Peabody Trust (202224605)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224605

Peabody Trust

22 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodents in the property.
2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a housing association and his tenancy started on 11 March 2013. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the first floor of a small purpose-built block.
The landlord is aware that the resident has vulnerabilities and has advised this Service that he suffers from mental health issues, including obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). His mother is recorded on the landlord’s system as the nominated third-party contact for the resident. The resident signed a form from the landlord on 10 September 2013 consenting to his mother representing him because he had severe anxiety.
Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, landlords have duty to ensure their properties are fit for habitation on the first day of the tenancy and remain fit throughout the tenancy. This means the property must be free of serious hazards. Pests and infestations are a category of prescribed hazards included in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The landlord’s Pest Control Policy confirms that the landlord “will assess infestations of…rats and mice” and the landlord will assess the risk of responding to a report of serious pest infestation within 7 working days. The policy also states that where it attends to a property for pest infestation, proofing works may be carried out to prevent future infestation.

Summary of events

The resident’s mother wrote to the landlord on 11 October 2019 to report that her son had rodents in his flat and the problem had been present since he moved in. The letter stated that her son was unable to sleep because of the problem. The Ombudsman has not seen any information confirming the action taken by the landlord in response to the reports of rodents.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that the landlord raised an order on 13 February 2020 regarding reports of rodents. The job notes state that the resident could hear noise from the rodents in the kitchen and living room. The log indicates that a pest control company visited on 23 April, 25 June and 29 June 2020.
The repairs log shows that a further order was raised on 14 October 2020 regarding ongoing issues with rodents. The job notes stated that the resident had seen a rat in the kitchen and wanted entry holes filled in. The notes subsequently added by the pest controller stated that he had visited the property twice during October 2020 and the tenant was worried that rodents enter the property every year. However, the pest controller found no further evidence of rodents and added that the resident had not seen any evidence of rodents since the first visit. The notes went on to say that the previous pest proofing carried out was “still good” and the pest controller could not see any visible access points. Finally, the notes stated that the pest controller had left bait, which would be effective for 6 months.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that it raised a job on 26 February 2021 for a pest controller to attend a neighbouring flat. The pest controller carried out the first stage of the pest control treatment. The operative noted that the flat was in a very poor state of cleanliness, which was likely to be “attracting vermin” and this would not be solved until the state of the property improved. The operative also noted that he was unable to block the access points within the flat because some areas were inaccessible to him.
The landlord’s records show that it raised a job on 13 April 2021 regarding rodents in the resident’s property and a neighbouring flat. The notes stated that the pest controller attended and removed a mouse as the previous bait had been taken. The pest controller added new bait in the resident’s kitchen, which he noted was the area of activity. The final visit took place on 2 July 2021.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that the landlord raised an order on 20 August 2021 to carry out repairs to the resident’s kitchen units following pest control work. The log indicates that the work was completed, however, the completion date is not shown.
The landlord’s records show that in October 2021 a pest control company visited a neighbouring property in the resident’s block and carried out treatment for rodents. The company noted that the property was in poor condition and that this did not help with the rodent problem.
The landlord’s records show that the landlord raised a job on 10 May 2022 for a pest controller to attend the resident’s property due to rodents. The property was attended by a pest control company in June 2022 and during the initial visit no rodents’ droppings were seen. However, the pest controller noted that the ‘kickboards’ in the kitchen needed to be removed to allow inspection and that the foam which had previously been used for proofing in the cupboards was inadequate.
During the follow-up visit, the pest controller found mouse droppings in the boiler cupboard, in the kitchen drawer under the cooker and in the inspection hatch. The pest controller therefore laid baits and carried out 2 further visits to leave baits. The notes stated that on the third visit all of the baits were checked and they had not been touched by rodents. The notes also stated that the resident had not reported any further rodent activity.
The landlord’s records show that it raised a job on 21 November 2022 regarding a report of rodents by the resident and that a pest controller carried out three visits to the property in December 2022. The notes state that a full inspection was carried out on the first visit and the property hygiene was good. The tenant’s mother was present and advised the pest controller that the resident was unable to live in the property because of rodents and therefore the resident was living with her. The notes stated that rodent evidence was found in the boiler cupboard and the infestation was “medium”. The previous bait boxes were examined and all of the bait had been taken. The pest controller placed tracking dust in the areas of infestation and a camera to track movement. Bait was also placed and some minor proofing was carried out.
The landlord’s records stated that on the second visit to the property, a further full inspection was carried out and none of the bait had been taken (the date of the visit is not recorded in the landlord’s notes). However, the resident advised the pest controller that he could still hear rodents. The pest controller noted that he was unable to find any access points and there were signs of previous proofing which “looked good”. The pest controller examined the tracking dust and camera he had left on the first visit. He noted that there were no rodents sightings on the camera and the tracking dust had not been disturbed.
