North Tyneside Council (202116145)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116145

North Tyneside Council

24 May 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 the resident’s reports of a electrical failure in the property on 19 December 2021, a rat infestation, repairs including to his fence, gate, drains and gutters, and the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an insurance claim form and “environmentally-friendly” additions.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a two-bedroom bungalow under a secure tenancy which began on 14 April 2013. The landlord had recorded mobility issues for the resident. He had a part-time carer. The resident had reported to the landlord that he had suffered mental health difficulties and on 27 June 2022 he informed the landlord that he had been diagnosed with autism. During the course of the parties’ complaint correspondence, the resident’s carer reported that he only had the use of his left side and was a wheelchair user. The carer acted as his representative in this complaint and acted on his behalf. She will be referred to in this report as the carer.
The landlord’s repairs policy and tenancy handbook stated as follows:
1. There were three repair priorities, emergency, urgent, and routine.
2. It classed emergency repairs as repairs which presented a danger to life or limb, or were a major health and safety risk, or a security risk. These included uncontrollable water leaks, loss of heating or hot water, or loss of power.
3. The out-of-hours service was only to be used to make the home safe in the event of emergencies such as flooding or major electrical faults. There would be times when the landlord would have to reschedule agreed appointments due to situations beyond its control.
4. The landlord did not provide this Service with its timescales of repair but on the landlord’s website, which guidance may not have applied at the time of the complaint, it aimed to make a property safe within four hours.
5. An “urgent” repair was one which effect a resident’s ability to live comfortably in their home. It would aim to effect the repair within 1 or 3 working days in line with government guidelines.
6. A routine repair was a non-urgent repair which did not negatively affect the use of the home. The estimated repair time was within 20 working days.
7. It had a service run by the repairs team, designed to carry out small DIY jobs for elderly or disabled tenants who were unable to carry them out themselves, or which may place them at risk e.g. of a fall. It helped elderly and disabled people remain independent and safe in their own home.
The landlord did not provide or appear to have a vulnerable persons policy but had a safeguarding policy in relation to making referrals where a person who was vulnerable could be subject to abuse.
The landlord’s complaint was a three-stage procedure. The first stage was informal with a response time of 15 days. The resident was entitled to request a review. It could then be escalated to a committee stage.

Scope

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 39(k) of the scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
The rat infestation would be dealt with by the local authority’s pest control team which is a separate directorate to housing management. Any complaint about pest control can be referred to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and would be outside the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. However, this report has considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of an infestation, in its capacity of housing management.

