Peabody Trust (202221461)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221461

Peabody Trust

3 June 2024

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 a rat infestation in her property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. The tenancy began in February 2011. The property is a ground floor studio flat.
The resident first reported sighting rats in her property to the landlord on 13 May 2022. Three appointments were scheduled for pest control to attend the property on 19 May 2022, 1 June 2022 and 6 June 2022.
During the pest control appointment on 19 May 2022 the inspector noted that there was a strong smell in the kitchen and rat droppings were also identified in the kitchen cupboard. The inspector also identified a hole within the cupboard which went down through the flooring and noted that the hole required proofing. The resident was advised to dispose of any items covered in rat droppings/urine and 2 bait trays were placed to monitor activity.
A second inspection took place on 1 June 2022 by pest control. The inspector noted that they could smell and hear the rats under the kitchen units and all the bait previously put down had gone. A larger amount of bait was left during this appointment. The inspector noted there were 8 holes along the floor/wall of the back of the building, however, they were unclear on how the rats were getting inside the kitchen as the units appeared to be sealed in. It was recommended for the floorboards to be removed to investigate further and for a builder to carry out proofing works. Due to the presence of bluebottle flies, the inspector suspected there were dead rats under the flooring. The inspector confirmed that the associated hygiene problems were a concern.
On 2 June 2022 the resident noted she was experiencing headaches which she thought was potentially due to the rat poison at the property, or it was the pungent smell of rat urine and dead carcasses. Due to this, she stayed elsewhere overnight.
Internal landlord communications indicate that a works order had been raised for 8 June 2022 to carry out baiting treatment and to fill any potential holes. However, the works order was marked as cancelled due to “poor performance” by contractors who were unable to carry out the work.
There were three missed pest control appointments on 16 May 2022, 6 June 2022 and 8 June 2022.
When the resident called the landlord to report the missed appointment she stated she was informed by a member of staff that “rats are not an emergency”. A visit by the landlord took place on 10 June 2022 during which, pictures were taken of the holes in the kitchen units and around the pipework, but no immediate further action was taken.
A s.82 Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) notice was submitted by the resident’s solicitor on behalf of her on 13 June 2022 which alleged the presence of pests. Infestations may be a statutory nuisance under EPA and if the problem is not resolved or the landlord takes no action, residents can take action via the courts. The landlord passed the matter to its legal team and raised a disrepair case.
A temporary decant was approved on 26 June 2022 by the landlord. The prospective start date for a hotel decant was recorded as 10 July 2022 with an end date of 24 July 2022, a total of 15 nights.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 June 2022 to state that she was not available during the landlord’s proposed dates between 11 – 25 July 2022 for the works to take place. The resident clarified to the landlord that she would be away between 13 to 19 July 2022, then again from 26 July 2022 till 22 August 2022. She suggested that the works should begin between 20 – 25 July 2022, when she would be back at the property, then pause for the period she would be away.
An additional inspection took place on 4 July 2022. The pest control inspector noted that rats were still present in the property and repair/proofing works were required to prevent an “endless supply of rats”.
On 11 July 2022, an operator attended the resident’s property to install a key safe (to allow access to the property to complete works). The resident said she was told by the operator that it would be dangerous to have the key safe installed as this could easily accessed by anyone wishing to gain entry to the resident’s property. Due to the resident’s refusal to have the key safe installed, the landlord queried whether she wanted to have the works cancelled.
The resident’s GP provided a letter to the landlord which described the impact the ongoing infestation had on the resident’s physical and mental health. The GP also stated there was a “possible risk of Weil’s disease which would require medical treatment” and requested “urgent assistance” with the resident’s living arrangements.
The resident made a formal complaint on 9 September 2022. The resident expressed that she felt ignored by the landlord in response to her reports of a rat infestation in her property which remained ongoing since 12 May 2022. The resident made the following points in her complaint:
1. She had seen rats running across the kitchen units and perching on bags of rice stored under the kitchen.
2. Her “very small” flat smelt of pungent rat urine.
3. Rat droppings had appeared very frequently on the kitchen floor and units.
4. She was concerned about the pest control inspectors observations that there were likely dead rats underneath the flooring of the resident’s property.
