Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202221594)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221594

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 November 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of, and response to, the resident’s reports of an infestation of cockroaches.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it repair a shower hose.
3. The landlord not reviewing the contact agreement it had in place since December 2019.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling and its response to the resident’s request for compensation.

Background

The resident lives in a one bedroom flat located on the first floor of the block. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and the tenancy began 31 August 2017.
Section 3.1 of the landlord’s pest control policy states due to the potential rapid spread and potential health risk of cockroaches, pharaoh ants and rats, the landlord will take responsibility for treatment of these pests in individual residents’ homes and in communal areas. When the resident reports the problem, the landlord would arrange for an inspection and any necessary works with an approved contractor. The landlord would record both the issue and its intervention.
The landlord’s guide to responsibilities for repairs states the resident is to contact their housing officer if the pest is cockroaches and the landlord will deal with them.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord will respond within 10 working days. At stage two, the landlord will respond within 20 working days.
Section five of the landlord’s repairs policy states repairs are classified as emergency repairs or routine repairs. An emergency repair will be attended to within four hours and all major services restored within 24 hours. A routine repair will be completed within 20 working days of the report being made.
Appendix A of the landlord’s repairs policy states showers, where provided by the landlord, are the repairs responsibility of the landlord. Appendix B of the landlord’s repairs policy states the resident is responsible for replacing toilet seats, shower heads, hoses and plugs for sinks and baths.
Section 7.3 of the landlord’s unacceptable behaviour policy states the terms under which a Customer Contact agreement is made. The policy states a recommended review period to be three to six months, or as often as required, and the resident will be informed in writing of the outcome of the decision each time the agreement is reviewed. The policy states contact agreements should not be put in place indefinitely without any reviews.
Section 3.9 of the landlord’s compensation policy states a payment can be made to a resident for direct loss in response to a specific request where the landlord is at fault. All residents are advised to take out contents insurance to cover against accidental damage to their belongings or possessions and so any such payment is discretionary and dependent upon the circumstances of the case.
Where a resident or leaseholder has arrears on their account (i.e., current rent, service charge, former tenancy debt or heat charges), compensation will be paid to the account to reduce or eliminate the arrears. If the compensation amount exceeds the level of arrears, the additional amount can be paid directly to the resident or into their landlord account to leave a credit. The landlord will confirm with the resident how they wish to receive any surplus credit.

Scope of the investigation

The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of his requests for a transfer and for a repair to an intercom. These complaints were after the stage one complaint response was issued and before the stage two response. The landlord, in the stage two response, stated it would look further into these complaints and the evidence provided shows actions taken by the landlord were taken after the stage two response was issued. As these complaints have not completed the landlord’s complaint process, they will not be considered in this report.