Chronology

A screenshot of a computer records showed an attendance at the property by the pest control team (which will be referred to in this Report as “Pest Control”) on 5 August 2021.
According to a local authority internal email, the resident made a complaint on 16 August 2021 (it is assumed directed at the pest control) regarding a rat infestation which was passed onto the pest control officer. There was an alert on the system to staff not to attend the property alone. According to an internal email of 18 August 2021, the pest control officer had informed the carer the day before that it had offered to provide treatment prior to the repairs to the drains although that would not have been “ideal”. It had been agreed to pick up the issue after a drains repair. According to a later email of 27 January 2022 to the carer, a contractor attended to the drains at the end of August 2021.
On 6 September 2021, according to a further internal email, the local authority was to arrange pest control treatment.
According to a report, pest control attended on 4 October 2021. The officer inspected a cereal box it deemed to have been opened with a fork. The notes stated there was no evidence of an infestation.
On 7 October 2021, the carer to the landlord wrote as follows:
1. She forwarded previous emails from the resident that she thought had been blocked by the landlord. The landlord was not to contact her regarding repairs as, if the Ombudsman has understood the resident’s point correctly, he felt that she would not understand the issues, which would put her at a disadvantage with the landlord.
2. The resident had requested a written plan of proposals for a job due to take place on the 11 October 2021 to forward to a specialist disability agency for a safety assessment. He made alternative suggestions to take his disability into account.
According to a further report, Pest Control attended on 11 October 2021. The officer inspected an overflow pipe that he did not deem had been bitten into by rats. According to a later email, from the landlord to the carer, the landlord repaired the overflow to the sink.
On the same day, the landlord wrote to both the carer and the resident referring to an appointment that day. It had not provided detailed plans and specifications as that team carried out minor repairs. The works needed to go through either its planning and design teams or via the Adult Social Care adaptations teams. It enquired whether the works planned for that day were to go ahead, given the resident’s request for approval of the plans by a specialist disability charity.
The resident replied on the same day, using some inappropriate language, reminding the landlord not to contact his carer regarding repairs. The landlord raised the option internally of a single point of contact.
The landlord considered whether to have an alternative contact due to having received “abusive messages”. It also made enquiries with social services who had closed his case at his request.
According to a further report, pest control attended on 18 October 2021. The resident showed the pest control officer a photograph of a rat that had been caught by his cat. There was again no evidence of an infestation as it appeared that the cat had brought the rat into the property from outside. The officer also noted some weaponry on view which he reported internally to the relevant teams and the police.
On 20 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident setting out a schedule of works to the boundary including remove fencing and pea gravel and installing a brick retaining wall and reinstating the fence. It invited the resident to let him know when it was convenient to carry out the works.
On 25 October 2021, the resident reported that Pest Control did not attend that day, as due. According to internal emails at that time, Pest Control had been due to attend but would not do so for safety concerns, given the presence of weaponry at the property. There followed various discussions about community protection, police involvement and safeguarding. According to internal emails and with the Police, the Police attended but did not enter the premises.
On 15 November 2021, the landlord sent to the resident drawings and specification for the boundary fence.
On 24 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding his report of a “blown” and waterlogged wall. It said the wall was “ok” and but would carry out works and asked the resident when he would be happy to proceed with the works. The resident replied denying that the operative had inspected the brickwork.
On 20 December 2021, the carer made a complaint on the resident’s behalf as follows:
1. The electrics “went off” in the early hours of 19 December 2021. The resident called the emergency team who refused to send anyone out because it was “just the sockets”, despite there being a frost that night. The landlord attended on 19 December 2021 to put the heating back on but had been unable to carryout the rest of the work. The operative said they would send someone back on 20 December 2021.
2. The operative left the fridge in the middle of the floor and left the fridge/freezer without a power source. The resident had explained it was urgent because he had hospital appointments on 21 and 22 December 2021. The food had spoiled in the meantime. He was unable to wash his bedding which was necessary due to his continence issues, or to cook.
3. The landlord informed him that sockets were not an emergency, although they affected heating, cooking, clothes washing, and food storage. The resident had mental health issues, respiratory conditions, and physical disabilities. He was also a self-harm/suicide risk and the delays were adversely affecting his mental health. He was due to have a ventilation machine delivered, to help with his breathing.
4. The job was graded as “a P1” with a 24-hour response but no one had attended, and it should have been so graded at the outset.
5. The resident was also waiting for the local authority to attend to a rat infestation. He had reported a further flood on 18 December 2021 due to rats chewing pipes. She attached photographs.
6. She requested an apology and compensation for the ruined food. She considered there should have been a delivery of hot food.
A screenshot of a phone showed an incoming call lasting for six minutes “to” the resident at 00.24 on 19 December 2021.