5. The resident had looked into different home swapping schemes, but had been informed by the landlord she would not be able to do that as she held a market rent property.
The landlord informed the resident that the case was with its surveying team following contact from the resident’s solicitors on 13 June 2022. The landlord said that due to it being a “legal matter”, all further communication should take place via the solicitors. When the resident’s councillor sought an update, the landlord reiterated it could not correspond with the councillor or the resident and the legal claim would slow down the process of resolving the pest infestation. The landlord stated that its solicitor would work with the resident to find a solution,
The resident chased for an update on 18 September 2022 as the landlord’s solicitors had not been in touch with her regarding the next steps. Internal communications show that the resident declined for the works to be carried out until she was decanted for the duration of the works. The landlord noted contactors were ready to commence works on 26 September 2022 so long as the resident was willing to provide access. The landlord spoke with the resident who confirmed she no longer had solicitors acting on her behalf and she was currently staying with a friend.
The resident chased for an update on the status of her formal complaint on 9 October 2022. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 14 October 2022 and made the following points:
1. The resident was offered a decant in September 2022 but she had already moved out to live with a friend.
2. With regard to the resident’s enquiries about being re-homed, the landlord stated it had a very limited number of intermediate rent properties available for re-let and suggested the resident registered with the home ownership department of the local authority.
3. The landlord stated the relevant team would be in touch with regards to repairs and rat infestation
The resident submitted a stage 2 escalation request on 19 October 2022. She explained that there had been 3 missed appointments between May and June 2022 and she felt the landlord was not sympathetic in its approach to her reports. The resident felt “bullied” and “harassed” by the landlord as she felt the landlord did not take her availability into consideration or the impact the situation was having on her health, personal and work life. She requested an explanation for the delay to resolve the issue and a copy of the surveyor report dated 12 July 2022.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 October 2022 and said a response would be issued within 20 working days, by 16 November 2022. The landlord sent a holding response to the resident on 15 November 2022 with a new expected response date of 29 November 2022.
The resident chased the landlord for a stage 2 response on 30 November 2022 and 2 December 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 December 2022 and it made the following findings:
1. After the resident’s initial report in May 2022, works were raised incorrectly which caused a slight delay.
2. A pest control contractor was instructed to lay bait within the property on 19 May 2022.
3. The landlord received a letter from the resident’s solicitors which included a s82 EPA notice which alleged an infestation of mice and rats in the property. The resident had since advised those solicitors were no longer representing her.
4. On 12 July 2022 the landlord’s surveyor and contractor supervisor attended to inspect the property and following reports about the severity of the infestations the landlord sought to undertake proofing works to the property.
5. Consideration was given to a decant during this period, however, the resident had informed the landlord she would not be available for two periods between July 2022 and August 2022.
6. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 August 2022 to advise that the infestation was still present and works were raised on 25 August 2022 to provide treatment and proofing. It was also decided that the works would include a kitchen replacement.
7. It was also concluded that the drains around the property would be assessed to ensure this was not the cause of the infestation.
8. As the resident did not agree to a key safe, copies of keys were made to be used by contractors as the resident was to be decanted while the works took place.
9. The landlord stated that contractors confirmed their attendance on 8 June 2022 to provide initial eradication treatment, however, this was cancelled by the resident as she felt the point of entry for the rodents had not been addressed. The resident requested to be decanted before the works began, however, she later informed the landlord she would prefer to stay with a friend.
10. The landlord’s records confirm that a kitchen replacement and infestation treatment had now been completed.
11. The landlord identified failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation and its handling of the complaint. Compensation of £1,549.31 was offered, this was made up of the following:
  1. £150 – complaint handling
  2. £300 – time trouble and inconvenience – lack of communication (£100)
  3. £300 – decant policy (£50 per week as the resident was staying with a friend)
  4. £230 – delays by contractors to progress works including £30 for 3 missed appointments
  5. £569.31 – loss of use of kitchen for 3 months (25% rent refund for 3 months)