Summary of events

On 10 November 2020 the landlord emailed the resident regarding a contact agreement that was in place between them. The email informed the resident that the terms of the contact agreement stated he should not phone the landlord unless he had an emergency to do with a repair, safety matter or needed to report a heating or hot water repair. The email stated the resident had left a voice message that was not regarding an emergency and requested he email instead.
The email also contained the last contact agreement letter that was issued to the resident on 17 December 2019. The letter had stated the agreement would be reviewed after six months. The landlord informed the resident that it was aware the contact arrangement was overdue for a review, and one would be arranged within 10 working days.
On 8 February 2021 the landlord emailed the resident regarding a telephone conversation it had with him earlier that day. The email confirmed a discussion was had regarding the contact arrangement and that the resident would like it to be reviewed. The landlord stated it had a good conversation with the resident and if it could continue that way, there should not be any issues or misunderstanding. The landlord stated it was agreed that emails were a good way to keep records so it would be continuing to write as well. The landlord did not mention reviewing the contact agreement.
The landlord’s records show the resident made a report to it of cockroaches in his property on 23 August 2022.
On 26 August 2022 the landlord’s plumber attended the resident’s property to repair a leaking shower. The plumber established the leak was coming from the shower hose. The landlord’s records show that while sourcing replacement parts, it would not approve these as the repair was the responsibility of the resident. The plumber did not complete the work and recommended the shower head and hose were replaced.
On 2 September 2022 the landlord’s records show it was aware there were cockroaches in the resident’s flat and a neighbouring flat. The landlord wrote to its contractor and said it was likely that the source of the cockroaches was from a flat above. The neighbour had recently died and the landlord stated it was not able to give access to that flat due to police closing it, but requested that the contractor do something to contain the problem in the resident’s flat.
The landlord’s records show that on 6 September 2022, following treatment being carried out by its contractor which involved spraying around units and the fridge in the kitchen, the resident had to get rid of food and the landlord enquired if a food voucher could be issued to the resident.
On 12 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and informed it the cockroaches in the flat were now everywhere. The landlord’s records show the landlord’s pest contractors were due to return to the resident’s flat on 20 September 2022.
The keys for the flat above the resident’s property were received by the landlord on 15 September 2022.
On 16 September 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The resident stated:
1. He had reported cockroaches in his home for the last few months. He had to throw away food, bedding, quilts and clothes. He had requested compensation for those items but was met with anger from the landlord and was sent a text message that he could only make contact via email or text. The landlord did provide a food bank voucher and supermarket gift card to replace the food, but he was requesting compensation as replacing the food but not the costs of the other items was unfair.
2. He had reported his shower hose was leaking water and a plumber came to fix it. He said the plumber was then told by the landlord not to purchase materials as the repair was not approved. He said the shower was installed five years ago (when he moved in) by the landlord and therefore maintenance of it should be covered by the landlord.
3. There had been no review of his contact agreement with the landlord. He was told by the landlord he could attend its office for an appointment to fill out transfer forms and provide a letter from his GP. After requesting compensation for the pest infestation and stating he would be making an official complaint, he received a text message telling him he was not allowed to go to the office.
4. His home was still infested and he would like items replaced, the whole flat fumigated and compensation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 September 2022 and requested it acknowledge his complaint. The landlord responded the same day with an acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint and said that it would respond by 3 October 2022.
On 3 October 2022 the landlord contacted its contractor and said the resident had reported that there were boxes of cockroaches that needed to be emptied. The landlord’s contractor responded back the same day and stated they had arranged to visit the resident’s property the next day. The contractor informed the landlord that the resident had asked about the flat above. The contractor had said it only had instructions for his flat and a neighbour’s but not the flat above.
On 7 October 2022 the landlord emailed its contractor and asked for a completion report for the resident’s property. The contractor responded the same day and stated a completion report was not available as the job had not yet been completed. The landlord was asked if the flat above had been treated which the landlord confirmed was being dealt with by its void team.
On 7 October 2022 the landlord issued a stage one response. The landlord stated:
1. Due to the neighbour in the flat above the resident’s flat dying, and the circumstances regarding the death, the property was closed by the police and this delayed the landlord’s access to the flat.
2. The personal belongings of the deceased had been left in the property, and the landlord could not send out its pest contractor until the family of the deceased had collected all personal items. The property was left in a poor state and, for this reason, the pest contractor advised that treatments would not work if the property was not cleared.
3. Following the resident’s reports on the 2 September 2022, the landlord raised a job for its pest contractor to attend the resident’s flat. The landlord believed that three appointments were arranged, and the pest controller confirmed that the last appointment was going to be on 4 October 2022.
4. When the keys were returned for the property above to the landlord on 15 September 2022, they were passed to its voids team, who was responsible for clearing it and arranging for pest control. Void works were ongoing at the neighbouring flat.
5. The landlord had spoken with its pest controller regarding the severity of the pest infestation at the resident’s property. The pest controller confirmed the pest levels were within normality and there was no sign of heavy infestation.
6. The pest controller would continue to attend the resident’s property until it was completely dealt with.
7. It would not be compensating the resident for loss of items.
8. The resident reported a repair for a leaking shower on 23 August 2022 and the landlord’s contractor attended on 5 September 2022 and advised the leak came from a hose. The quote sent from the contractor was not accepted by the landlord as repairs to a shower hose were the responsibility of the resident. A guide to the resident’s and landlord’s repair responsibilities was provided to the resident.
9. As per its policy, the landlord was supposed to review the contact arrangements every six months. It confirmed the resident’s contact arrangement had not been reviewed and apologised to him.
10. It would review the resident’s contact agreement to determine if it was necessary to continue management in that way and would update him by 14 October 2022.
11. It offered £50 compensation for the delay in issuing the complaint response.
