Midland Heart Limited (202128494)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128494

Midland Heart Limited

7 December 2022

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 the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s related request for compensation.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
3. The resident initially reported a bed bug infestation in his property in July 2021. He believed the infestation was caused by homeless persons accessing and loitering in the communal areas, and that bedbugs had infested multiple flats within the block. The landlord raised a referral for night time patrols of the block in relation to the access reports, and carried out a pest control visit to the resident’s property.
4. After the resident raised further concerns, the landlord’s pest control contractor inspected the resident’s property in October 2021. No signs of bedbugs were found, but the contractor reported that an infestation was potentially spread due to interactions between residents, and recommended inspecting all flats within the block and treating where necessary.
5. Multiple pest control visits and treatments were conducted of the resident’s property between October 2021 and February 2022, although no signs of bedbugs were seen. Treatments to the communal area and other properties within the block were also undertaken (although it is not clear when this occurred).
6. The resident raised a complaint in January 2022, stating that his household furnishings had been “ruined” as a result of the infestation. He believed that the bedbugs had entered his home from other parts of the building, saying that the entire block had been infested. He told the landlord that he had had to discard his sofa and bed, and could not afford to replace these as he was on a low income. The resident requested compensation for the damage to his carpets, sofa, bed frame, mattress, and bedding. He confirmed that the bedbugs were no longer present.
7. In its February 2022 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord said that because the infestation was in the resident’s property, it was his responsibility to resolve. However, it had treated his property as a gesture of goodwill. It said that its contractor had not found evidence of pests in the resident’s property in January 2022. The landlord explained that when the resident signed his tenancy agreement, he would have been advised to arrange home contents insurance, and recommended that the resident contact his insurer to claim for the items damaged. It also noted that it had fitted new security doors in June 2021 to address the issue of non-residents accessing the block, and evening patrols following this had not found evidence of non-residents accessing the building.
8. The landlord concluded that it had not identified any failings in the service provided and was unable to uphold the complaint, and signposted the resident to its money advice team to aid in replacement of essential items. In October 2022 the resident was provided with a new mattress, bedding set and bedframe.
9. The resident brought his complaint to this Service as he is dissatisfied that the landlord had not reimbursed him £580 for damage caused to his sofa and carpets. He has explained that the pest infestation is ongoing and requests a full treatment.

Assessment and findings

Pest Infestation

10. The landlord’s pest control policy states that the landlord would only treat pests within communal areas, and that pests within a resident’s flat would be the responsibility of the resident, via either the local authority or through a private pest control contractor.
11. Generally pest issues in the home are the responsibility of the resident. However, if a pest issue has occurred due to disrepair that the landlord is responsible for, then a landlord may be accountable. In this case, the resident reported that the bedbugs were coming from communal areas due to non-residents using the building (and issue which he had not reported previously). This does not suggest a disrepair issue or any fault on the part of the landlord. Nevertheless, the landlord arranged for its pest control contractor to attend and treat the resident’s home, with the records noting an appointment being made for late July 2021, and a further attendance following on from this. This demonstrates that the landlord was willing to take action outside of its obligations to assist the resident.
12. The resident contacted the landlord the following month to ask for compensation for a replacement carpet due to the landlord’s negligence, although it is not clear on what basis the resident felt the landlord had been negligent.
13. In September 2021 the resident again raised concerns about bed bugs, saying that the two treatments that had taken place had not resolved the issue. The landlord’s records from this time suggest that there were bed bugs present in other areas of the building and that treatment for this was ongoing (although there are no further details of this treatment). To address the resident’s concerns, the landlord arranged a further seven pest control visits to the resident’s property between October 2021 and January 2022 to treat for bed bugs, again taking action outside of its obligations to try and resolve the resident’s concerns. The landlord has also referred to treating the communal areas at the same time.
14. The pest control contractor’s reports from the visits to the resident’s property note that they did not find signs of bedbugs. They recommended to the landlord that the other properties in the block be treated, and the evidence indicates that other properties were treated in December 2021. Further records from early 2022 refer to the landlord visiting other properties in an effort to eradicate the problem, noting that it had been difficult to do so to date. This shows that the landlord was following the advice of the pest control contractor in an effort to resolve the pest issue.
15. At the January 2022 pest control visit to his home, the resident confirmed that he had seen no further bed bugs, and so the contractor concluded that no further visits were required. However, the resident subsequently reported a sighting in early February 2022, and the landlord arranged a pest control visit straight away, in its continuing efforts to address the problem. In its response to the complaint in February 2022 the landlord said that it was in talks with its contractor regarding further treatment in the resident’s home, and the records show that another pest control visit was undertaken shortly after.
16. Overall, there is no indication that the infestation occurred due to any failing on the part of the landlord, and the evidence available shows that it took timely and appropriate action to address the matter in the resident’s home, outside of its obligations. There was no maladministration on the part of the landlord here.
17. As noted above, while the landlord’s policy states that it is only responsible for pest control matters in communal areas, this is not the case if a disrepair issue has led to an infestation in a resident’s home. As such, a recommendation to review the policy is made below. The policy could also detail the landlord’s approach when, as in this case, multiple properties are affected.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for the damage caused to his household items

18. The resident requested compensation, including reimbursement for loss of household furnishings due to the pest infestation, which he felt was the fault of the landlord.
19. In circumstances such as this a landlord should initially at least consider whether there is any evidence that it has been at fault for any claimed damage to a resident’s belongings, and if so it should take action (such as paying compensation), to ‘put things right’, rather than referring residents straight to an insurer. This is because if a landlord accepts that it was / may have been at fault it may not be reasonable to ask a resident to claim on their own contents insurance policy, as all claims made on a policy may affect future premium and / or require them to pay an excess. If a landlord disputes that it has been at fault, it is reasonable for it to follow its policy for such claims and either refer a complainant to their own contents insurance policy, or to the landlord’s own insurers. This is because an insurance claim would establish negligence and / or liability to pay.
20. In this case the landlord explained that its decision was reached because there had been no service failure in its response to the residents reports of bed bugs. This demonstrates that the landlord did consider whether there was evidence that it was at fault for the claimed damage. As such, it was not unreasonable to have referred the resident to his own contents insurance.
21. However, it may also have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the details of its own liability insurers for the resident to register a claim, should he not wish to do so via his own insurance. There is no indication that the landlord offered this option to the resident or provided its insurer’s details, although it did assist the resident in obtaining a new mattress, bedding set and bedframe.
22. In the circumstances of this case, this was not so serious a failing as to warrant a finding of maladministration, but a recommendation is made below.

Determination

23. 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 reports of a pest infestation.
24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s related request for compensation.

Recommendations

25. The landlord should consider reviewing its pest control policy to ensure that it reflects its obligations should an infestation in a resident’s home be caused by disrepair, and sets out its approach when multiple properties are affected.
26. The landlord should write to the resident, setting out how he may make a claim to its liability insurers.