The compensation would be offset against any rent arrears the resident had.

The resident confirmed that the kitchen replacement and proofing works began on 21 September 2022 and were completed on 30 September 2022. However, the resident stated the contractor had lost the keys to the property and she did not have access to the property till the locks were replaced which was approximately a fortnight after the works were completed.
Following the final response the resident states she terminated the tenancy on 4 December 2022 but she had not been living at the property since 22 August 2022. The resident referred the complaint to this service on 8 December 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the length of time taken by the landlord to complete the works. The resident also stated she was unhappy with the compensation amount offered and she was unhappy that the landlord had recorded the tenancy end date as 5 January 2023. She did not feel it was fair that she was expected to pay rent for a property she had not been living in since August 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident mentioned that the rat infestation at the property has impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding their health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. This service can consider the general risk as well as any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord and the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.
The resident has also raised concerns about events that occurred after the date of the landlord’s final response and following the completion of the works on 14 October 2022. The resident is disputing the date the tenancy was terminated which has implications on the rent owed to the landlord. While this information has been included in the report to provide context, it is out of scope for the purposes of this report. This investigation will focus the resident’s complaint regarding events that occurred between 12 May 2022 and 2 December 2022 when the final response was issued.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation

The landlord’s pest control policy states that the landlord is responsible for assessing the infestation of rats and mice amongst other pests. The policy states the landlord will take ‘reasonably prompt action’ to manage pest infestations it is responsible for. The landlord may also carry out proofing works where required.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) says that poor design/layout/construction of a dwelling means that it is difficult to be kept clean and hygienic and can allow access for pests including rats. This can result in, among other things, gastro-intestinal disease (from spread of infection), stress (because of difficulties in keeping the home clean), infections (spread by insects, rats and mice) and nuisance. Preventative measures include blocking entry holes to deny ingress to rats.
The landlord’s temporary decant procedure states that it will only decant a household in the following cases:
1. Emergency decants
  1. Due to damage resulting from a flood, fire, infection or infestation which makes the property uninhabitable;
  2. Situations where the health and safety of the resident(s) or occupant(s) would be at risk or there would be safeguarding concerns should vulnerable residents remain in the property.
2. Non-emergency decants
  1. Where there are extensive works which cannot be carried out with the resident(s) or occupant(s) in the property.
The procedure also states that in the first instance the landlord should explore whether the resident can stay with family or friends and if they are able to, the following payment would be made in recognition of the inconvenience caused:
1. Studio/One Bedroom = £50 per week
2. Two Bedrooms = £75 per week
3. Three Bedrooms and above = £100 per week
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the following failings:
1. Works were raised incorrectly following the resident’s initial report which caused delay.
2. The stage 1 response from its lettings team was not as detailed as it could have been. The landlord acknowledged the lack of communication from its lettings team and how this may have left the resident feeling as though the case was not being managed effectively.
3. It’s contractors could have been more coordinated.
4. Missed appointments.
While the landlord acknowledged the above failings and awarded 1,549.31 compensation in recognition of this, there were further failings which were not addressed by the landlord. These are examined below.
The resident reported a rat sighting in her kitchen to the landlord on Friday 13 May 2022. The landlord’s pest control contractor attended on Monday 16 May 2022. This response time was reasonable. The contractor’s report of that visit confirms that they found rat urine and droppings in the kitchen cupboard and holes that were being used for access to the kitchen. A smell was also evident.
The landlord’s pest control policy confirms that it should be used in conjunction with its responsive repairs policy. The latter policy indicates that a repair should be considered an emergency when a rapid response is required to safeguard the wellbeing of residents, the structural stability and integrity of properties and/or the health and safety of people using the affected area. Given the significant risk to heath from the rat access points, a repair to prevent further access should have been arranged immediately. It is deeply concerning that the resident has indicated that the landlord’s call handler suggested to her that ‘rats are not an emergency’.
Following the second pest control inspection on 1 June 2022 the inspector identified 8 holes along the floor/wall of the back of the building, which were all potential entry points for the rats to enter the resident’s property. The inspection notes from the visit on 4 July 2022 also reiterated that the issue may have been stemming from a broken or damaged drain/sewer. In accordance with the landlord’s policy and in consideration of the HHSRS the landlord should have investigated the source of the rats to assess whether they were coming from the drains. It should have pursued proofing works to block the entry holes with more urgency following a total of 3 reports from its contractors highlighting the same concerns.
Proofing works were undoubtedly required to prevent the “endless” flow of rats into the property. Without the works, the rats continued to infest the property as evidenced by the volume of bait being consumed. The landlord failed to take the steps to fully investigate the entry point and block the entry source to prevent the rats from entering the property, thus the infestation continued. The dangers of the presence of rats are made clear in the HHSRS, along with the presence of dead rats which increased the risks to the resident’s health. Therefore, in the absence of prompt action to undertake proofing works after pest control had identified a hole in the kitchen cupboard on 19 May 2022 and further external holes on 1 June 2022, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered an emergency decant at that stage.
