Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Ongo Homes Limited (202104050)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104050

Ongo Homes Limited

11 August 2021 (As amended following review on 6 January 2022)

 

Our approach

  1. 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.
  2. Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rat infestations at the property.
  2. The complaint is also about the handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 8 March 2016 until 24 June 2021 when she moved to another property.
  2. The landlord’s infestation procedural guidance states that upon receipt of a report of an infestation, the landlord must determine whether it constitutes statutory nuisance and arrange an inspection accordingly.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out levels of compensation which may be offered where the landlord finds that it has done something wrong.  Where it does not find fault, no such compensation will be offered.
  4. The landlord has adopted a two-stage complaint procedure whereby it aims to investigate and respond to a complaint within 10 working days at stage one.  Where a complainant is dissatisfied and requests escalation of the matter to stage two, the landlord aims to respond within 14 working days thereafter.
  5. The complaints policy states that for complaints to be accepted they must be made within two months of the issue occurring.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported “environmental health” issues on 1 November 2018.  It is agreed by the parties that at that time the resident was erroneously advised that an infestation was her responsibility.  It was not her responsibility as the infestation was in the fabric of the building and not within the inside of the property itself.
  2. On 2 September 2019, a repairs order was raised to repoint the brickwork between properties and “check to see if downpipe has a hole in it and full of moss” due to an “issue with mice getting into the property”. On 16 September 2019 the landlord carried out minor works to fill the mortar of the external brickwork at the property, although the resident states that it was observed at this time that this could not be the entry point for pests. According to the landlord’s records, a job order was raised on 24 September 2019 in relation to “rat/s in attic … previously been in bathroom”.
  3. The resident states that poison was put down by the landlord on approximately 3 occasions after 24 September 2019. She states that the landlord did not return to remove the dead rats from the property after the poison took effect, leading to further infestations of maggots and flies. The landlord’s repairs records show that a job order was raised on 10 October 2019 to disinfect the property due to an “infestation of maggots relating to rats in the communal area”. A second repairs order was raised on 10 October 2019 to “check and cover all holes in mortar, mice currently been at property. Above and surrounding drainpipe mainly”. On 23 October 2019 the resident also informed the landlord that there were flies present in the property due to the rat infestation.
  4. The job to disinfect was completed on 13 November 2019 and the repointing work was completed on 25 November 2019. On 19 December 2019, holes in the bathroom walls were repaired and plumbing works were carried out.
  5. On 29 January 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report an ongoing issue with rats at the property, including a foul smell and the presence of flies.  During this call she advised that there were issues with rubbish piling up in the windows of a neighbour’s property, which she felt may be a contributing factor. In response, the landlord raised a job with its pest control company, which its records state was completed on 13 March 2020.
  6. On 7 and 14 September 2020, the resident reported continued issues with rats at the property.  In her latter contact, she expressed her frustration at the issue remaining unresolved. The landlord raised a job with its pest control team and its records state “issue with rats returned, can hear them scurrying around, thinks they have come back through the cavitys, communal area”. The job is marked as completed on 8 September 2020, although it is unclear when the pest control team attended, as there are no contemporaneous records of visits to the property by the landlord and its contractors. The resident states that at this visit she was informed that the problem would continue to return unless the entry/exit point was found and sealed.
  7. A note on the landlord’s system from 8 September 2020 states, “[the pest contractor] have requested that [a specialist drain company] go and put cameras down the drains if possible, regarding the reoccurring issue with the drains”. The resident states that a drainage contractor attended on 9 September 2020 and concluded that rats must be entering via a disused drainage system.
  8. A repair request was raised on 10 September 2020 for “missing bricks in fire wall loft”. The landlord emailed the resident to inform her that an appointment had been made for 7 October 2020 to complete this work.
  9. On 17 September 2020 the landlord received a call from the resident about the ongoing pest issues. Pest control had attended her property but believed the problem may be coming from a neighbouring property, due to a smell that had been present for some time. The landlord attempted to contact a neighbour to gain access but was unable to get hold of them. The landlord’s notes highlighted the need to resolve the issue promptly, as the resident had been dealing with it for a long time and was considering leaving home due to the pest issues.

 

  1. The resident heard a rat under the floorboards on 23 September 2020 and bait was laid by the pest control team on 25 September 2020.

