The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Network Homes Limited (202016051)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016051

Network Homes Limited

10 August 2021


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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice in her walls.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She lives in a first floor flat, in a terraced house. The landlord does not own the properties either side of the resident.
  2. On 4 December 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that she could hear mice in her walls. She said when she had removed a skirting board, a mouse entered her flat.
  3. Pest services attended on 10 December 2020. They noted “activity within the walls have seen one live mouse”. They carried out proofing (preventative) work. They said the neighbouring properties (property one and two) were also possibly affected by the mice.
  4. Pest services attended on 17 December 2020. They found no activity. They carried out further proofing work.
  5. Pest services attended on 23 December 2020. They reported “no uptake or sighting”.
  6. On 8 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. She said pest services had not resolved her issue. She said she had spent money proofing her home. She said “treatment need[ed] to commence in all properties or this infestation [would] not go away”.
  7. On 11 January 2021 the landlord raised the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint. It issued its stage one complaint response on 25 January. It said it had organised for pest services to carry out a treatment programme in her home. It said they would eradicate any infestation, and highlight what areas needed proofing. It said it could not carry out proofing work to the neighbouring properties as it was not their landlord. It said it had contacted the other landlord to make them aware of the issue. It advised her to forward her concerns to the local authority or environmental health (EH). It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  8. Pest services attended on 25 January 2021. They reported that the issue stemmed from property one. They carried out proofing work.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 February 2021. Not all of her complaint is relevant to this investigation. She said she had completed proofing work in her home which pest services had failed to do. She asked for reimbursement for the costs of proofing materials (she provided receipts). She asked for compensation for her carpet which the mice had damaged. She said the neighbouring properties needed proofing works. She said the landlord had a duty to contact the landlord of property one, and ask them to deal with the infestation. She asked why it had not contacted EH for her as she was not the owner of the property.
  10. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 18 March 2021. It said it had contacted the landlord of property one, who had confirmed that pest services would attend. It acknowledged that it could have contacted EH itself, and said it had done on 17 March. It advised her to claim on her home contents insurance for damaged belongings. It said it did not believe its pest service had failed to carry out proofing work, but acknowledged there had “been delays in some respects between appointments”. It offered her £50 compensation (half of her costs incurred for proofing materials). It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s pest policy sets out that it is not responsible for pests within resident’s homes unless there is an infestation in several connected properties of a block, or a communal area. The policy says the landlord will carry out proofing work if there is any defect in the property which gives pests access. The landlord’s website encourages residents to take out home contents insurance.
  2. The resident reported that she could hear mice within her walls on 4 December 2020. She said one had entered her flat after she removed a skirting board. The landlord organised for pest services to attend on 10, 17, 23 December 2020 and 25 January 2021. They saw one mouse during these visits, carried out proofing work, and explained that the neighbouring property was the source of the problem.
  3. No evidence presented for this investigation indicates that there were further steps the landlord could reasonably have taken to resolve the pest issue. It responded promptly to the reports, and explained that it was not the landlord of property one, and so was limited in the actions it could take. It contacted the other landlord, made them aware of the issue, and encouraged them to carry out proofing work. In the circumstances of this complaint, the landlord’s actions and responses were reasonable, and in line with its policy.
  4. The resident requested compensation for damaged belongings as a result of the mice. The landlord suggested she claim on her contents insurance. This was not unreasonable. As explained above in paragraph 12, residents are encouraged to take out contents insurance. Therefore, it made an appropriate suggestion to help the resident obtain the outcome she was seeking.
  5. The resident requested reimbursement for materials she had spent on proofing works. The landlord offered her £50 (half of the costs incurred). It explained that although it did not believe it had failed to carry out the required work, it recognised that there had been delays between appointments. There is nothing in the evidence provided for this investigation to indicate that there were significant delays, or that the resident needed to carry out any additional proofing work. The landlord’s offer to reimburse her was therefore reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord promptly responded to the resident’s reports, carried out proofing work, and contacted the neighbour’s landlord to resolve the issue.