Notting Hill Genesis (202008430)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008430

Notting Hill Genesis

30 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the bathroom shower.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a decant or transfer.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues in her gardens.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had an assured tenancy with the landlord since 18 May 2020. She lives in a three-bedroom property with her children and is a foster carer for other children. She has no known vulnerabilities recorded on the landlord’s systems though one of the children has anxiety issues.
On 26 May 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report an issue with the pressure in her shower.
On 19 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord advising that the shower could not be fixed due to the faulty plumbing within the property. A job was raised by the landlord to check the water pressure at the property, and a new pump was installed.
On 28 June 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to make an enquiry about “bulk removal” of material in her garden.
On 6 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that she had not allowed access to two contractors that day on the grounds that they had not shown her sufficient ID. She also enquired about grants to maintain the front and back gardens. The landlord noted that it would feed back the report to the contractors and arrange a new job as necessary. It also noted that it did not provide grants for the maintenance of gardens as this was the responsibility of tenants.
On 14 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord stating that she was still waiting for the shower to be repaired. She noted that she had had four visits at this point from contractors, and that the most recent attending contractor had advised her that a new shower would be put in and that the problem was not the plumbing. She noted that the shower had originally been reset, prior to another contractor saying that the tank needed to be pumped. When this latter action was taken, it had damaged her bathroom tiles and left her cold-water kitchen tap faulty. The most recent appointment had been booked without notice and she had not allowed contractors in given their lack of ID. She noted the whole plumbing system and boiler was making an unusual and loud noise.
She noted that there had been mice/rats in the property and attached a photo of these. She requested a grant from the landlord to tidy up the front and back garden, remove the rubbish and pave the area. She alternatively asked if it could provide her with a skip.
On 21 July 2020 the landlord advised the resident that the local authority may be able to assist her with disposal of bulk items.
On 23 July 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report that there were mice in the property. The following day a job was raised with the landlord’s contractors who attended the property shortly afterwards to install traps and carry out pest proofing works.
On 25 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord confirming that a new advanced shower unit had been installed over the previous week but that the issue was still not resolved, with the water pressure being even lower and cutting out more regularly. The landlord’s internal emails on 28 July 2020 noted that it had requested the contractors attend the property again to check the functionality of the shower in response to these reports. It also requested the contractors provide it with a video of the shower in operation to assist with an assessment of whether the water flow was suitable.
On 8 August 2020 the resident requested a transfer from the property on the basis of the plumbing repair and pest issues.
On 7 September the landlord wrote to the resident noting that it had video evidence of the day the resident viewed the property with the landlord once the void works were completed. This video demonstrated that there was no rubbish in the front or back garden, and it offered to provide her with the video. The resident responded noting that the time she visited the property and the time she moved in were two separate days and that rubbish had accumulated in the bins and in the yard during this period.
On 29 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord attaching correspondence from her water supplier which had changed the water stop outside of the property and tested the pressure. The report demonstrated that the water pressure was fine and any issue was on the inside of the property.
On 12 October a front garden fence was installed.
On 14 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord noting that she had been advised a contractor would attend the following week to look at the boiler along with an attendance from a plumber as part of an attempt at finding a permanent solution for the issues with the shower. She also noted that the fencing had been repaired in the front and back gardens.
On 20 October 2020 the landlord’s plumber attended the property and noted in his job records that the noise was coming from the pump which was not big enough to feed all the taps in the property. It noted that the shower should be fed from the mains feed.
On 3 November 2020 pest control attended the property noting that there was a hole in the boiler cupboard where a floorboard was missing. The pest control team noted they would be unable to resolve the issue with the hole in place.