 

  1. An order was raised for a visit to the neighbouring property and on 28 September 2020 the landlord’s notes indicate that it contacted the resident to report that no rats had been found. The case regarding the neighbouring property was then closed. Also on 28 September 2020, the resident advised that it had been confirmed there were rats at her property and she would like it sorted as she was worried and getting sick of the matter.
  2. On 7 October 2020, the landlord’s operative attended to complete the works to repair the loft fire wall but did not have the right equipment to complete the job. The job was re-raised on that date but, according to the landlord’s records, was later cancelled on 9 November 2020. A second job order was then raised stating “roofers have advised it is a bricklaying job”.
  3. The resident states that a contractor attended to cap off old stench pipes on 16 October 2020 but was unable to do so as pipework had been removed from the flat below. The resident states that he advised that he would need to locate and seal broken pipes, or lift the floorboards to seal the cavity walls. The resident states that a job was raised to complete these works but that they never took place. There is no evidence of the contractor’s visit on 16 October 2020 in the information provided by the landlord, or that a works order was raised subsequently.
  4. On 19 October 2020 the presence of rats was confirmed with the bait laid on 25 September 2020 having been taken.
  5. On 11 and 17 November 2020 the resident again chased the landlord to address the rat infestation at the property, stating that the last she had heard was that investigations with the drains needed to go ahead and had received no update since.
  6. On 25 November 2020 the resident states that a contractor attended the property to complete the brickwork repairs to the fire wall in the loft but advised that the repair would be a two man job. The resident was then informed that an appointment had been booked to complete this work on 8 December 2020.
  7. The resident has said that in November 2020 she was advised the works to address the rat infestation were too complicated and the landlord suggested she move out of the property. Although the landlord has acknowledged a move was discussed, it does not accept that it advised the works were too difficult.
  8. A contractor attended on 8 December 2020 to complete the fire wall repair but was unable to complete the job at that visit. A new job order was then raised to “rebuild fire wall to current regs”.
  9. On 4, 12 and 15 December 2020, the resident chased the landlord as to the issues with infestation again. She also chased this the following month on 6, 7 and 26 January 2021 and began asking about moving property at that time.
  10. The resident has said that the landlord stated in January 2021 that it would not carry out repairs as it did not believe that she had had a rat infestation since 2019 and advised that her case had been closed.
  11. The resident has stated that poison was laid by the landlord on 21 January 2021 and a floorboard was broken in the process, which the landlord did not fix until 10 February 2021. On 25 January 2021 the resident provided a sound recording to the landlord of noises in the cavity suggesting the presence of rats.
  12. On 1 February 2021, the resident’s daughter wrote a supporting letter about the rat infestation and impact on the family and a few days later, on 3 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction with its handling of issue. She set out the various contact she had made regarding the issue since 2018. The resident stated that she had been led to believe that works would go ahead to find broken pipes or to remove floorboards and check cavities, failing which, the landlord would help her to move. The resident stated that she had been passed back and forth between departments and in January 2021 the landlord had changed its mind and informed her that it would take no further action as there was no evidence of a current infestation. The resident stated that the landlord and its contractors had observed evidence of rats.
  13. The landlord raised a formal complaint on receipt of the resident’s email of 3 February 2021 and its complaints team then emailed the resident to request further information. The landlord stated that it would arrange for an independent pest control company to visit the resident’s home and for cowls to be fitted on the chimney pots, as the pest control company had advised that there was no evidence of rats at this time and the noise maybe coming from birds.

 