When considering the resident’s circumstances the landlord should have also considered the size of the property. The resident has described the property as being “14 metres square”. The small size of the property meant the infestation would have had a greater impact on the resident as there was little room to get away from the infestation. The resident had also made the landlord aware on several occasions the severity of the smell in the property, the size of the property meant that it was difficult for the resident to escape the smell. It was not reasonable for the resident to continue living in the property.
Under the Fitness for Human Habitation Act 2018, a house is considered unfit for human habitation if it has serious issues which make it unreasonable to expect a tenant to live there. This includes issues relating to a hazard under the HHSRS, which includes pests and infestations. Given the extent of the infestation and the limited space in the flat, the landlord should have considered whether or not the property was reasonably fit for habitation. There is no evidence to suggest this was taken into consideration.
A decant was not offered to the resident till 26 June 2022 with a prospective start date of 10 July 2022. During this period the resident continued to report the presence of rats at the property and the impact the ongoing issues were having on her. She noted that she was unable to stay at the property some nights due to the pungent smell that was present. As there were droppings and rat urine secreted on to items in the kitchen, due to health and safety concerns the resident was unable to use the kitchen or prepare cooked meals for the duration of the infestation.
It appears that while the landlord did give consideration to a decant for the period between 10 July 2022 and 24 July 2022, after the resident stated she was not available during this period there was no further attempt to arrange a suitable time for the works to begin. This was a failure by the landlord who should have been more proactive in ensuring the necessary works were scheduled and completed within a reasonable timeframe. The works were not raised again till 25 August 2022 when the resident made contact with the landlord to report that the infestation was still there.
Timely inspections for pest infestations are important and work to locate their source should be a priority. Whilst there is acknowledgement this treatment can take time, landlords should communicate effectively with the resident to keep them up to date with progress and timings. On several occasions, the resident as well as a representative had to chase the landlord for missed appointments and for updates on the proposed plan of action. This information should have been forthcoming to the resident without her having to chase for it. With the situation with the rats still ongoing in the property, the lack of effective communication from the landlord undoubtedly caused further distress for the resident. The resident asked the landlord for a copy of the surveyor’s report dated 12 July 2022 on a number of occasions. It has been unable to provide a copy to the resident or this Service. It is not clear if the surveyor did not write a summary of their inspection following the visit on 12 July 2022 or whether it was written, but the landlord has been unable to locate it. Strong record keeping practices are core to good landlord services. It is ordered that the landlord provides a compensation amount of £100 for its record keeping shortfall and the inconvenience this has caused.
The landlord’s comments such as “rats are not an emergency” and the suggestion that a disrepair claim would “slow down” the process of resolving the pest infestation were unhelpful, unsympathetic and likely to have made the resident feel responsible for the delay. Although there are procedures to be followed during legal proceedings, as the rat infestation remained ongoing the landlord still owed a duty to the resident to maintain communication and take appropriate timely action in line with its policies.
While the landlord acknowledged there was a failing in its communication with the resident, it did not adequately address the severity of the impact this had on the resident in its offer of compensation. Although the landlord did not cause the issue, it had a responsibility to take reasonable steps to rectify the problem and a duty of care to the resident, who said the infestation was having an adverse impact.
Overall, the resident reported the rat infestation on 13 May 2022, and despite several visits identifying the need for proofing to block the entry holes, the required works were not completed until 30 September 2022 and she did not have access to her property till 14 October 2022 when the locks were changed. It took the landlord approximately 5 months to resolve the reported issue, it did not take ‘reasonably prompt action’ to manage the reported pest infestation it was responsible for. It also failed to consider an emergency decant which would have been appropriate in consideration of the health and safety issues that were present. This Service acknowledges that some of the delay was due to the resident being away and due to the resident cancelling works. However, the landlord failed to maintain communication with the resident to work around this and identify a mutual solution within a reasonable timescale.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Depending on the level of service failure and the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of their property, the Ombudsman may consider awarding compensation based on the resident’s weekly rent rate. The landlord should have arranged an emergency repair appointment to attend to the access points within 4 hours of the visit on 16 May 2022. For that reason, it is clear that the start date for consideration of compensation for the use and enjoyment of the property should be 17 May 2022. This period of compensation should continue until the day that the resident’s use and enjoyment was no longer impaired. This is 22 August 2022, the day the resident moved out. Within this period there were times when the resident was on holiday during July 2022 and August 2022. Taking these periods into account, there were 9 weeks between 17 May 2022 and 22 August 2022 when the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property was significantly impacted.
Given that the property was a bedsit, the rat infestation and smell affected all areas of the property except the bathroom. A suitable percentage of rent to consider is therefore 75%. This is calculated below:

(i) 9 weeks at £175.17 a week (based on monthly rent at £759.05) = £1,576.53

(ii) 75% of the above total: £1,182,40.

