching.
3. Some of these properties were directly below the resident or nearby and the mice could be travelling up the inside of her bedroom walls.
4. It was determined that the mice were primarily on the second, and third floors, and this was probably where the food source is located.
5. It was decided that the vermin are probably not travelling down from the roof, and it is very unlikely to be pigeons roosting on the gutter or roof.
6. Works orders had been raised for baiting certain flats and this was going to be monitored by pest control.
7. It acknowledged it was “not the ideal resolution”, but it had to eradicate where the mice were getting food.
8. It hoped that in the next few weeks, there would be a “marked improvement” in the scratching noise reverberating up through the wall cavity.
9. It would prepare its stage two response and email the decision to the resident once completed.
10. It would be monitoring the vermin issue, chasing reports, and would let the resident know any updates.
11. It would need to give at least four weeks to ensure that the eradication programme had time to work and would contact her on 16 March 2022 to check on any progress.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 February 2022, saying that she wanted proof that pest control would be monitoring the situation and an action plan put in place to address the issue.
On 18 February 2022 the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in providing her with a response letter and said it would send by 21 February 2022.
On 21 February 2022 the landlord sent its final response letter. It said that:
1. It had reviewed the resident’s complaint by going through case notes, speaking to colleagues involved and documents attached to the case.
2. Unfortunately, there was a delay in responding at stage two of the process due to a backlog of complaints and her case was not allocated for review until 8 February 2022.
3. It was aware of the errors that occurred because of her complaint and hoped going forward that training would help make sure this did not occur again.
4. It noted the resident’s medical conditions and vulnerabilities and that it had been a very stressful process that impacted her health. Therefore, it added additional flags to her account to allow for a priority on any future repairs needed if appropriate.
5. It realised the impact it had had on the resident medically and that on occasions she had to move out to a hotel for the night to get some proper rest.
6. It thanked the resident for sharing her past circumstances and why she felt it was necessary for her to move if it could not eradicate the rodents in her building.
7. It confirmed the resident was on the rehousing list for medical needs, but the guidelines changed in April 2020, and she had to resubmit new paperwork. It said it appeared not to have received the completed documents.
8. It explained that it had very few homes to offer directly and most of its social housing was taken by referral from the local authority.
9. It advised the resident that the quickest way to move home was to swap with another housing association tenant, which was called mutual exchange.
10. It explained that the building surveyor attended on 11 February 2022 and entered many flats in the building.
11. It had asked the surveyor to visit the resident’s home, however, he advised that he had already visited the resident’s home and knew it was vermin free. He stated that her flat was “immaculate and beautifully maintained” and that the mice were in the walls of her bedroom.
12. The surveyor visited several flats on the third and fourth floors and determined that they did have mice. Therefore, it hoped that it had located the food source for the vermin.
13. An eradication programme had been set up with its pest control contractor who would be looking at access points and advising it where to seal holes and pipes etc. It had hoped this would stop the mice coming up the sub frame of the building but could take a few weeks to see any effect.
14. It also asked its pest control contractor to look at the bin area as this could also be contributing to the issue.
15. After reviewing her complaint, it was clear that the level of service the resident received was not reflective of the high standards it strove to provide. Furthermore, the enquiries could have been managed more effectively.
16. It awarded the resident £680 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £240.00 for the distress, time, effort, and inconvenience this had caused the resident.
  2. £250.00 for the right to repair.
  3. £40.00 for missed appointments on 2 December 2021 and 2 February 2022
  4. £150.00 for the complaint handling delays.
The resident responded that same day requesting clarification in relation to the action plan for addressing the pest control problem and that the pest control visit of 15 June 2021 did not properly block the holes under her bath. Also, she accepted the compensation of £680.
The landlord inspected the bin store area on 23 February 2022.
On 28 February 2022 the landlord provided a response to the resident’s queries. It also increased its offer of compensation by £30 to £710 for not carrying out the pest control repair correctly she mentioned.
On 1 March 2022 the resident’s doctor wrote to the landlord giving details of her medical condition and to “urgently” assess her accommodation needs.
On 2 March 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update as it failed to contact her following her message.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 March 2022 advising she could also hear noise coming from her airing cupboard and wanted this area inspected too.