  1. The resident responded on 11 February 2021, stating that, “I have not put forward an official complaint myself … I will be doing that once I have chance to look through all the notes [the landlord] hold on me and take further advice”. She also reported a bad smell coming from the hallway and agreed to the landlord’s suggestion to send an independent pest control contractor. The landlord’s records indicate that the complaint was then closed.
  2. In further email correspondence on 11 and 12 February 2021, the resident raised queries with the landlord, including whether its position remained that it would take no further action because it did not believe that there was an active infestation. The resident required this confirmation in order to assess her options, as based on the landlord’s previous statement she felt that her only option was to move. The resident stated that she understood a complaint had been raised by the maintenance team on her behalf and this was being investigated.
  3. The landlord stated that it was “not disputing” the resident’s reports that rats were still present in the property but could not say either way whether further action would be taken until its investigations were completed. The resident expressed her frustration that unless the landlord confirmed that entry points would be identified and sealed, she would always have to share her property with rats at various times.
  4. On 11 February 2021 the landlord informed the resident that a job order had been raised to complete the brickwork repair to the fire wall in the loft. The resident requested that the repair be postponed until a further inspection had taken place, so that evidence was not disturbed. The landlord agreed to place these works on hold until an independent survey had been completed. The landlord offered options for arranging the independent survey, including the resident arranging and paying for the survey and being reimbursed, the resident suggesting a contractor, the landlord instructing a contractor, or awaiting an inspection by Environmental Health. The resident confirmed that she would like to wait for an inspection by Environmental Health.
  5. On 12 February 2021 the landlord indicated that as the Environmental Health team would not be able to carry out an independent survey, the resident should choose from one of the other 3 options.
  6. The resident exchanged emails with the Council’s Environmental Health team on 16 February 2021. They confirmed they had been in touch with the landlord’s pest contractor, who stated that investigations were ongoing and poison was still present in the property. The resident responded, agreeing that poison had been left but noting that the landlord had informed her that no further action would be taken as it believed there was no ongoing issue. The resident repeated that the landlord needed to find the entry point and provide a permanent solution, as when bait was laid and rats died, this did not resolve the issue and caused further problems such as odour and the presence of flies.
  7. On receipt of the response to her SAR request, the resident contacted the landlord on 2 March 2021 to ask it to confirm with its pest control contractor what month and year he observed droppings under the bath at the property, and to obtain confirmation that droppings and chewed lagging were observed in the loft space when they attended on 21 January 2021. The resident noted that there was nothing in the SAR response evidencing the contractor’s reports following visits to the property.
  8. The landlord responded on 5 March 2021, stating that the contractor had confirmed that he had noticed droppings on his first visit to the property in 2015 and on his recent visit in January 2021 he saw the same droppings and lagging in the same condition as it was in 2015. The resident responded highlighting that the contractor’s report was inaccurate, as he had not attended the property until 2019 and had found no evidence of rats at that time. The first time the pest control contractors discovered droppings was in September 2020 or January 2021. The pest contractor could not have observed droppings under the bath as he had never had access to that area to inspect.
  9. In an email dated 9 March 2021, the landlord set out the repairs history, which included a request in October 2020 that the drains contractor attend to check if there were any broken drains by the wall cavities. The landlord confirmed that it ‘cannot see the reports from any of the contractor visits’ on its system, or any evidence of a second visit by the drains contractor. The landlord stated that ‘we only receive a report from [the drains contractor] if they identify any issues that require attention and they have not issued a report following their visit’.