On 4 November 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord to note that she had found mice in the property. On 5 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord noting that, as the landlord was aware, that had been made problems at the property since moving in with her children. She noted having found mice in her son’s bedroom again that morning, and she could not stay in the property as she and the children were terrified of the pest infestation. She noted that she had been unable to sleep. She requested that she be provided with a temporary decant until the matter was resolved, particularly as Christmas was approaching.
On the same day the landlord responded to the resident noting that pest control had attended the property and carried out all necessary work. It had been instructed to fill in some holes around the water tank, and noted it was awaiting confirmation of a job being raised. Regarding issues with plumbing, a number of jobs had been raised, and it had been advised that the internal pump was not strong enough to feed all taps meaning the shower needed to be moved to the mains feed. It was waiting for a response from a particular team to raise a job. On the basis that there was heating and hot water in the property, it noted it would not be able to provide temporary accommodation for the resident.
The resident responded on the same day stating that pest control had attended multiple times, putting traps down and filling holes, but noting that that the job was not complete as she believed the pests were nesting and could be under the floorboards. She stated she was unable to use the kitchen and bathroom because of the infestation.
On 9 November 2020 the landlord made a referral to its assets team for a job noting that the water supply would need to be run off the mains. Its internal emails on the following day said it had “tried everything.”
On the same day, 9 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident noting her reports of further mice sightings in the bedrooms and living room over the weekend. It stated that it was unable to provide temporary accommodation as it did not have the stock to do so.
On 9 November 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord in which she set out the following:
1. Since moving into the property she had experienced multiple repair issues and had spent a considerable amount on the house. She felt the property was not properly inspected before she moved in as here were problems with the front door not locking, the gas and electricity meters not working and having to be replaced, and rubbish in the front and rear garden that the resident had to pay to remove. She also noted that she had paid for the front garden to be paved as foxes were encroaching there and the fence was missing.
2. She believed the property to be unfit to live in as there was a pest infestation and the plumbing was faulty. Multiple attendances by contractors had failed to resolve the issues. The plumbing had issues with low water pressure, faulty taps, the shower failing to work if taps were on or the toilet was flushed and the whole system making a very loud noise. The pest infestation had been occurring since June, with sightings occurring in the bedrooms where mice were amongst her belongings which was terrifying to herself and her children. This had caused her and her son to sleep in the living room or at her mother’s care home. A huge hole had been found in the boiler cupboard where the floorboard was missing.
3. They were all becoming very distressed, depressed and scared and it was impacting their sleep, schooling and employment. The resident noted she was rarely cooking in the kitchen as she was hypervigilant and was suffering from headaches and anxiety. She was very unhappy that the landlord would not transfer her to temporary accommodation.
On 10 November 2020 the landlord’s internal emails were discussing potential solutions to the plumbing issues, noting that ideally the contractor who first fitted the newest shower should advise on what steps should be taken next.
On the same day the landlord was in contact with a plumber, the latter stating that on the surface the issue did seem to be that the type of shower should always be mains fed and not on a pump. It noted that the water pressure would need to be tested going into the house and following this it would be unlikely to do any remedial work for at least four weeks.
On 11 November 2020 the landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint
On 12 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord noting that the contractor who had attended the previous day had been unable to complete the repairs in the airing cupboard as the cylinder needed to be removed.
On 18 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident advising that it was arranging for a gas contractor urgently to attend with the pest control at the same time as the holes would be filled in. The plumbing issue had been passed over to an external contractor due to the lack of success in finding a resolution, and it noted it would advise her about an appointment date.
On 23 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord requesting an update on works on the boiler cupboard with regards to the pest infestation. She noted having had sightings again.
On 23 November 2020 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident in which it set out the following:
1. Pest control had attended the property and treated the infestation. As there were outstanding works in the airing cupboard, it had requested they attend upon completion of the works to assess if any further treatment was needed. The outstanding works had been arranged for 27 November 2020, when a contractor would remove the cylinder and drain the water, before the holes were filled as necessary. At this point heating would reinstall the cylinder.