The landlord’s pest controller attended the resident’s property on 4 October 2022 and 11 October 2022 to continue treatment of the infestation.
On 12 October 2022 the resident responded to the landlord and accepted the offer of £50 compensation. The resident stated:
1. He did not accept the landlord’s response to his complaint about the pest infestation.
2. He had been compensated for the food he disposed of, but the pest infestation had been going on since early August when he first informed the landlord about it. He had to dispose of bedding, a sofa and clothes, and it was not right to compensate for food, but not personal items affected by the pest infestation. The resident provided photographs to the landlord of items disposed of and stated the flat above had still not been cleaned and was causing him distress affecting his health.
3. The resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage two.
The landlord responded on 12 October 2022, asking if the resident was available to discuss his request to have the complaint reviewed. The landlord offered times on 18 October 2022 and 20 October 2022. The landlord stated it wanted to discuss the resident’s request for a review to see if there was anything it could do before proceeding to the review and that this was part of its complaint process.
On 19 October 2022 the landlord was contacted by the Council who said it had received a complaint from the resident that there was a cockroach infestation causing a nuisance. The Council stated it wanted to bring it to the attention of the landlord to arrange the necessary action to resolve the issue within 14 days. The landlord responded to the Council the next day and stated it was aware of the issue, provided an explanation of what had happened and informed the Council the matter was being handled.
The landlord’s pest contractor completed a final visit to the resident’s property on 25 October 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident 26 October 2022 regarding his request for compensation. The landlord asked how much the loss amounted to. The resident replied the next day and stated the rough value of what he had to dispose of was £4,500 over three months.
On 1 November 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and asked for a manager as he wanted to take his complaint regarding the pest infestation and negligence further.
The landlord responded the same day to provide a manager’s details. The landlord informed the resident it had tried to contact him on 13 October 2022 to arrange to speak about the complaint and had written to him asking how much compensation he was seeking. The landlord asked the resident to provide a list of items, with a cost against each item, so it could consider the resident’s request properly. The landlord said it still wanted to speak to the resident and asked for him to supply times for it to call. If no further contact was made, the landlord said it would proceed with the review with the information it had.
On 2 November 2022 the resident responded to the landlord and asked to be called that day or the next day. The resident provided a list of items to the landlord. It was agreed the landlord would call the resident the next day.
On 3 November 2022, following a phone conversation between the resident and the landlord, the landlord wrote to him and stated:
1. The resident confirmed he had disposed of property worth £3,200 and would like to claim that plus an amount towards distress and inconvenience.
2. The resident had completed a transfer application but had not heard back from the landlord about it.
3. The resident had reported an intercom repair to the landlord but nothing had been done.
4. It would respond to the compliant review request by 1 December 2022.
On 18 November 2022 the landlord’s pest controller stated it had made a phone call to the resident as it had been one month since the final visit and the resident confirmed the property was still clear of cockroaches.
On 9 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and asked for a manager’s details.
The landlord responded to the resident the same day and apologised for the delay in providing him with the outcome to his complaint. The landlord stated it would acknowledge the delay in its final response and pay compensation for the service failure in addition to any compensation it would offer to address the actual complaint.
The resident responded the same day and said he had suffered emotionally and mentally and, because of this, compensation should be paid to him personally in order to replace items. The resident stated he would not accept compensation covering his rent when the rent was paid by housing benefit. The resident said the landlord was trying not to solve the issue with him at all. He lost many belongings which the landlord knew about, and the compensation was meant to cover that. The resident said he had followed the landlord’s procedure and been patient with it.
On 14 December 2022 the landlord issued it’s stage two response. The landlord stated:
1. In the stage one complaint, the resident had complained about a cockroach infestation in his property coming from the flat above and the shower hose requiring a repair which he was informed would be a tenant’s responsibility, so it did not raise a repair and he was not happy with that response.
2. When asking for the complaint to be reviewed, the resident had said he had to dispose of £3,200 worth of property that he would like to claim for, along with distress and inconvenience. The resident provided a list of the items he was claiming for and complained that the contact arrangement should have been reviewed.
3. The resident had raised two further matters – a transfer application that he had completed but which had not received a response and an outstanding intercom repair. These matters were not in the original complaint.
4. It believed the pest control attendance was arranged promptly after the resident reported the cockroach infestation on 2 September 2022. Its contractor reported that by 4 October 2022, it had carried out three visits. It understood it was difficult for the contractor to manage the infestation as it did not have access to the flat above until mid-September 2022.
5. It did not think it was at fault in its handling of the cockroach infestation. This meant it would not agree to compensation for the loss of items that the resident reported were damaged by cockroaches and disposed of. It understood the resident may not agree with the findings and provided the contact details of its insurance team.
6. It offered £250 goodwill payment for distress and inconvenience in relation to the cockroach infestation.
7. The review of the contact arrangement was still outstanding. It apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation. It said it would arrange to carry out the review.
8. It recognised that the stage two complaint response was late. It apologised and offered £100 compensation.
9. Regarding the two matters not included in the original complaint, it still needed to process the transfer application and it needed to find out why the intercom repair was still outstanding.
10. It understood the contractor working on the flat above gifted the resident a shower hose that they had in their van so that matter had been resolved.
On 14 December 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the contact agreement. The letter stated it had lifted the ban on the resident attending its offices but any visit made must be by appointment only and any visits to his property would be carried out in pairs. The landlord stated its records would be updated. It would review the contact contract after six months to consider if it was necessary to continue to manage contact in that way, or if it could remove the arrangement.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of, and response to, the resident’s reports of an infestation of cockroaches