  10. On 12 March 2021, a report was produced following an inspection of the drains at the property. The inspection was completed by a different contractor to the inspection carried out in September 2020. During the inspection, broken pipework which could allow rats to enter the property was found, and excavation and repair was recommended.
  11. On 18 March 2021, the resident again complained to the landlord about its handling of “recurrent rat infestations” at the property.  She was of the view that it had not carried out its obligations and expressed that she felt “humiliated” as a result.
  12. On 19 and 24 March 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss her complaint with her.  During these calls the resident expressed that as a resolution to her complaint she wanted reassurances that she would not have a rat infestation again.  If the landlord could not reassure this, she wanted it to increase her priority banding to enable her to move property on the basis of “exceptional circumstances” and “disrepair”.
  13. The landlord explained that it could not provide reassurance that rats would never appear again at the property, or any other. It noted that rats had been confirmed at the property on two occasions from when the tenancy started in 2016 (while acknowledging the resident may have heard rats on more than two occasions) and suggested that it lay bait permanently, however, the resident was not satisfied with this proposed solution. The landlord discussed the brickwork repairs carried out to the property over time and discussed the missing bricks in the loft which required replacing.
  14. The resident was of the view that the rats may be coming into the property by way of an old disused drainage system underneath the property that had been capped off in 2010 and wanted investigations into this, however, the landlord explained that rats entering the property this way was unlikely and added that it would not be practical or reasonable for it to explore this further.
  15. The possibility of moving property was discussed, with the resident explaining the impact the situation had had on her and that she would always be living in fear of the rats returning.  The landlord advised that it would approach its housing team for further information and advice regarding this.
  16. On 24 March 2021 the landlord made a recommendation to increase the resident’s housing priority banding, noting that she had been reporting the presence of vermin at the property since the start of her tenancy. The landlord recorded that rats had been confirmed in the property on 2 occasions and that all reasonable options to investigate the entry points and resolve the issue had been explored. The landlord stated that it was ‘assisting [the resident] with a move as [it had] exhausted all other means of reassuring her that there is not an on-going infestation’. The referral noted that the resident was currently in Band 3 due to overcrowding in a 1 bedroom property.
  17. On 8 April 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint, although it was sent to an incorrect email address, which meant there was a delay in the resident receiving it. It did not uphold the complaint, finding that it had responded promptly to reports of rats, which it said included eight inspections for rats by its pest inspector, two of which found the presence of rats in the four-year tenancy.
  18. It noted too that it had carried out a thorough drain survey (not including the capped off disused drain underneath the property) and attended on three occasions to carry out repairs to holes in the external brickwork of the property. The landlord referred to a report from a survey by a drainage contractor that “concludes that all drainage systems are in a good state or repair. No broken drains or obvious entry points for rats were present”. It stated that a copy of this report was included, although the resident states that it was not attached to the email. The landlord concluded that it acted in accordance with its repair policies and procedures and could not have done more to investigate the matter.
  19. The landlord did recognise that it could have shown more empathy in its handling of the situation and acknowledged that the resident had initially erroneously been told that the eradication of the rats was her responsibility when this was not the case.
  20. On 11 May 2021, the resident requested escalation of her complaint and the landlord provided its stage two response on 19 May 2021.  It did not uphold the complaint, finding that it had carried out all necessary works to prevent the infestation of rats at the property.  It did not believe it was able to do anything further regarding the issue.