2. Regarding the plumbing issues, it apologised for the delay in getting the issue resolved, noting that a number of jobs had been raised and different contractors had attended with various suggestions on how to resolve the issue. In June 2020 a new pump was installed, in July 2020 a new advanced shower unit was installed which the contractor reported was fully operational and in October 2020 a contractor suggested the pump was not powerful enough but provided no evidence of the pump or flow in the shower. It noted the next step to getting the issue resolved as advised by its senior surveyor was instructing an external contractor to attend, access and suggest a solution for the issue. It was awaiting a confirmation date for their next available appointment.
3. Regarding the resident’s property application, it noted it could assess the application once she had been living at the property for 12 months, which would be in May 2021. It noted it was unable to offer a decant on the basis of the pest or plumbing issues, but assured the resident it was doing all it could to have them resolved in a timely manner and apologised for any stress that had been caused to her.
4. Regarding the garden issues, from its records a fence was installed at the front of the property on 12 October 2020. Another job reference was noted as having been recorded and completed for the rear garden. The resident’s neighbour had advised that the panel was taken down to install a shed, and would be reinstated on completion. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if this was the case.
On 25 November 2020 the landlord confirmed with the resident that its contractors would be attending the property to carry out repairs to the airing cupboard on 27 December 2020. The resident reported further mice sightings on the same day.
On 30 November 2020 the plumber wrote to the landlord with a quote for undertaking the fix to the water pressure.
On 3 December 2020 the landlord contacted the resident and confirmed that the repairs to the airing cupboard had been completed.
On 6 December 2020 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated on the following basis:
1. She had been dealing with the pest infestation since June, which had spread from the kitchen to the dining room where she was currently sleeping. The problem had gotten worse as there had been several sightings in all of the rooms, causing great distress to all members of the house. The attendance of pest control who had filled holes had not resolved the problem. The large hole identified in the airing cupboard had been raised as the main source of the infestation and had been raised as an emergency repair, but she had been waiting for weeks for it to be resolved. The pests were roaming throughout the house including amongst their belongings, and they unable to sleep comfortably.
2. The plumbing issue remained unresolved despite several attendances. She noted the jobs that had been listed by the landlord in its stage one response and additionally noted that in September 2020 that the water supplier had changed the water stop tap outside of the property and tested the pressure. They reported that the water pressure outside was fine and that the problem was on the inside of the property.
3. The refusal of her request for temporary accommodation while the repairs were completed had caused her more distress. She did not feel that she should have to wait until May 2021, as she felt she had the right to a transfer on the grounds that the property was neglected and unfit to live in. She also noted that she did not want to participate in a mutual exchange which could take a long time and she might want to transfer back to her old home.
4. She noted that when she moved into the property she had asked for help in getting rid of the rubbish in the front and back garden which were unhygienic and attracting vermin. This was refused and she paid for both the front and back garden to be cleared and the former paved. The fence was installed to the front of the property in October, and the back fence and garden had not been completed at the time which had left the back of the garden insecure. She was unable to pay to sort out the back garden.
5. She again requested a transfer.
On 9 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that the pest control team at their most recent visit had informed the resident that there was nothing more that could be done to address the issue.
On 20 January 2021 a plumber attended the property to look at the shower and plumbing issue. He told the resident that a new electrical shower was required again that was not connected to the pump, and a new water tank in the loft as the water pressure was low. He also suggested that the pump be repaired due to incorrect connections and the loud noises it was making. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day to report what had occurred at the plumber’s attendance. In this communication she also noted that she was yet to hear from the landlord about the removal of the kitchen cupboards to address the holes and uncovered pipes behind them as a solution to the pest infestation.
On 23 January 2021 the landlord’s contractors installed a new shower within its own pump which was working and had resolved the noise issue, although the resident noted the water pressure was still low.