Compensation equivalent to 100% of rent is also applicable for the two weeks (30 September 2022 to 14 October 2022) when the resident could not access the property as the keys had been lost by the contractors. From the information provided, it is clear that the events over the summer of 2022 had a significant physical and emotional impact on the resident. An additional compensation amount of £700 has been awarded to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced. The landlord’s decant policy entitles the resident to a £50 payment for each week she stayed with friends. This period was 22 August 2022 to 14 October 2022. This is a total of £400 (£50 a week over 8 weeks).
Following the first contractor visit on 16 May 2022, the landlord should have offered an emergency decant. Its policy confirms that emergency decants should be arranged in ‘situations where the health and safety of the resident(s) or occupant(s) would be at risk’. Undoubtedly a rat infestation in the kitchen of a bedsit qualifies. The landlord’s failure to offer a decant until 26 June 2022 is a significant shortfall in service. It is ordered that the landlord provides the resident with a compensation award of £500. This amount reflects the significant impact this failure had on the resident.
There was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation in her property due to the failings identified above. The landlord failed to take action to remedy the rat access points or to offer a decant at an early stage. These significant shortfalls seriously adversely affected the resident and undermined the landlord/resident relationship. Although, the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right, its compensation offer was disproportionate to the serious detriment the resident experienced. Additional compensation has been ordered to reflect the effect on the resident of living in the property with this issue. Given the seriousness of the maladministration highlighted by this complaint, it is also ordered that the landlord’s Chief Executive should apologise to the resident directly.
The landlord is ordered to pay an additional £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident. In addition to the £569.31 offered in the stage 2 response for the loss of kitchen, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1,897.59. This totals £2,466.90 which is compensation equivalent to 50% rent related compensation for 12 weeks between 1 June 2022 to 22 August 2022 during which the resident did not have full use of the property due to its size and should have been considered for an emergency decant, and 100% rent rebate for 7 weeks between 22 August and 14 October 2022 when the resident was not living in the property. The resident left the property to live with a friend on 22 August 2022, this meant the landlord was not paying for a decant property during this period. The compensation takes into consideration the size of the property which would have worsened the impact of the pest infestation on the resident.

Landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage 1 complaints must be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt. A stage 1 response addressing all the issues raised is to be issued within 10 working days.
In exceptional circumstances, the response can be delayed by up to a further 10 working days. This must be communicated to and agreed with the customer before the 10 working days had elapsed, with an explanation provided as to why further time is needed.
Following a stage 2 escalation request the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days and issued a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the date of escalation.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged there were failings in its complaint handling, the following failings were identified:
1. No escalation details provided at stage 1.
2. Complaint stage was not clear in the response.
3. Both responses outside timeframes specified in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord awarded £150 compensation in recognition of the identified failings. This was an appropriate offer of compensation, and had this not been offered the Ombudsman would have made a finding a of service failure and ordered a similar amount to be paid to the resident. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in the Investigation Report. The apology should be provided in writing from the landlord’s Chief Executive.
2. The landlord is ordered to pay a total of £3,712.74 in compensation to the resident (this amount is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £1,549.31). This is comprised of:
  1. £1,182,40 for the serious failings in relation to its handling of the rat infestation at the property.
  2. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor handling of the rat infestation at the property.
  3. £350.34 for the two-week period when the resident was unable to access the property.
  4. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to arrange an emergency decant out of the property.
  5. £100 for its shortfalls in record keeping.
  6. £100 for its lack of communication.
  7. £150 for its shortfalls in complaint handling.
  8. £400 in line with its decant policy (£50 a week for 8 weeks).
  9. £230 for delays by contractors to progress works (including missed appointments payments).

The additional compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears which may be owed.

Recommendations

In reference to paragraph 27 of this report, while the Ombudsman is unable to assess the landlord’s decision to record the resident’s tenancy end date as 5 January 2023, it is recommended for the landlord to confirm its position to the resident in writing and to adopt the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles when considering the resident’s case.