On 8 March 2022 the resident completed a medical assessment form.
On 9 March 2022 the pest control contractor attended the property and baited it.
On 17 and 19 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord requesting an update on the pest control issue, as she had not had any recent contact. She said that:
1. She was really stressed out and didn’t feel as if the landlord was helping her.
2. She had been taking steps in relation to rehousing but it was “longwinded”.
The landlord responded on 21 March 2022 saying that:
1. It understood her concerns and the reasons for raising another complaint. However, she may get a quicker response if she contacted this service, as per the attached decision letter.
2. Even though the resident accepted the compensation, she still had the right to take the complaint forward if she felt it was not being dealt with satisfactorily.
On 28 March 2022 the pest control contractors inspected and treated the resident’s property. The report provided said:
1. It inspected three main areas: under the kitchen units, behind the panelling in the bathroom, and in the hall cupboard, including in the inspection panel. There were no takes on any of the baits placed following the previous visit, and no signs of rodent activity in any of the above areas at the time of the visit. It placed baits in all the areas again.
2. It had been asked to remove the large ceiling panel in the airing cupboard, inspect and bait the ceiling, and replace the panel after each treatment. This would require carrying out a further three inspections and treatments and would require two operatives on each visit.
On 31 March 2022 the resident contacted her landlord as she was unhappy that she could still hear the mice in the walls. She said she had been patient, but the bait was not working.
The same day the landlord responded saying it was sorry the resident felt the issue was still unresolved and causing her distress. Its building surveyor was working hard to eradicate the mice and it had spent at least £1,000 on the pest treatment.
It also explained that the pest control manager was on site, and it would discuss the visit in full with him. It appreciated that it must be awful living with the noise in the walls, but until it could clear the vermin on the lower floors, there was no further action it could take. It directed her to contact this service.
On 1 April 2022 the landlord updated the resident explaining that:
1. In the resident’s flat there was a panel in a cupboard, that could be removed quite easily to “get some bait in the internal wall”.
On 8 April 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to say it had chased its surveyors again about any extra investigations it could carry out and would update her as soon as it could.
On 12 April 2022 the landlord pest control contractor visited the resident’s property. It said the tenant wanted the ceiling area inspected and baited.
The resident contacted this service on 12 April 2022. She wanted the landlord to address the vermin issue which was affecting her mental health and move her on medical grounds. Furthermore, she wanted the landlord to improve its communication with her and provide her with regular updates.
On 13 April 2022 the landlord authorised the works to remove the ceiling panel and bait the area. The resident was updated the same day.
On 28 April 2022 the pest control contractors attended the resident’s property. They removed the large ceiling panel in the airing cupboard, inspected it and baited the ceiling. In addition, they inspected under the kitchen units, behind the panelling in the bathroom, and in the hall cupboard, including in the inspection panel.
During the inspection, the resident advised she could hear noises in the walls and ceilings of her flat especially in the bathroom and hall airing cupboard.
The case notes evidence that the contractor removed the large panel in the hall airing cupboard ceiling and inspected it. It said there were no signs of rodent activity (no droppings, etc) in this area. Also, two baits were placed in the ceiling and the ceiling board replaced.
Furthermore, the notes say that there were no signs in other areas and photo evidence was provided. It said the contractor would re attend to see if there had been any takes or disturbance to the baits, and if there were any other signs of rodent activity.
On 20 May 2022 the resident contacted her landlord saying the noise was back in her bedroom walls.
On 24 May 2022 the pest control contractor inspected the three main areas where baits were placed previously: under the kitchen units, behind the panelling in the bathroom, and in the hall cupboard. The large ceiling panel in the airing cupboard was removed to inspect.
The tenant said that she no longer heard any noises in the ceiling above the hall cupboard. However, that she had started hearing scratching noises again coming from within the external wall of her bedroom.
The pest control contractor advised the landlord it would carry out one more inspection and treatment once the resident had provided her availability.
On 25 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord in relation to an update for action regarding the mice in the walls.
On 27 May 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident who said that although she was “delighted” there was no evidence of mice inside the cupboard and kitchen, there were still mice in the external wall.
On 21 April 2023 the landlord advised this service that no further treatment had been carried out recently as there were no further reports of pests.
The resident contacted this service on 24 April 2023 to say she is still experiencing issues with the mice and hearing them in the walls of her property.