Section 3.1 of the landlord’s pest control procedure states “Due to the potential rapid spread and potential health risk of cockroaches, pharaoh ants and rats, NHG takes responsibility for treatment of these pests in individual residents’ homes as well as in communal areas. When the resident reports the problem the Officer will arrange for an inspection and any necessary works with an approved contractor”. As per this policy, the landlord was required to make appropriate arrangements with its pest contractor to begin to address the issue. The policy did not state any timescales for treatments to take place.
In its stage one response, the landlord stated that the resident reported the cockroach infestation on 2 September 2022. The resident, in his stage two escalation request, stated he had been reporting the cockroach infestation since early August 2022. From the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord’s records show the resident contacted it on 23 August 2022; there were no records provided by the landlord that indicated there was any contact from the resident on 2 September 2022, or that the resident reported the cockroach infestation at an earlier date than 23 August 2022. It is therefore not clear from the evidence provided why the landlord stated the resident had made the initial report on 2 September 2022.
It is important the landlord keeps accurate records to ensure it is responding within the timescales set out in its pest control procedure. By stating the resident had made the report on 2 September 2022, the landlord had failed to recognise that he had already been waiting 11 days for it to take action.
The landlord’s case notes state that when the resident contacted it on 6 September 2022, its contractor had carried out treatment in the resident’s property. The evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord again on 12 September 2022, said the infestation was in the whole flat, and that the landlord arranged for a contractor to return on 20 September 2022.
In an email from the landlord’s contractor to the landlord, the contractor stated they visited the resident’s property on 20 September 2022 and a further four times on 4 October 2022, 11 October 2022, 18 October 2022 and 25 October 2022. Works completed included use of cockroach gel, insecticidal sprays, and a check and change of insect monitors. The contractor stated they noted on 18 October 2022 that the infestation was clear but the resident requested one more visit, which it conducted on 25 October 2022. The resident was telephoned on 18 November 2022 by the contractor as a month had passed and he confirmed the cockroach infestation was still clear. There were no further reports of cockroaches made.
From the evidence provided, the contractor has stated their first visit to the resident’s property was on 20 September 2022. This contradicts the landlord’s case notes which recorded that works had been carried out before 6 September 2022 by its pest contractor. This emphasises the need for the landlord to keep accurate records.
While this Service is satisfised the treatments took place and the cockroach infestation was ultimately resolved, our investigation was hampered by the poor quality of the landlord’s records that were provided to this Service. The landlord’s own records lacked details such as treatments, completion dates and the actual works that were completed.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedure.
The records regarding the landlord’s handling of the cockroach infection that were provided were often ambiguous. As part of this investigation, this Service requested records includingdates the property was attended, copies of any reports and any treatments carried out. The landlord did not provide any work sheets for the treatments completed at the property and no logs detailing when it instructed the contractors or kept any parties updated on the treatment. The evidence provided mainly consisted of emails between the landlord and its contractor and notes from its internal system when the resident made contact. The landlord should take steps to improve its record keeping to give assurance that it is fulfilling its obligations to residents.
It is noted that the landlord was not able to gain access to the flat above the resident’s until 15 September 2022 and this may have hampered any treatment carried out at the resident’s property.
Taking the date of the first recorded evidence, the resident reported the cockroach infestation on 23 August 2022 and not 2 September 2022 as stated by the landlord. The landlord’s contractors reported the resident had confirmed the cockroach infestation to be clear on 18 October 2022; it therefore took 57 days for the cockroach infestation to be cleared.
Given the landlord was restricted in what works it could do due to the property above being closed until 15 September 2022, the pest treatment was completed within an expected timescale.
The landlord offered the resident £250 in goodwill compensation for distress and inconvenience. The compensation of £250 is within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there has been a failing that has had an adverse (but not permanent) impact on a resident. Given there was no substantial delay on the part of the landlord, this compensation is therefore proportionate in recognition of the record-keeping failings identified.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it repair a shower hose