On 25 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident noting it had received confirmation that the plumbing issues had been resolved, and confirmed that the shower had been installed. It noted that as per its policy, after one year in the property the resident would be able to make an application for a mutual exchange.
On the same day, 25 January 2021, the resident wrote to the Ombudsman noting that the complaint was at stage two, but that she was dissatisfied as she had not yet had a response.
On 27 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that a job had been raised with pest control to remove the back board behind the cupboard under the sink.
On 3 February 2021 a contractor attended the property who advised the resident that a pipe behind the sink needed sealing, but that because there were other exposed pipes behind the cabinets it was unclear if this would resolve the pest issue. It noted the cabinets would need to be removed and an appointment was booked in for this.
On 7 February 2021 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response to the resident in which it set out the following:
1. The mice were first reported on 23 July 2020, a job order was raised and contractors attended to carry out baiting and proofing works. It was also advised that the hot water cylinder would need to be removed from the airing cupboard so that further baiting and proofing works could be done. This was arranged for 27 November 2020. Since those visits and up until the date of the complaint response the resident had continued to report sightings of mice and the landlord continued to send out contractors to complete the repair work identified. It was waiting for the last report from its pest contractors after the previous visit and after receiving this would contact the resident to make arrangements. It was satisfied with the way the matter had been handled and therefore did not uphold the complaint.
2. It acknowledged that the resident had reported low water pressure since moving into the property, while noting that this had been resolved. The reason for the delay was due to the investigation needed to establish the actual fault. It had to arrange for Thames Water to attend to determine whether there was an issue with the pressure from the supply pipe, and it also installed a water pump in the hope that this would increase the water pressure and surveyors had to inspect this. Despite this it acknowledged that the time taken was outside of the landlord’s service agreement and offered £25 compensation for the service failure, £25 for the stress and inconvenience caused and £25 for the missed appointment when the resident refused access to a contractor who did not have their correct ID. On the latter point the landlord noted it had reminded contractors that they be required to carry identification when they attend a resident’s property.
3. The reason the resident’s request for decants was denied was because having mice and low water pressure did not make the property uninhabitable. It acknowledged the property was not ideal, however it had followed its decant policy in coming to the decision. The request to transfer and for her son to be added to the household members scheme was denied due to the length of time that the resident had been living at the current property. Its policy determined that a resident must be living at their home for 12 months before requesting this, which would be on 18 May 2021. This part of the complaint was not upheld.
4. It noted it was sorry the resident was dissatisfied with the way it had handled the request to clear the garden and install a fence. When the property was handed over to the landlord by its void contractors, the garden was cleared. Once a property was let, the maintenance of the garden becomes the responsibility of the tenant. As the resident’s request for clearing the back garden was not a repair, this is not something the landlord would do. However it noted it could arrange for a contractor to attend to clear the garden and recharge the cost to her. It noted that the front garden fence had been installed completed on 12 October 2020, but that the back garden fence panel had been temporarily removed by the neighbour whilst they carried out home improvement works. The panel would be put back once the works were completed, and noted it would chase an update from the neighbour as to when this would be.
On the same day, 7 February 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord noting she and her family were unable to sleep, having seen pests again that night in her eldest son’s room. She noted that there were traps and glue mats everywhere but that the mice were still present. She noted that repairing the kitchen cupboard would not resolve the issue. On 8 February 2021 the landlord’s internal emails noted that it was chasing up the issue with the back fence and the report from the pest contractors so as to provide an update to the resident that week.
On 9 February 2021 the resident’s social worker wrote to the landlord noted that pest control had told the resident that they had “done what they possibly [could]” but that the pest control had not been resolved. It noted that repairs had been carried out gradually involving securing and covering the outdoor pipes where it was felt the mice were initially coming in, and the boiler cupboard being secured with a floorboard, but that this had not solved the problem. It noted that the resident had agreed to keep a chronology of all the pest sightings and repairs that had been carried out as well as pest control visit. It asked for the landlord to confirm when the work noted to be necessary on 3 February 2021 would be booked in.