On 20 December 2021, the carer wrote that the landlord’s electrician, who had attended on 19 December 2021, had attended again that evening. He had apologised. A follow up full assessment of the problem had been needed. The electrician stated that he was told that the service was too busy to attend. She queried why the resident was told the job was rated as “P1” and a person would attend that day given staff were too busy, despite his vulnerabilities and his confirmation of medical appointments. The fridge socket and the oven were not resolved that night as he did not have the tools or equipment with him. She was concerned about the resident’s suicide risk.
The repair records showed that an electrician attended with another operative on 19 December 2021. A further note on the repair records showed jobs were raised on 21 and 22 December 2021 to make the first call to make good the electrics in the property as half were off and the resident had medical equipment which he was unable to use. The job was marked as completed on 22 December 2021 and a further job raised as “ASAP electrician to repair faulty ring main”.
According to further email correspondence at the time, the following day the landlord offered him an appointment on 21 December 2021 but the resident was not available, due to his hospital appointments. An electrician attended before 10.30 on 22 December 2021.
On 5 January 2022, the landlord wrote a “Response to recent Pre-Complaint” as follows:
1. It apologised for the electrical problems. The electrics were raised on 19 December 2021 at 08:13. The callout electrician attended 11:03 same day to attempt a fix and had carried out a temporary repair on an emergency call out, made safe and left partial electrics and heating.
2. Works were completed on the 22 December 2021.
3. Repairs should be reported to the call centre in a polite and courteous manner, without leaving abusive messages as the individual members were not a point of contact.
4. Two sockets were left working in the kitchen for the fridge/freezer and sockets were working in the living room. The fridge and freezer were left with power. It left the resident with electrics and heating after it had attended.
5. The fault had not yet been traced.
6. It had offered to remedy the fault on 21, 23 or 24 December 2021 but the resident had “refused” the appointments as he was not available. The relevant team at the landlord had attempted to speak to the resident as had the housing officer.
7. The resident was placed on a “P1” due to the report of a CPAP machine, but there was no machine to rectify.
8. It added that the resident’s “obstructive and abusive conduct” was not only unacceptable but also hindered its service.
On the same day, the landlord also wrote to the resident reminding the resident to make an appointment regarding erecting the boundary fence.
The resident wrote to the landlord the following day to say that the pest control had not been effective. He also referred to a number of other issues detailed further in the carer’s email on 11 January 2022.
The carer wrote on 11 January 2022 as follows:
1. The landlord should have written to the carer not the resident, given his poor mental health.
2. The electrics were first raised during the early hours of 19 December 2021 at 00:40am on the emergency out-of-hours where the resident was told it was not an emergency, despite the heating and fridge being off and the cold weather.
3. The electrician who attended came out later than 11:03 and said he was only a “make safe” and did not have with him the equipment to do a full repair.
4. The electrician “sorted” the freezer, lounge sockets and the boiler but not fridge or oven sockets. By the time the electrician attended, the freezer and fridge had been off more than 14 hours from the resident’s original call.
5. Someone was to attend on 20 December 2021 to carry out the repairs. It was classed as a “P1” at lunchtime that day. The resident informed the landlord on 20 December 2021 that he had hospital appointments on the following days (21 and 22 December 2021).
6. He was unable to cook or have a shower. The resident had hospital appointments on days the appointments were offered. The work should have been carried out within 24 hours of the report, namely 20 December 2021.
7. The resident took an overdose and attended hospital, hence being back at home on 22 December 2021.
8. The electrician put the electrics on two circuits and would be investigated further in the New Year. The appliances were reconnected on 22 December 2021.
9. She clarified that the resident was collecting a CPAP machine for his bedroom that week. He denied abusing staff. The resident had at times been abusive but that did not mean he always was. She felt it was an excuse not to carry out the repairs.
The landlord wrote to the carer on 21 January 2022 as follows:
1. No repairs had been identified to the “patch of drive”, but it would re-inspect when it looked at the boundary fence.
2. In response to a report of defective fence screw holes, the resident would have to report any defect further to a previous repair.
3. It denied receiving a report regarding the drive and referred her to the call centre.
4. The Occupational Therapist (OT) had deemed the path “fit for purpose”. An OT assessment would be required to assess whether the path was too steep.
5. The front drain would be addressed when the boundary fence was erected as previously agreed but the landlord would attend sooner if required.
6. It had referred the report of a rat infestation to the local authority.
7. In relation to the side fence and trench, the landlord provided the drawings and had chased the resident in order to progress matters. The resident had reported that the previous plan had not been deemed to be safe by the disability agency. The side gates were to be repaired when the fence erected.
8. The drains without covers that the carer had reported to be unsafe to the resident as a wheelchair user would need to be referred to the OT.
9. No decision had been made regarding the cracked path.
10. The ramp was fitted by Adult Social Care and should be referred to that team.
11. The garden slopes and floods were the resident’s responsibility but could be referred to the OT.
12. The guttering, a kitchen worktop, cracked paths, sliding doors, vent opening, taps and the damp patch should be reported to the call centre. The resident should also report his request for cavity wall and loft insulation to the call centre who would send a damp surveyor. The vent in the bathroom had never been maintained but if she would report it, the landlord would service it.