Appendix B of the landlord’s repairs policy states the resident is responsible for replacing shower heads and hoses. The landlord was correct to send a plumber to inspect the report of a leak from the shower to ensure there was no source of the leak that it would be responsible for. The landlord sent its contractor 14 days after the repair was reported and this was within the timescales of its repairs policy.
Once it was established that the source of the leak was due to the shower hose leaking, the landlord was correct in stating the responsibility to replace the hose was the resident’s.
From the information provided in the stage two response, the resident was provided with a replacement hose by another contractor who was working in a nearby flat and the landlord considered the matter resolved.
Ultimately, the landlord was not responsible for replacing the shower hose and was correct to refuse authorisation for the replacement costs of the hose. There was no service failure by the landlord.

The landlord not reviewing the contact agreement it had in place since December 2019.

From the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord issued the resident with a contact agreement on 5 April 2019. The landlord reviewed the agreement in December 2019, made amendments to the agreement and stated a further review would take place after six months.
In the stage one response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised that the review of the contact arrangement had not been carried out every six months as it was supposed to. The landlord stated the last review of the contact arrangement was on 10 November 2020 and that the arrangement would be reviewed, with the resident receiving a response by 14 October 2022. The landlord made a commitment to reviewing the resident’s contact agreement in the stage one response. However, there is no evidence that a review of the contact agreement was completed by the landlord by 14 October 2022 as promised.
The landlord, in its stage two response on 14 December 2022, confirmed the arrangement had not been reviewed and issued a letter regarding the review of the contact arrangement to the resident on the same day. The letter lifted the ban on the resident visiting the office and provided revised terms for visiting the office or for the landlord’s staff to visit the resident in his property. This was issued the same day as the stage two response. It is not clear why the landlord stated the review was still outstanding in its stage two response (so would arrange to carry out the review) but then proceeded to issue a review outcome letter the same day.
Overall, the landlord completed the review of the contact arrangement 765 days after the previous review and 90 days after the resident brought it to the landlord’s attention in his complaint. This was significantly longer than the six months stated in it’s acceptable behavioural policy and the 10 working days stated by the landlord in its email to the resident on 10 November 2020.
This is maladministration by the landlord. The landlord should ensure that where contact arrangements are in place, it is a proportionate response and reviewed in accordance with its unacceptable user policy. The landlord’s unacceptable user policy states a contact arrangement should not be in place indefinitely without any reviews and recommends review periods of three to six months. The gap between reviews by the landlord was almost 24 months and once brought to the attention of the landlord, it took three months to issue an outcome to the contact arrangement. This was unreasonable.
The landlord offered compensation of £50 to the resident for these delays. However, given the extent of the delay and the time and trouble caused to the resident, this level of compensation was not proportionate. The lack of clarity offered by the landlord on the contact arrangements would have left the resident uncertain as how best to approach it to report any housing concerns. An award of £300 is considered appropriate for the length of delay between reviews, the landlord missing earlier opportunities to complete the review sooner and it not providing an update to the resident by the date it stated in the stage one response.