On 16 February 2021 the resident again requested an update on when the kitchen cupboard under the sink would be repaired, noting that there had been further sightings of mice in different rooms of the house where the children were sleeping. The work was carried out on 17 February 2021.
On 9 March 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the back garden’s fence had not been installed.
On 24 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report further sightings of mice in the property. Pest control attended on 27 March 2021, with the notes recording that the contractor found a dead mouse and saw another. It re-baited the property and placed wire wool around the radiator pipes, as well as blocking holes by the radiator pipes in the upstairs bedroom. On 29 March 2021 the resident reported further sightings of mice in the property over both nights of the weekend.
On 7 April 2021 the landlords’ internal emails noted that it had arranged for pest control to attend, and it was awaiting a report with a recommendation so it could set out a longer-term plan to deal with the pest issue.
On 9 April 2021 the landlord attended the property again, but the resident was not at home so a calling card was left. The landlord had not had an update from the resident as of 19 April 2021 and noted internally that it would call her again the next date to re-book an appointment.
On 24 May 2021 pest control attended the property with the resident reporting that she had not seen a mouse for a number of months. The job notes recorded that there were no takes to any of the baits, and a hole was proofed around a radiator pipe. The job was closed as there were no outstanding issues. The resident communicated with the landlord the following day that the issues with the shower appeared to have been resolved.
On 2 June 2021 the landlord advised the Ombudsman that the issues with the resident’s garden, specifically the fencing and waste left in the gardens had been caused by a neighbouring tenant who had removed the fence to allow contractors to carry out works. These works had been completed, and the landlord noted it had contacted the resident to update her and also the neighbour to stress that it needed to put right the damage that had been caused to the property.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s pest control procedure sets out the following:
1. The landlord will deal with pest control issues both in an individual’s property and the communal areas. If the pest problem is new and is not cockroaches, pharaoh ants or rats, the landlord will inform the resident that they need to deal with the problem themselves. They will offer to organise a treatment and recharge the expense. If, based on the resident’s account, it is likely that the pest problem is linked to structural issues, a separate process should be followed.
2. If the resident has reported a similar pest problem less than three months earlier and treatment had already been carried out, the landlord will visit the property take photos and fill out a checklist.
3. The separate process for pests entering the property due to a structural problem with the building requires the case to be referred to a surveyor to carry out an inspection. Following this, repair work should be raised as needed.
The landlord’s pest control brochure notes that, if the infestation occurs due to it failing to take reasonable care in maintaining the building, e.g. not carrying out requested repairs, it will make sure that it solves the problem. It notes that if the problem is in the resident’s property a resident should try to solve the problem where possible. The landlord is required to arrange a visit to the property in the case of rodents.
The landlord’s repair policy notes that routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days of the report. The landlord is responsible for fences that are not the neighbouring property’s responsibility. The resident is responsible for garden clearance and cleaning.
The landlord’s decant policy sets out the following:
1. A tenant may be required to move due to the sale of a property, redevelopment and regeneration of an area, major works or for emergency reasons.
2. Its default position is to keep residents in their home with work being carried out around them to minimise the disruption with moving.
The landlord’s transfer policy notes that a management transfer can be considered in exceptional cases where the safety and wellbeing of a resident and/or a member of their household is at risk. Examples given of such circumstances include domestic violence, harassment and family breakdown. Medical reasons and overcrowding would not be considered reasons for management transfers.
The resident’s tenancy agreement notes the resident to be responsible for:
1. The management of refuse and household waste and that this must not be left in any communal areas or gardens.
2. Maintaining any garden, yard or other outside part of the premises in a clean and tidy condition.
The landlord’s compensation policy notes that it will consider financial compensation where it has failed to follow its policies, or there have been unreasonable delays against its service standards. It can compensate for right to repair issues, failure to provide services, loss of heating or hot water or a loss of room or facility. It notes that it will not pay compensation where the resident is responsible for the loss, for loss of earnings, or where it has acted appropriately to solve the problem but external factors beyond its control have meant it is unable to resolve the matter.