13. The landlord either denied the issues had been reported or the resident stated they were new issues.
14. It did not have a record of a report about the lino. It provided website links with how to make a claim.
15. The re-siting of the utility meters should be referred to the relevant utility company.
16. The landlord did not repair toilet seats.
17. The garage lintel had been repaired and deemed safe.
18. The “environmental improvements”.
  1. Boilers were replaced every 15 years.
  2. A vent in the kitchen was not a requirement.
The carer replied on 25 January 2022 as follows:
1. She requested that the landlord should provide the resident with a single point of contact, and email addresses for the various teams in order to keep a track of her reports.
2. The response in relation to the patch of drive was from the point of view of an able-body person.
3. She requested a copy of the OT report stating that the path was deemed “fit for purpose”. She attached a letter dated 8 January 2021 stating that the resident should not put himself at risk. She described his particular mobility issues.
4. She denied receiving the drawings for the planned boundary fence.
5. She had reported the lino issue to the engineer who had attended on site.
6. The utility company had informed her that it was for the landlord to contact the utility company.
7. She disagreed that the garage lintel has been repaired and was safe.
8. The boiler leaked and therefore needed replacement.
The landlord replied on 26 January 2022 as follows:
1. It apologised for the “slight” delay in responding. It explained that the resident contacted the landlord direct on occasions or did not want the benefit of an advocate for certain matters which could be “a little confusing” for all.
2. It treated all its customers seriously and was “very much aware” of the resident’s vulnerability. Unfortunately, it was unable to guarantee that any customer would be satisfied with its service but that should not be construed as not taking matters seriously. It “fully” accepted that Christmas was a difficult time for the resident.
3. It repeated its response regarding the electrics. It had attended as an emergency and carried out a temporary repair. It understood that the fridge and freezer were working when the operative left but could provide an insurance claim form, if required. The resident had stated on 20 December 2021 that he already had a ventilation machine in his bedroom and needed the electrics fixed to allow this machine to work. Its out-of-hours service dealt with emergencies and effectively resolved, made safe or carried out temporary works with a view to returning. The Right To Repair Regulations 1994 prescribed the response times in working days excluding weekends.
4. Pest control services in relation to rats and mice were free for council tenants and should problems persist it offered to discuss this directly with Pest Control.
5. The carer could contact him to discuss the complaint further or she could escalate the complaint.
On 27 January 2022, the landlord internally stated that it continued to try and undertake repair works. A meeting was going to be arranged to discuss how to take this forward and how potentially Adult Social Care could provide support.
The carer wrote to the landlord on the same day requesting email addresses so as to track reports, avoid telephone conversations as the resident stuttered and to avoid “difficult behaviour”. The resident had agreed the work to the boundary fence could go ahead. It was difficult for the resident to communicate with so many different departments. She asked the landlord to make reasonable adjustments.
The landlord replied on the same day that it would not provide a single point of contact for the resident.
On 28 January 2022, adult social services stated that the resident required practical support not related to social care.
According to an internal email of 12 February 2022, the carer had contacted the landlord regarding the rat infestation. The overflow pipe under the sink was soaking wet and as was the cupboard shelf under the sink which indicated to him that rats were still present on the property. The sink was about to overflow. A disability aid had been chewed through around the edges as had been wires, a bin and a bleach bottle. The drawer the aid was in “smelled bad” and was wet. She attached photos. She reported that there seem to be a separate file for her and the resident, although she was not a tenant. This had created confusion.
There was an exchange on 16 February 2022 between the parties regarding the boundary fence. The carer denied receiving the plans.
There followed an email discussion between Pest Control and landlord through to early March 2022 regarding how to manage the reported risk attending the property, given the sighting of weaponry. A risk assessment was prepared, and safety advice was sought.
On 18 February 2022, the landlord wrote its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. It did not record calls and retain detailed call logs. The initial emergency repair was raised at 08:13 on 19 December 2021. If repeated calls were required to raise the initial repair, it apologised.
2. It was not a requirement to provide cooking or tea-making facilities in the event of a loss of power.
3. It acknowledged that repairs of this nature could have an impact upon an individual’s mental health. It took these matters seriously. It was committed to undertaking repairs in a timely manner to ensure that disruption was kept to a minimum. It understood that she felt it should have undertaken these repairs sooner given the resident’s vulnerability, but works were diagnosed and assessed with a priority response time which took into account vulnerability. The resident was scheduled for assessment with the Adult Social Care team in the coming weeks. Should this assessment indicate that the resident required any additional support or onward referrals it would do this. If his mental or physical health deteriorated in the meantime, it asked her to contact the landlord.
