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

Peabody Trust (202114635)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114635

Peabody Trust

15 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of reports about bedbugs in the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and occupies a 1 bedroom second floor flat. At times a representative helped the resident with her complaint. For readability, this report refers to the resident throughout.
  2. In September 2021 the resident reported bedbugs to the landlord. It arranged for pest control services to carry out treatment. The repair history shows that the issues returned around 9 times over 2 years, and each time the landlord organised pest control services.
  3. The resident complained on 13 July 2022, she said that its contractor had refused to carry out further treatments and asked for it to arrange new treatments for her. It replied saying it would not raise a complaint because the process is not used to review its policy decisions. It suggested that the resident contact a local pest control service or the local authority. It asked if there were any other residents who had problems with bed bugs or if they were a problem in the communal area.
  4. We wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 14 July 2022. We told the landlord that it either provide a final response or a written stage 1 response to the resident by 10 August 2022. The response should explain why it would not consider the complaint and provide an opportunity for the resident to request a review through the Ombudsman.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 9 August 2022. It said:
    1. The complaint was about ongoing issues with bedbugs.
    2. The resident asked for further treatments of the bedbugs.
    3. It found that there had been several orders raised for bedbug treatments.
    4. The repairs policy says that it is not responsible for bedbug infestations that originate in individual properties.
    5. On 28 July 2022 it found there were no bedbugs in her home.
    6. It had raised further treatments for her that it would normally not do.
    7. It would not conduct any additional treatment after these were done.
    8. It will monitor the progress of the treatments.
    9. It gave the resident a central point of contact until the work was complete.
  6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 October 2022. She said that the flat was infested with bedbugs and that there had been 10 fumigations done already. She asked if the landlord had carried out a survey to find the cause of the bedbugs. She raised concerns about the impact the problems were having on her mental health.
  7. On 1 November 2022, the landlord emailed the resident saying that if she was dissatisfied with the pest policy it would not investigate this as a complaint, but rather feedback. On the same day, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
  8. The landlord issued its final response on 1 December 2022. It provided a detailed chronology of events up to that point and said:
    1. It had arranged for a contractor to carry out bedbug treatments on 21 June 2022, 12 August 2022, and 24 August 2022.
    2. The contractor had found no evidence of bedbugs during any of these visits but provided preventative treatments.
    3. The last date that it had found evidence was in December 2021 when it carried out treatments to the communal areas and the properties of the resident and her neighbour.
    4. The contractor believed that the bedbugs were emanating from a neighbouring property which it had difficulty accessing to carry out treatments.
    5. It determined that it had provided treatments each time she had reported a problem.
    6. It said the resident had been using large amounts of aerosol insecticides that it advised her to only use per the manufacturer’s instructions.
    7. It arranged for a senior officer or surveyor from the pest contractor to visit her home and provide a report to the landlord.
    8. It acknowledged that there had been some appointments that were rearranged and that there had been time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident due to the number of appointments she had to facilitate.
    9. It recognised that it had not provided a stage 1 response in line with its policy, and this prolonged the progression of her complaint.
    10. It awarded compensation of £300; comprising:
      1. time, trouble, and inconvenience: £200
      2. poor complaint handling: £100
  9. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 21 December 2022. We spoke to the resident on 1 December 2023 and she told us that the problems with bedbugs had reduced and she was using her own aerosol treatments.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. During the complaint journey, the resident stated the impact the pests were having on her mental health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this however we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the pests and the resident’s mental health. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s mental health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.
  2. The resident told the Ombudsman in May, October, and December 2023 that the bedbugs return every 4-6 weeks. She has not been reporting new incidents to the landlord, instead using her own aerosol treatments. She was advised by the Service to report new incidents to the landlord if the problems have continued. For the purpose of this investigation the Ombudsman has considered reports made by the resident between 1 February 2022 and 21 December 2022.

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s pest control policy sets out its approach to dealing with infestations of various pests. It says that customers are responsible for dealing with some common household pests including bed bugs. It shows, in extreme cases, the landlord can review its approach if a resident’s own treatments have been unsuccessful.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy shows it operates a 2 stage complaint process. Complaint responses are sent to residents within 10 and 20 working days at stage one and two of the process respectively. It defines complaints as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord. It covers complaints that relate to a failure to provide a service. Expressions of dissatisfaction about the wording of a policy will not be raised as a complaint. These will be recorded as a service recovery case and used as feedback to consider when the relevant policy, procedure or responsibility are due for review.