Assessment and findings

  1. Upon notification of suspected rat infestation, the landlord was required to respond in accordance with its infestation procedural guidance, which it did not. Instead, the landlord mistakenly advised the resident that infestation was her responsibility.  Not only was the information provided by the landlord incorrect, but this undoubtedly caused unnecessary delay in addressing the problem.
  2. The problem persisted for a lengthy period of time, spanning three years from 2018 to 2021. The landlord has stated that rats were only detected on two occasions and it would appear that the presence of rats were confirmed in September 2019 and October 2020; however, on these two occasions, the landlord did not do enough to rectify the situation and moreover, the two confirmations of rats at the property does not mean that they were not there on other occasions. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was proactive in communicating with its contractor to attempt to find a permanent solution to the problem.
  3. The landlord was advised as early as September 2020 that rats may be entering the building via the drainage system. The landlord did respond to the pest control company’s suggestion that the drains should be inspected by arranging a survey by a specialist contractor in September 2020 but a copy of the report from that inspection has not been provided to this investigation.
  4. A further survey by an independent contractor was not carried out until March 2021, following numerous reports by the resident and repeated chasers following confirmation that rats were in the property in October 2020. It was unreasonable for the landlord to wait five months to instruct a further independent inspection to identify the source of the problem.
  5. The landlord carried out works to seal holes in the brickwork and other works over time, taking steps to prevent rats entering the resident’s property, although it failed to take action to investigate the entry point for rats into the building. The landlord suggested in its complaint response that the resident had refused works to the loft. This is contradicted by the evidence, from which it is clear that the landlord agreed to a postponement of works in February 2021 whilst a further independent inspection was arranged. The landlord’s previous attempts to complete these works had been unsuccessful, although this was not the fault of the resident, who permitted access for the works to be completed. It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord to refer to the resident’s refusal to allow access in its complaint response.
  6. The landlord has appropriately acknowledged in its response to the complaint, that more empathy should have been shown. The issues experienced by the resident were not limited to the presence of rats but included reports of further infestations of flies and maggots, plus the presence of foul odours in the property. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up with its contractor about these issues and whether there was an alternative means of treating the issue without leaving the rats’ remains in situ. These conditions must have been extremely unpleasant to live with and the suggestion that the landlord continue to treat the problem with constant baiting was inappropriate and insensitive, particularly as the resident had previously raised concerns about baiting and complained that the landlord had failed to remove the dead rats after the poison took effect.
  7. The complaint raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping, as it has been unable to provide contemporaneous reports from contractors who visited the property. This is of particular relevance to the visit to the property on 16 October 2020, where the resident states that works were recommended. There is also no evidence of the outcome of the drain inspection that took place in September 2020. This is of concern, as the report provided to this investigation following the inspection in March 2021 identified defects with the drainage system that may have allowed rats to enter the building. The landlord’s stage 1 response, however, indicated that an inspection of the drains had found no defects.
  8. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up on the drainage report produced in March 2021, to assess whether any works were required. It also failed to accurately report the findings of the drain inspection to the resident. This evidences maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests, and service failure in its complaints handling.
  9. Communication with the resident was poor overall, with little evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed of what actions it was (or was not) taking, by when and why. This led the resident to understandably feel that the infestation was not being taken seriously, with her ultimately reporting feeling “humiliated”. It appears that at times the resident was corresponding directly with the pest control contractor but the landlord should be in a position to evidence that it was monitoring progress and receiving regular updates. In March 2021 when the landlord sought information from its contractor, there was miscommunication about the history of the issues, which caused further distress to the resident. The Ombudsman considers that this further evidences maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the pest issues.
  10. Turning to the landlord’s complaint handling, this was also poor. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the complaint it logged on 4 February 2021 was inadequate. It is accepted that the resident indicated that she had not intended to log a complaint, but she made it clear in subsequent correspondence that she believed the landlord was investigating a complaint raised by the Maintenance Team, despite the landlord’s records showing that the complaint had been closed. The resident was left confused as to how her complaint was being progressed and whether this would materially affect the outcome of the landlord’s decision not to undertake any further work at the property.
  11. The landlord’s response to the complaint raised on 18 March 2021 included offering assistance with a move to a new property, which was reasonable as the resident had indicated that she did not wish to remain in the property if the landlord could not guarantee that reinfestation would not reoccur. The landlord was not obliged to do this, as it did not accept that the resident could not remain in the property as a result of the infestation. In doing so it demonstrated that it had heard and understood the impact of the situation on the resident. The landlord was also correct in its statement that it could not guarantee that rats would never re-enter the property, which evidences that it attempted to manage the resident’s expectations.
  12. The landlord did not offer compensation because it did not find any failings in its handling of the situation and it is not obliged to offer compensation where no fault on its part is found.  The complaint, however, gives rise to an offer of compensation in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s published ‘Guidance on Remedies’ where failings are made and is in accordance with ‘Dispute Resolution Principles’ and complaint handling best practice.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of rat infestations.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. There was maladministration by the landlord insofar as it failed to appropriately respond to reports of a rat infestation, in accordance with its policy. The landlord mistakenly advised the resident initially that the infestation was her responsibility.  There is insufficient evidence of the landlord taking appropriate and reasonable steps at the earliest opportunity on all occasions that the issue was reported, and a lack of records from the visits of its contractor. Communication was also poor, with the landlord not keeping the resident informed of what actions it was (or was not) taking, by when and why. The landlord failed to accurately inform the resident of the outcome of the March 2021 inspection, and to assess whether it was required to carry out the works recommended in the inspection report.
  2. The landlord unreasonably failed to provide a complaint response to the resident after she clearly indicated in her email of 11 February 2021 that she understood the maintenance team had raised a complaint on her behalf and that this was being investigated. The landlord was not clear with the resident about the status of her complaint and it failed to clarify its processes. The landlord’s stage 1 response contained inaccuracies and failed to attach the report referred to. The stage 2 response lacked detail and did not evidence that the landlord had conducted an adequate review of its complaints handling at stage 1.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £350 compensation for the service failures found in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of rat infestations.
  2. The landlord pay the resident £50 in respect of the resident’s time and trouble arising from its failures in the handling of her formal complaint.
  3. Carry out a review of its record keeping processes in respect of repairs and complaints and conduct a lessons learned exercise reflecting on the findings made in this report.

Recommendation

It is recommended that:

  1. The landlord consider whether it is required to carry out the works recommended in the inspection report dated 12 March 2021, to prevent further infestations from occurring at the property.