4. It apologised that it had misunderstood that the CPAP machine was not yet in the property. It attended promptly recognising the potential health and safety risk, but as the CPAP machine was not present there was no need to repair the single socket as works were already scheduled to return power to the rest of the property. As such, the repair was aborted. The initial problem initially occurred out of normal working hours and it had attended as an emergency response to ‘make safe’ the property. The follow-on works were subsequently raised in accordance with the Right To Repair legislation. Whilst it took 4 days to complete the works, the Right to Repair legislation states that the repairs should have been completed within 3 working days, not calendar days, so that the repair was within target. It apologised that that it was not able to complete the repair sooner.
5. A referral was previously made to Pest Control services to address the rat problem. It had contacted them again and provided telephone contact details.
6. It partially upheld the complaint as it needed to attend again to address the infestation at the property.
7. The matter would be closed once the works were completed.
8. The resident could escalate the complaint.
The carer responded on 20 February 2022. The landlord had not responded regarding the landlord contacting the utility company about re-siting the meters which were not disability accessible. She quoted advice from another source stating that the landlord should assist. She asked the landlord to arrange for the meters to be moved to a more accessible position and to contact her.
There was further discussion between the landlord and Pest Control by email regarding arrangements to attend. According to the emails, treatment from the previous year was concluded as there was no evidence of infestation and it could not leave rodenticide in situ. It did not explain this to the resident at the time because of the presence weapons and his manner. The parties accepted there needed to be a resolution and weighed up its obligations against staff safety concerns. The landlord continued to make enquiries from statutory agencies and specialist safety advice.
The carer reported on 3 March 2022 that the repairs operatives had attended that day to fix the overflow that had been “chewed though by rats”.
The local authority records showed that pest control officers attended on 8, 18 and 30 March 2022.
The report of 8 March 2022 showed that it inspected the property and identified no entry points for rats. It put treatment in the loft on the basis of the resident’s report of hearing noises and suggested to the resident that he keep the kitchen door closed or use a board to prevent rodent access. It identified no issues except the cat bringing in rats. The resident explained that was why he had a BB gun in the property. The weaponry was still on show. The pest control officer found the resident to be amenable.
On 10 March 2022, the carer wrote stating that the resident had a claim regarding damage caused by rats.
The report of 18 March 2022 stated that the pest control officer checked the rodenticide placed in the loft but had not been touched. He also checked a hole in front of property. He did not identify any issues evidencing an infestation.
On 21 March 2022, the carer wrote to this Service and forwarded an email from the landlord to her. It had contacted the relevant utilities who had received no application to date requesting the re-location of the meters. The electricity company would provide a free service within 5 days to survey in respect of moving the electric meter. The landlord had no objection to the meter being moved but the landlord would not fund the works or carry out any ancillary work. The starting point for relocation of the meters was for the resident to go on-line and apply for a survey and quotation in respect of both meters.
The landlord wrote on 22 March 2022 with its final response as follows:
1. Pest control had confirmed there was no evidence of rats causing damage to the property.
2. The resident had declined an assessment from the community social work team. It would pass on any request to rearrange an assessment.
3. There was no evidence of missed repair appointments. The repair works were placed on hold following the resident’s request to have the disability charity approve the plans for the boundary fence. Once the resident was happy with the plan, the resident could arrange a suitable date.
4. The works to the boundary wall were due to commence on 25 April 2022.
5. The landlord was unable to “substantiate” the resident’s report as it did not retain “detailed” call logs. It apologised if call backs were promised by the call handler and were not made.
6. As the work that was due to be carried out related to the outside of the property, the landlord did not consider it necessary to decant the resident.
7. It had taken the decision not to progress the complaint to its complaint review committee as no fault had been identified. It accepted that the resident may have disagreed with the outcome.
The landlord investigated the pest control further. According to a report of 5 April 2022, there had been a drainage survey on 27 July 2021 and a full inspection on 5 August 2021. It confirmed there was no evidence of an infestation on 30 March 2022 but Pest Control was to re-attend.
It considered that the alleged damaged overflow pipe was too high for a rat to reach. There was no food source to attract the rats, or indicative marks. A bleach bottle the resident had referred to was upright, and with no signs of spillage. It was also unlikely a rat would have approached a bleach bottle.
According to a further report, Pest Control attended again on 7 April 2022. There had been “no take” on the rodenticide.
The carer informed this Service on 20 May 2022 that it had taken over 5 months to obtain an £100 offer from the landlord’s insurers, which she considered to be an insult. The floor was a health hazard now as the lino was catching on his wheelchair.
The landlord wrote to the carer on 13 June 2022 quoting Citizen’s Advice that the responsibility for moving the meters was that of the utility companies. It could not contact the utility company on the resident’s behalf as the account was in the resident’s name. It would assist in any adjustments for the pipework from the meters to the appliances.
The carer made a complaint on 28 June 2022 about a garage repair.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a electrical failure in the property on 19 December 2021, a rat infestation, repairs including to his fence, gate, drains and gutters, and the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an insurance claim form and “environmentally-friendly” additions.