Assessment and findings

Pest control

The landlord’s records note that generally it responded promptly to the various reports of the resident’s sighting of mice. Its policies demonstrate a shared responsibility of both the resident and the landlord for dealing with the issue. As set out in these documents, the resident was advised by the landlord on steps that could be taken in an attempt to resolve the issue, before it largely took over attempts to find a resolution.
The resident noted that she had been dealing with the pest infestation since June 2020, with the first evidence of a report being made to the landlord about this being in mid-July. In response to these reports, the landlord repeatedly sent pest control contractors to the property that undertook various control strategies including filling of holes by which the mice were entering and putting down traps in an attempt to manage and resolve the issue. It should also be noted that while the resident has noted the mice to have been a consistent problem over a number of months, the landlord is only able to respond to the issue when it is reported. According to the available evidence, the landlord’s contractors usually attended within a few days of the reports being made and dealt with the processes in line with their expertise, with baits and traps left in place upon them leaving in an attempt to manage the issue.
When it was established that there was a hole in the airing cupboard which might have been the source of the mice coming into the property, the landlord arranged for a gas contractor along with pest control to attend so as to allow access behind the boiler to the latter team. This was significant work involving the removal of the boiler cylinder, draining of the water, filling in of the holes by the pest control team and then replacement of the cylinder. It was understandable therefore that this took a number of weeks to arrange and the work was carried out appropriately when booked in.
The resident repeatedly communicated to the landlord the impact the presence of the mice was having on her and her children. While it has clearly been a very frustrating experience for the resident to continue to have sightings of the mice, the evidence indicates that the landlord was attempting to take most of the reasonable steps it could to resolve the issue. It relied on the expertise of its pest control contractors who attended on multiple occasions and attempted different methods to resolve the issue. On 9 February 2021 there is evidence that the resident was told by pest control that they had “done what they possibly [could]” despite the issue not being permanently resolved.
The landlord confirmed in May that the last sighting of mice in the property by the resident had been in February 2021 and closed the job order after carrying out final proofing to a particular hole around a radiator pipe and noting that there had been no recent takes to any of the baits. The absence of a permanent resolution prior to this does not of itself mean that there was service failure by the landlord, given it was taking most of the steps set out in its policy as necessary and continuing to engage with the resident over the course of the issue. It responded to the reports as necessary, provided advice to the resident and its internal emails and emails with contractors demonstrate it was attempting to canvas any other possible solutions to the problem.
The evidence available does not however demonstrate that a surveyor’s inspection was arranged, as is set out as specifically required by the landlord’s pest control procedure in circumstances where it is likely that the problem is linked to structural issues. Once it became clear that there were significant holes in the property that the landlord was attempting to fill up and the possibility of the mice coming in through these as well as radiator pipes, the landlord should have arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property as a whole as this may have resolved the issue quicker than relying on pest control services alone. The presence of holes does not by itself establish that there were structural issues in the building. Considering the length of time over which the reports continued to be made however, the landlord should have utilised this part of its policy so as to be certain it had made all reasonable attempts to resolve the issue. This is particularly the case given its pest control contractors had taken the position that there was nothing else they could do as an attempted fix. Therefore there was a minor service failure here.

Plumbing issues

The resident first reported problems with the plumbing on 26 May 2020. In response to this the landlord arranged for various jobs to be undertaken in an attempt to resolve the issue, including the installation of a new pump in June 2020 and a new advanced shower unit in July 2020. When it was reported that this had not resolved the problem, a job was raised for contractors attend the property again to check the functionality and see what other work was necessary. It took the reasonable step of advising the resident to contact her water supplier to confirm that the problem was not stemming from an issue external to the property such as the stop tap or incoming water pressure, which she did.
The landlord’s contractors attempted multiple fixes to try and resolve the issue, with a number of these failing to have the desired effect, as it was unclear what was the root cause of the issue. It was eventually established via consultation with multiple contractor sources that the new electrical shower needed to be linked to the mains water supply rather than being fed through the internal pump which had been established to be insufficiently powerful for the necessary process. The records of contractor attendances demonstrate this was conveyed to the landlord on 20 October 2020, at which point it needed to act as promptly as possible to resolve the matter since it had been ongoing for a number of months while it had attempted to diagnose the issue.
The resident was updated with this information approximately two weeks later, while also being told that because there was heating and hot water in the property it could not provide her with temporary accommodation. A job was raised on 9 November 2020 for this work to go ahead, but communication with the landlord’s plumbers indicated further tests would need to be completed and the work would not be undertaken until early 2021. No work was undertaken until another attendance by a contractor on 20 January 2021, which resulted in another new shower unit with its own pump, circumventing the need for connection to the mains, being installed on 23 January 2201 which largely resolved the issues.
It was appropriate that the landlord offered the resident compensation for the issues she experienced over the process, particularly given the fact that its repairs policy states that routine repairs such as the problems with the shower should be resolved within 20 working days of the first report. While it is noted that this was a complex repair given the landlord made multiple attempts at fixing it without success, the length of time that the issue was unresolved was still unreasonable considered in all the circumstances.
However the offer of £25 for its service failure, £25 for her stress and inconvenience and £25 for the missed appointment when contractors attended without ID, was not sufficient to recognise the scope of the service failure or the impact on the resident. Given the work was outstanding for a number of months, and no repair works were progressed for approximately three months between late October 2020 and late January 2021, the compensation offered to the resident should have been higher.