Response to reports of bedbugs

  1. The landlord’s records refer to reports of bedbugs in the block of flats in February 2022. The resident raised a concern in April 2022 saying one of her neighbours had not been allowing the landlord’s pest contractor into their home. The landlord continued to provide treatments in the resident’s home and opened an investigation to resolve the access issues. This was a reasonable response and demonstrates good practice.
  2. A contractor acting on behalf of the landlord raised concerns on 10 May 2022. It said that if the landlord did not treat the main source (not the resident’s property) it would have to keep returning to the resident’s property. The records show that the landlord had some issues with access to the other property that took some time to resolve. It has shown that it was able to complete treatment at the other property in July and August 2022. It is not clear if it has carried out any further inspection in the other property since August 2022.
  3. When raising her stage 1 request on 13 July 2022, the resident said the landlord’s contractor told her it would not provide further bedbug treatments. This was confirmed in the landlord’s response on 14 July 2022 when it determined that her complaint was about its policy and not decision making.
  4. The landlord reconsidered its decision to provide further treatment after being contacted by the Ombudsman on 14 July 2022. It then provided 2 further treatments in August 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to reconsider the request. However, it is unclear if the landlord would have made this decision without the Ombudsman’s involvement.
  5. During the inspection on 12 August 2022, the contractor found no evidence of bedbugs. The contractor said it was concerned for the resident as she was using large amounts of aerosol insecticides. It told her to stop using them immediately due to possible health risks. This was referred to again in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 1 December 2022. It demonstrated good service by recognising the potential risk to the resident and highlighting this to her again.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 19 October 2022. She asked for information about the past treatments and what the contractor had decided was the cause of the bedbugs. She offered to help resolve the problem if possible. She questioned if there were complaints from other neighbours and if there was a plan to treat the building. She also highlighted that the problem was impacting her mental health. The Ombudsman has not seen a response to this email. The landlord should have responded and told her what it was doing. It was clear that the issue was causing her distress. It should have given some reassurance on how it had been treating the underlying cause or share a treatment plan.
  7. In the stage 2 response from the landlord, it referred to having inspected the property 4 separate times in 2022. It found no evidence of bed bugs so preventative treatments were provided to the resident each time. This was good practice as it tried to alleviate the problems caused to the resident. It inspected two more times after this response, once in December 2022 and the other in April 2023. It found no evidence of bed bugs in either visit.
  8. The landlord’s records show that it carried out inspections and treatment of bedbugs each time that the resident reported them. It took the resident’s situation into account and used reasonable discretion to provide the treatments. The issues raised by contractors that the problems arose from another address, were dealt with in 2022. The landlord acted on the evidence available to it each time and provided treatments in line with its policy and procedures.
  9. The landlord recognised that there was a failing in its handling of the reports about bedbugs. In its stage 2 response it acknowledged the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the number of appointments and reports the resident had to make. While it did not provide a copy of any treatment plan to the resident or respond to her email in October 2022, its stage 2 response detailed the actions it had taken and its findings. The Ombudsman finds that the landlords offer of £200 in compensation demonstrates reasonable redress for these failings.
  10. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident and establish if the problem with bedbugs persists. If so, it should ensure that further treatment is provided and investigate other possible sources for the problem.

Complaint handling

  1. Whilst investigating this case it was noted that the Ombudsman had to intervene at both stage 1 and 2 of the complaints process. This was because the landlord said that it believed the complaint to be about its policy and so would record them as an expression of dissatisfaction.
  2. The landlord’s policy states that an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord will be recorded as a complaint.
  3. There was a failure to record the complaints correctly from the outset. The landlord did respond promptly though when contacted by the Ombudsman. It is reasonable to determine that involving the Ombudsman at this stage caused an otherwise unnecessary delay for the resident.
  4. The landlord recognised the delay in its complaint handling in its stage 2 response and acknowledged the Ombudsman’s involvement. Its offer of compensation was in line with its policy and provided reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the failings in its response to reports of bedbugs in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint handling failures.

Orders and Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should:
    1. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to complaint handling. This is to ensure that complaints are responded to in a timely way and in accordance with the landlord’s policies.
    2. Contact the resident and establish if further bedbug treatment is required within 4 weeks from the date of this report.
    3. The landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £300 it offered if it has not already done so.