The Ombudsman did not identify a specific policy in relation to its service to vulnerable residents. However, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to make reasonable adjustments in relation to a disabled resident’s needs. The obligation, however, is not absolute. It does not require the landlord to meet every need if it is unable to do so. What is reasonable will depend on what is proportionate and what the landlord can reasonably provide in the circumstances. This does not diminish the impact on a resident and their frustration and distress. However, this does not necessarily mean that fault is attributed to the landlord. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to the issues reported by the resident, directly and through his carer, and to assess what is reasonable in the circumstances.

The resident’s report of a rat Infestation

While the responsibility for pest control lay with the Environmental Health Department of the local authority, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord, in accordance with its housing management responsibilities, to liaise with Pest Control and ensure, as far as possible, that it complied with its obligations.
The evidence showed that Pest Control had attended the property in August 2021 and it was agreed any treatment would await after the drains were repaired. The evidence showed that Pest Control attended some four weeks after the drains repair. There was no explanation for the delay between 6 September 2021 and 4 October 2021. It was difficult to identify whether the emails chasing the work were from housing, reception, the complaints team, or Pest Control, however, the evidence showed there was proactive contact with Pest Control to make the arrangements. The evidence also showed that the pest control did not identify evidence of an infestation.
The reason for not attending on 25 October 2021 was reasonable. However, there was no evidence that the resident or carer was warned that Pest Control would not attend on 25 October 2021. The evidence also indicated that was when the landlord itself was informed of the situation. While it would have been frustrating and discourteous not to inform the resident that no-one would attend, no fault can be attributed to the landlord in that regard. While the landlord made initial enquiries at the time, there was no evidence that it followed up the matter, until the carer’s fresh report. In any event, there had been no evidence of an infestation.
The landlord responded promptly when the resident reported an infestation in January 2022. It was also robust in its intention to address the report of infestation. However, it was reasonable to balance that with staff safety. The evidence showed that the parties worked at resolving the issue so that Pest Control re-attended in early March 2022. It was reasonable of the landlord to accept responsibility for the fact it had not pursued the matter and to then investigate and monitor the findings by Pest Control. It was entitled to rely on the conclusions by Pest Control, which had the expertise to assess the evidence.

Failure of the electrics

There was a dispute whether the resident contacted the landlord just after midnight or just after eight o’clock in the morning of 19 December 2021. The Ombudsman is unable to make a conclusion from the screen shot of a call of that date. However, the landlord was unable to determine this from its records. The landlord should keep logs so as to track its own actions and also to ensure that it adheres to its own service timescales. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
While it would have been distressing for the resident to have been without electric appliances from midnight to the next morning, there was no evidence that the lack of electrics presented an emergency within the landlord’s policy definition and was in any event dealt with, according to the landlord’s records, within 12 hours. It was reasonable that the landlord would initially focus on carrying out immediate works but, as stated in its policy, it would complete the works on a later occasion. The landlord showed it was willing to attend to complete the works but did not have the capacity to do so on the following day. It attended within its policy timescales and while the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make an additional effort to attend given the resident’s vulnerabilities, the evidence showed that it attended as soon as it was able to and when the resident was at home.
The Ombudsman does not minimise the impact of a power failure on the resident. This was an instance of where, while a situation can have an impact on a resident, it did not necessarily mean that there had been a service failure by the landlord. Its explanation that there was lack of capacity was reasonable and the evidence showed the landlord made what effort it could, in particular as it had understood a working socket was required for medical equipment. It then reasonably compensated the resident for any spoilt food.
In light of the carer’s report of a suicide risk, the landlord should have considered raising a safeguarding alert, suggested a call to his GP or the emergency services, or requested a welfare check on the resident. While the carer did not report an imminent risk, it is not for the landlord to second guess a situation. However, while the Ombudsman does not diminish the seriousness of the situation, they also bear in mind the speed of events. The Ombudsman does not find service failure in that regard in this instance. However, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take very seriously.
In relation to a catering service in default of cooking facilities, that would have been a matter for Adult Social Care, if at all. The landlord could have considered making enquiries as to what was available to the resident or contacted Adult Social Care. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that it is an issue the landlord should bear in mind when dealing with people with disabilities. While the Ombudsman has noted there was a dispute about the extent that the electrics were affected, the Ombudsman’s conclusion is made on the basis that the resident’s version was correct.