Request for a decant or transfer

The landlord took the position that the issues reported by the resident, namely the problems with pest infestation and plumbing, did not warrant the offer of a decant while the works were finalised. The landlord relied on the terms of its policies in taking this position. The decant policy notes that a decant can be required when major works are being done on a property or for emergency reasons. The transfer policy notes that a transfer can be considered in exceptional cases where a resident’s safety or wellbeing is at risk, such as cases of domestic violence or harassment, while noting that medical conditions would not justify this. The circumstances of the resident’s complaint did not fall under any of these categories.
The landlord was entitled to take the position it did in stating that it was unable to move the resident and her family to another property, given the circumstances of the repair issues did not fall into the relevant categories set out in the policies. While there is no question that the resident was experiencing distress for significant periods prior to and over the period of the complaint investigation, the landlord was obligated to follow its policy terms which it did. Additionally, it noted in its communication with the resident on 9 November 2020 that it did not have the stock to provide her with temporary accommodation. Given its default position as set out in the policy was to keep residents in their home during works, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request was reasonable and consistent over the course of her enquiries and the complaint.

Repairs to garden

The landlord took the position that it was not obligated to undertake works to the resident’s garden on the basis that this was the responsibility of the resident under her tenancy agreement, which is supported by a review of the document. There was disagreement between the parties as to the condition the property was left in when it was first let to the resident. The resident’s position was that rubbish had been left in both the yard and the bins, while the landlord maintained that the garden was cleared at the time the property was handed over by its void contractors and was in good condition at the time it was let to the resident.
While the parties did not agree on this point, the landlord relied on the terms of the tenancy agreement to defend its position, and there is no evidence, contemporaneous or otherwise, to demonstrate the condition of the property at the time it was let. In the absence of this, the landlord acted appropriately in offering to arrange rechargeable clearing work in the garden to assist the resident.
It also established that the issues with the fencing on the boundary to her neighbour’s property had been caused by the neighbour who it communicated with to prompt repair work to be undertaken as soon as possible following the conclusion of the neighbour’s repair jobs. It apologised for the inconvenience which was a positive step to take, but was not at fault given it was taking reasonable steps to resolve a matter that was outside of its responsibility and control according to its policy and the tenancy agreement.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been service failure by the landlord regarding the complaint regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been service failure by the landlord regarding the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the bathroom shower.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration by the landlord regarding the complaint about its handling of the resident’s requests for a decant.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration by the landlord regarding the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues in her gardens.

Reasons

Though the pest issue was ongoing for some time, the landlord largely responded appropriately to reports of the issues and continued to send out its pest control specialists in attempts to resolve the issue. There was however a failure to fully adhere to its policy regarding the requirement to arrange a surveyor’s inspection.
The landlord acted reasonably in making various attempts to diagnose and repair the root cause of the plumbing issues in the property. However the total length of time that the work was outstanding was significant, and went well beyond the landlord’s repair timeframe as set out in its policy. While there were elements of this that were outside of the landlord’s control, the total length of the delays were unreasonable particularly considering the 3-month period where no work was carried out prior to the final repair being implemented. Considering the distress this caused to the resident, the offer of compensation to her was not sufficient.
The landlord was entitled to rely on the terms of its policies in determining whether to provide the resident with a transfer or decant. While there is no doubt the resident was experiencing distress as a result of the pest and plumbing issues, these did not create a strict obligation for the landlord to move her out of the property. Additionally, the landlord conveyed to her that it did not have any other properties available for that purpose, so there was little more it could have done in the circumstances.
The landlord relied on the terms of its policies and the resident’s tenancy agreement in communicating to her that she was responsible for the maintenance of her garden. In the absence of any contemporaneous evidence, there is no service failure by the landlord regarding the reported condition of the gardens when she moved in. The landlord was also taking steps to resolve the issue of the fencing with her neighbour.

Orders

The landlord, within the next four weeks, to pay to the resident the sum of £250 consisting of:
1. £50 for the failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.
2. £200 for the failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the bathroom shower. This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £75: if this has already been paid, it should be deducted from the total sum.