The landlord’s complaint handling and its response to the resident’s request for compensation

The resident requested compensation for belongings that he stated he had to dispose of due to the cockroach infestation. The landlord asked the resident for a list of items and value of what was disposed of and the resident provided a list of items estimated to be £3,200 in value. The landlord, in its complaint response, stated it had considered the resident’s request and that it would not pay any compensation for the items.
It is noted that the landlord did not provide a reason to the resident as to why it had made the decision not to pay for the loss of items. The landlord’s decision not to pay any compensation for the items but to reimburse him for the food may have confused the resident. The landlord should consider how it communicates any future decision to residents.
The evidence provided shows the resident was given, and signed, a tenancy discussion points letter that stated “Notting Hill Housing Trust advises all tenants to take out Home Contents Insurance”. The landlord also has insurance if a resident wishes to make claim against it for any losses they believe to be caused due to its negligence.
The landlord provided the resident with the contact email of its insurance team which was appropriate and allowed him the opportunity to make a claim against its liability insurance. The landlord however did not provide any further explanation or support to the resident regarding why he had been provided with the details and what he may have been able to claim for. This may have been useful for the resident to consider if he wanted to make an insurance claim.
The landlord provided a food voucher to the resident for the loss of food due to the cockroaches and the treatments being completed in the property. This was a positive step taken by the landlord as is was not under any obligation to do so.
The landlord’s overall response to the compensation request is considered appropriate. It has evidenced it considered the resident’s request, decided that it was not obliged to reimburse the resident for losses and provided him with the contact email of its insurance team. This was an appropriate course of action and meant it accurately signposted the resident to the liability insurance recourse.
The landlord issued its stage one response 7 October 2022. This was 15 working days after the resident raised his complaint and five days outside its complaints policy timescale. The landlord recognised this and offered £50 compensation which this Service considers to be proportionate for the short term delay.
The landlord had previously informed the resident that the response at stage two would be issued by 1 December 2022. The stage two response was issued on 14 December 2022.
The landlord provided an update to the resident on 9 December 2022, apologising for the delay in the response being issued and providing a reason for the delay. However, this was in response to an email from the resident and was not a pro-active approach on the part of the landlord. The update was also six working days after the complaint response was initially due to be issued to the resident.
The landlord issued the stage two response on 14 December 2022. This was 46 working days after the resident requested for the complaint to be escalated and therefore 26 working days beyond the landlord’s complaint policy timescale of 20 working days. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for its delay in issuing the stage two response. This is considered an appropriate amount by this Service for the delay and is within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend.
The landlord has acknowledged there were failings in its complaint responses and offered compensation to the resident. The amount of compensation offered is in line with the remedies that would be suggested by this Service. The landlord therefore offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of his complaint and request for compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of, and response to, the resident’s reports of an infestation of cockroaches.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it repair a shower hose.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord not reviewing the contact agreement it had in place since December 2019.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling and its response to the resident’s request for compensation.

Reasons

The landlord’s treatment of the cockroach infestation took longer than would be expected but was still within an acceptable time period given the source of the infestation could not be accessed due to the police closure. The landlord recognised that this caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and it offered an appropriate award of compensation.
It was not the landlords responsibility to replace the shower hose under the terms of the tenancy and it was correct to refuse to do so.
The landlord failed to complete the resident’s request for a review of his contact arrangement and did not follow its unacceptable behaviour policy which stated a review of contact arrangements would be completed every six months. It took a further three months from the complaint being raised for the landlord to issue its review of the contact arrangement.
The landlord appropriately considered the resident’s request for compensation. Once it made the decision to refuse compensation for losses, it communicated this to the resident and provided him with its insurers details in case he wanted to make a liability claim. The complaint responses were issued outside of the landlords complaint policy timescales. Nevertheless, these delays were acknowledged by the landlord and appropriate redress was offered to the resident for the inconvenience caused to him.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident:
1. £300 for its failure to review the contact agreement it had in place since December 2019 (inclusive of the £50 it awarded through its own complaints process).
2. The payment of compensation is to be paid to the resident and is not to be offset against any arrears on the rent account.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should apologise in writing to the resident for the service failures identified in this report.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord shall review its procedure regarding implementation of its unacceptable behavioural policy, specifically with regard to how it reviews contact agreements to ensure reviews are completed at the expected dates.
The landlord should reply to this Service to evidence compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident:
1. £250 it already offered for its handling of his reports of cockroaches.
2. £100 it already offered for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord should review its record keeping processes against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report to ensure accurate records are retained of works carried out by its contractors.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to the above recommendations.