The works and repairs

The evidence showed that the landlord provided plans in relation to the works to the boundary fence and sent a schedule to the resident on 20 October 2021 and plans on 15 November 2021. The evidence also showed that the landlord invited the resident on more than one occasion to arrange attendance. The evidence also showed it offered to attend regarding the “blown “wall.
It was reasonable of the landlord to refer certain adaptations to the OT. Any adaptations would require specialist input, assessment, and advice, much as did the boundary wall.
There was a dispute whether some of the reports the resident made on 11 January 2022 had already been made. There was insufficient evidence for the Ombudsman to reach a conclusion in that regard. However, the evidence showed that the landlord was willing to attend to the repairs but required they were reported through the correct channels. It also noted that many of the repairs including to the gate were to be addressed when the boundary fence was erected. Given no date to erect the replacement boundary fence had been agreed, and given the resident’s vulnerabilities, the Ombudsman does not consider that to be reasonable. It is generally more efficient that repairs should generally be channelled through one system, and not to an individual, unless a nominated point of contact. However, on that occasion, the landlord could have considered passing on the reports to the repairs line on behalf of the resident. The landlord’s explanation for not decanting the resident was reasonable.
The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for the landlord to contact both the resident and the carer. The carer was there to support the resident. Not only would it be difficult to track which to contact, the carer was charged with putting the resident’s complaints and attending on appointment, so it would only be sensible for the carer to be kept informed.
There was a dispute as to when the resident reported the damage to the lino. However, the resident made a successful claim with the landlord’s insurers. The resident was not satisfied with the award. While that was a matter for the insurers, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to offer to liaise with the insurers. While all the resident requested was a claim form, which the landlord provided, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not offer to inspect it or refer the resident to its repair service for disabled residents, given it presented a potential health and safety hazard in his home. There was insufficient evidence to lead the Ombudsman to a conclusion that the condition of the lino worsened was the landlord’s fault. However, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in relation to those matters.
While it was reasonable to state repairing toilet seats was not the landlord’s responsibility, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have referred the resident to its repair service for “small DIY jobs” for residents with disabilities.
The landlord was entitled to a have policy whereby a boiler would be replaced every 15 years. However, the specific decision should also depend on the condition of the boiler. While the Ombudsman did not identify any reports of a boiler leak in the period, and a boiler that leaked did not necessarily require a replacement, the Ombudsman will make an order that the boiler is inspected in order to assess whether it is functioning properly.
The same applies to the kitchen vent. While there was no repair obligation to provide a kitchen vent and it may not have been a requirement under building regulations at the time of the build, the landlord had an obligation to ensure the property was habitable in relation to damp. There was no suggestion the property was inhabitable, however it is also good practice. The landlord is referred to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould. The Ombudsman will make an order for the landlord to assess whether a kitchen vent is required.
There was no clear evidence as to the condition of the lintel of the garage or the detail of the resident’s report. However, the Ombudsman has noted that the resident has made a fresh complaint in that regard. The resident will have an opportunity to properly express his concerns. The landlord should have this further opportunity to respond. It would then be open to the resident to refer that complaint to this Service if he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

The resident’s request to move the utility meters.

The landlord’s response to the carer’s request for the landlord to move the meters was reasonable that it would be for the energy company to move the meters and the landlord offered to carry out the works that fell to it to do. The evidence showed that the landlord made enquiries and it referred to external advice. It provided some direction. However, while the landlord was not obliged to pay for the costs of moving the meters, it missed the opportunity to signpost the carer to any grants.

Summary.