Assessment and findings

While the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, we will take this into account when considering the resident’s circumstances. The Ombudsman recognises that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others.

The resident’s reports of a rodent infestation

The landlord’s Repairs Policy says that the landlord is responsible for dealing with infestations of rats and mice in the properties that it manages. It is also responsible for “blocking and filling holes following pest removal treatment”.
The British Pest Control Association (BPCA) is the professional organisation for the UK public health pest management industry. It says it promotes the highest standards of professionalism within the industry, allowing only organisations that prove their competence to join as members.
The BPCA outlines the responsibilities and correct practices that its members are expected to adhere to.
The landlord’s pest control contractor is a member of the BPCA.
The resident began to report problems with mice in her property in October 2019. The landlord’s contractors attended the property to treat it within seven days of the resident’s report. This was a reasonable timescale.
There were no further reports until April 2021 with the repair log evidencing the treatment at the property was finished in June 2021. The resident made further reports of mice activity in July, September, and November 2021. Each report was responded to in a reasonable timescale.
The landlord followed its repair policy by arranging for its pest control contractor to attend when it received reports from the resident. The landlord baited the property and carried out proofing works, for which it had responsibility to do.
The resident provided evidence that on two occasions she stayed in a hotel as the pest issue was affecting her sleep.
The resident continued to report issues of pest within the cavity wall of her property. She chased the landlord for updates several times throughout December 2021 and January 2022.
For two months the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports or keep her updated as to any proposed action. The had been evidenced that this caused the resident considerable distress and anxiety.
Furthermore, it was nearly two months before the landlord considered the problem was more widespread than just the resident’s property or carried out an inspection of the block. This was not reasonable.
Throughout February 2022, the landlord became more proactive in its response by engaging the services of two different pest control contractors and widening its approach by inspecting the bin stores and roof. Furthermore, it had inspected several different properties throughout the block.
The landlord said it noted the resident’s medical condition and vulnerabilities and that this process would have been very stressful for her. Therefore, it added additional flags to her account to allow for a priority on any future repairs needed if appropriate. This was evidenced on its computerised system under “support and info” section.
By doing this, the landlord demonstrated that it reviewed its approach and considered the resident’s vulnerabilities. Also, it took steps so that any future reports may be prioritised.
Numerous pest control inspections and treatments were carried out throughout March and April 2022. Works identified by the contractors during this time were authorised quickly, which demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to try and eradicate the problem.
The resident made a further report on 20 May 2022 and the pest control contractor responded 4 days later by baiting the property. This was carried out within a reasonable timescale.
In summary, there was a two month delay in December 2021 and January 2022 in responding to the residents reports which would have been frustrating for her. Furthermore, the landlord missed the opportunity to have identified that the problem was more widespread. The landlord acknowledged its failings when responding to the resident and took steps so that any future reports may be prioritised.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
On 28 February 2022, the landlord awarded the resident £240.00 for the distress, time, effort, and inconvenience this had caused her, £250.00 for right to repair, £40.00 missed appointments and an additional £30 for not carrying out the pest control repair correctly.
Overall, a total award of £560 compensation was offered to the resident for its response to her reports of a rodent infestation. This is considered reasonable redress for the two month delay in actioning her reports. The Ombudsman would have made a finding of some level of maladministration was it not for these steps the landlord took to put things right, by accepting its failing, apologising, and offering reasonable compensation.
The resident advised that she is still experiencing issues with pests, however it is unclear if these have been reported to the landlord. As a result, a recommendation has been made to make contact with the resident and establish the current situation.