The landlord made references to the resident’s conduct in its complaint response. The Ombudsman has noted the language in his emails and the presence of weaponry in the property which would have been challenging to the landlord. The evidence also showed that the resident’s manner was variable and, at times, amenable. However, while the landlord was entitled to consider how best to address this, there was no evidence that it affected the landlord’s delivery and level of service. The carer suggested that a single point of contact would assist and be a reasonable adjustment, while the landlord itself raised this internally as a potential option. The landlord did not explain why it would not provide a single point of contact as requested by the carer. There was no evidence that it considered the carer’s reasons. It could have, for example, considered whether the resident required tenancy support. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
Overall, while the resident’s distress and frustration was evident, the evidence showed that in most respects, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in a reasonable manner and consulted with statutory services, including Adult Social Care. However, the Ombudsman has highlighted a number of points of concern so that accumulatively, the Ombudsman considered there had been service failure overall. This included not considering checking the safety of the kitchen linoleum, considering the need for a kitchen vent, not offering the resident its “DIY” service. The Ombudsman was particularly concerned that the landlord did not contact any statutory agencies in response to the carer’s report of the resident being at suicide risk.
While complying with recommendations is in the landlord’s discretion, the Ombudsman would emphasise in this instance that the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to comply, unless it had good reason not to.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There was a benefit to the complaints process, including that the landlord ensured that Pest Control attended the resident’s property. There was an overall delay in dealing with the resident’s complaint between December 2021 and March 2022. This was largely due to the landlord introducing a “pre formal response stage” to the process. In addition, the landlord did not systemically address every issue raised by the carer. However, it used its discretion to address fresh issues that the resident raised during the process.
The landlord is referred to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It is noted that, contrary to the Code, the landlord has retained a three-stage process with a response timescale of 15 working days at Stage 1 response It is noted that in the landlord’s current self-assessment, the landlord intends to review its Complaints Procedure to reflect the requirement for a Stage 1 response to be provided within ten working days. It does not provide an explanation of why it operates a three-stage complaints procedure in the assessment. This did not affect this complaint, given it had declined the resident’s request for further escalation. While there are circumstances where the landlord should keep a complaint under review, the landlord should, as far as possible, review a complaint at senior level at an earlier stage so as not to delay a resolution. However, there was no overall significant impact and therefore the Ombudsman does not find service failure but will make a recommendation to take note of the points highlighted in this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a electrical failure in the property on 19 December 2021, a rat infestation, repairs including to his fence, gate, drains and gutters, and the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an insurance claim form and “environmentally-friendly” additions.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The evidence showed that in most respects, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in a reasonable manner and consulted with statutory services. However, the Ombudsman has highlighted a number of points of concern that are reflected in the Ombudsman’s orders and recommendation so that accumulatively, the Ombudsman considered there had been service failure overall.
There was some delay in the landlord’s complaint handling. However, there was no evidence that the delay caused a significant impact but has made a recommendation.

Orders.

The Ombudsman orders to take the following steps within four weeks of this report:
1. The landlord should pay the resident the sum of £250 in relation the landlord’s response to his reports of an electrical failure in the property on 19 December 2021, a rat infestation, repairs including to his fence, gate, drains and gutters, and the landlord’s response to his request for an insurance claim form and “environmentally-friendly” additions.
2. The landlord should inspect the resident’s property with the Occupational Therapist to ensure that the property is safe, including the kitchen linoleum.
3. The landlord should request a report from the OT setting out what steps are required to make the property safe, if any, and to agree with the OT any plan of action with a copy to the resident, his carer and the Ombudsman, making clear where the respective responsibilities lie.
4. The landlord should inspect the boiler, consider any repair history of the boiler in order to consider whether a replacement is required and provide a report to the resident, his carer, and the Ombudsman.
5. The landlord should measure the damp levels of the kitchen and assess whether a window vent, extraction fan or suitable option is required and write to the resident and his carer with its conclusions, with a copy to the Ombudsman.
6. The landlord should mark the resident’s records so that he is offered where appropriate, the “small DIY” repair service.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should consider offering the resident a single point of contact which could be in the form of tenancy support.
2. The landlord should keep call logs so as to track its own actions and also to ensure that it adheres to its own service timescales.
3. The landlord should consider training for its front line and complaints staff in order to ensure that, where for example the resident’s services are affected or there is a suicide risk, it offers appropriate signposting and makes the appropriate safeguarding enquiries and checks, whether through its own services or external statutory agencies, such as the police, adult social care and the community mental health team.
4. The landlord should signpost the resident to any grants to fund the moving of the meter.
5. The landlord should ensure that it makes the appropriate referrals to its additional “odd-job” repair service and that it recognises reports that may affect the health and safety of a vulnerable person.
6. The landlord should take note of the points regarding its complaint handling highlighted in this report, in particular when carrying out its self-assessment of its complaint handling.
7. The landlord should provide feedback to the Ombudsman in relation to these recommendation within four weeks of this report.