The resident’s application for re-housing due to medical grounds

The landlord’s role is to ensure the transfer application has been assessed fairly and transparently in accordance with its policy. The landlord operates a system whereby rehousing applications are presented to a rehousing panel who review “independently verifiable information” before reaching a decision.
In this case, the resident’s transfer application was accepted in February 2019, however she had not managed to secure an alternative property via this process before it implemented its change of policy. The landlord was entitled to change its policy to better manage its waiting lists and available housing stock.
The landlord acted reasonably by giving clear explanations to the MP in August 2020 and in its stage one response of April 2021, regarding its transfer process. It attempted to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to obtaining a suitable property quickly. It said that its housing stock was limited within the residents’ requested area and size of property she required.
It further explained that it was changing its transfer process and re-evaluating medical applications and that the resident would have to resubmit her application via its website. This was reasonable and in line with the changes in its policy.
The landlord sent responses in April, June, and July 2021. In its correspondence, the landlord provided clear information regarding the transfer application process and who to contact for assistance from the outset. It suggested the resident send her medical documents directly to them so it could speed up the independent medical assessment.
The landlord’s responses were sympathetic in acknowledging it would have been a difficult time for the resident and recognised how her vulnerabilities would have affected her daily. In addition, it explained sensitively, the new criteria which was stricter than its previous policy and there may have been other people with a higher priority than hers.
Given that housing stocks are usually severely limited, it was helpful that the landlord encouraged the resident to explore alternative housing options and provided information on mutual exchange or joining the local authority’s housing list.
In summary, the landlord had shown a willingness to reasonably support the resident to explore other housing options when her medical priority was cancelled. Unfortunately, this did not result in a move for the resident, nevertheless, the landlord had demonstrated that it had followed its transfer policy which only directly rehouses existing residents who are assessed as high priority need for alternative accommodation. Given that, the Ombudsman identified no maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says that stage one responses will be sent within 10 working days and stage two responses sent within 20 working days.
The resident raised her stage one complaint on 12 April 2021 and the landlord responded at stage one on 13 April 2021. The following day the resident requested her complaint be escalated as she was unhappy with the response. The landlord acknowledged the complaint which was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy.
Nevertheless, the landlord failed to provide the resident with a formal response at stage two within its policy timescales which was not appropriate.
The resident further chased the matter in May and June 2021. At this stage the landlord should have responded to the complaint at stage two, adhering to its complaints policy but it did not and that was not appropriate.
Instead, in June 2021 it reiterated its previous response and advised the resident she could escalate her complaint to stage two if she remained dissatisfied. This was not appropriate and would have caused the resident frustration when trying to follow the complaint process.
The landlord’s further response in June 2021 did provide the resident with a clear explanation as to why it was closing its transfer list and why her medical priority had been removed. This was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
It was also appropriate that the landlord also provided the resident with other housing options to try and assist her in rehousing.
Furthermore, the landlord’s response was sympathetic in its acknowledgement of her vulnerabilities and how this may have affected her day-to-day life. This was appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme in dealing with residents and their complaints.
The landlord acknowledged there was a delay in responding at stage two of the process. The resident’s initial request to escalate was in April 2021, and although there were responses in between this time, it took the landlord 218 working days to provide its final response. This was not appropriate and did not adhere to its complaints policy timescales.
The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for its complaint handling failure. In addition, it accepted the errors that occurred because of not following the correct process and said it would address this with training to help make sure it did not occur again.
However, as stated above, the Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. Therefore, this amount does not reflect the impact the delays, time and trouble in chasing the complaint would have had on the resident over a prolonged period of time.
As a result, an additional £100 has been awarded to reflect the impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s application for re-housing due to medical grounds.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling failure.

Reasons

Despite its delays in responding to the resident’s reports of pests in December 2021 and January 2022, the landlord was more proactive in its response from February 2022 onwards. The landlord apologised, accepted its failures, and awarded compensation. The landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It can take a very long time to arrange a transfer due to extremely high demand for social housing and a severe lack of availability of properties in some areas. Landlords have had to consider changing their transfer policies to better manage their housing stock. The landlord has demonstrated that it followed its policy and the resident’s medical application was considered by an independent assessor.
The landlord took 218 days to provide its final response to the resident following her request for escalation to stage two, therefore not adhering to its complaint policy timescales.

Orders

The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £810 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, consisting of:
1. The £710 previously offered to the resident.
2. An additional £100 in recognition for the distress and inconvenient and time and trouble caused by the landlords delay in providing its final response.
The amount can be reduced by any compensation already paid.
Evidence of compliance with these orders should be provided to this service within 4 weeks.
In accordance with the remedy’s guidance, the above compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to ascertain the current situation with regards to the mice infestation and action any works identified by its pest control contractor.