The pest controller carried out a third visit to the property and undertook a full inspection (the date of the visit is not recorded in landlord’s notes). The landlord’s notes stated that none of the bait had been taken, the contact foam that had been left had not been disturbed and there was no new evidence of rodents. The pest controller noted that he was unable to find any access points.
On 19 January 2023, the resident’s mother submitted a stage one complaint that rodents were present in the property. The complaint stated that the resident had been in the flat for about 7 years and the rodents had returned every couple of months. The resident’s mother stated:
1. That pest proofing had been carried out twice but the rodents were still entering the property.
2. That the resident had suffered a lot due to the rodents and had not slept in the property for the past 3 months because of the rodents. She said he was only spending time in the property during the daytime and she had needed to collect her son many times in the middle of the night because of the problem with rodents.
3. That the resident had a long-term illness and wanted to be rehoused because of the rodents.
The impact of the rodent problems on the resident was outlined by his mother in her stage one complaint, in which she stated that her son had been unable to sleep and had suffered a lot as a result of the problems. She explained that she had needed to collect her son many times in the middle of the night because of the problem with rodents.
Following an email from this Service to the landlord on 6 February 2023, the landlord sent its stage one reply on 7 February 2023, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord listed the jobs that had been raised for pest control treatments.
2. The landlord had spoken to the resident’s mother about the complaint and agreed that although its records indicated that a pest controller had visited the resident’s property in March 2021 and reported that the property was in poor condition, the pest controller had been referring to a neighbouring property.
3. The landlord had raised a job for pest control work and the pest controller carried out the first of three planned visits on 30 January 2023. The pest controller had reported that there were no signs of rodent activity. However, the resident had reported seeing a rodent in the property. The pest controller had left bait trays in the property.
4. The landlord’s conclusions were that various jobs had been raised and appointments had been attended to within service level timescales, Therefore, there had not been any service failings.
5. The landlord stated that it had carried out block treatments and proofing works to the property and therefore there was little else it could do.
6. The landlord stated that there was no feedback in the pest control reports indicating that further proofing work was needed to the property.
7. As the resident had seen a rodent in the bin area, the landlord would ask the pest controller to bait the bin chamber.
8. The landlord said it had no record on its tenancy file of the resident having a long-term illness and did not believe that transferring the resident to an alternative property because of the rodents was warranted.
9. The landlord confirmed that it would continue with the second and third visits as part of the current baiting programme.
On 13 February 2023, the resident’s mother wrote to the landlord to request for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She confirmed that the last of the three baiting visits was due to take place on 14 February 2023 but she was concerned that the rodents would return at a later date. The resident’s mother stated that the landlord had not identified where the rodents were entering the property. She stated that the resident had not been sleeping in the property for the last three months because of the rodents.
The landlord acknowledged the request from the resident’s mother to proceed to stage 2 and confirmed it would respond within 20 working days.
On 1 March 2023, the resident’s Community Psychiatric Nurse wrote to the landlord to advise that the resident’s mental health was being “significantly influenced and compounded” by his housing situation. The letter referred to an infestation of rodents and requested the landlord to consider rehousing the resident into alternative accommodation.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 March 2023 to apologise for the delay in sending its stage 2 response. The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 27 March 2023, in which it included the following:
1. The landlord stated that it had raised an order for pest control treatment in response to the resident’s stage one complaint and no evidence of rodents had been detected.
2. The landlord had arranged for a neighbouring property to be deep cleaned as concerns had been raised that pests may have been originating from the neighbour’s property. However, no pests were present.
3. According to the landlord’s current records, no other residents had raised concerns about pests, which the landlord believed indicated that there were no pest problems in the communal areas.
4. The landlord stated that more intrusive methods of investigations for pests would only be carried out if there was evidence of pest activity and further works were recommended by the pest controllers.
5. The landlord requested the resident’s mother to submit any information supporting her son’s transfer request. The landlord would then advise the resident’s mother of the transfer procedure.
6. The landlord offered the resident £100 for not responding to the stage one complaint and the delay in its stage 2 response.
The resident’s mother wrote to the landlord on 30 March 2023 and stated that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response as she said it contained inaccuracies. She chased the landlord for a response to this email on 3 April 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s mother on 3 April 2023 and provided the contact details for the resident’s housing manager should the resident’s mother wish to follow up the transfer application for her son.
The resident’s mother wrote to this Service on 5 May 2023 and stated that she wanted the landlord to remove the kitchen units in the property and seal up any holes. She also wanted the holes in the airing cupboard to be sealed.
The resident’s mother completed the transfer application form and returned it to the landlord in May 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 July 2023 and informed him that his application for priority rehousing on medical grounds had been refused. The letter stated that the resident had not met the threshold for medical priority.
The landlord has advised this Service that it raised an order on 27 October 2023. The pest controller arrived on site to check for rodents, to fill any gaps or holes and to leave bait as required. However, the pest controller was unable to obtain access to the property and tried to ring the resident without success. The pest controller checked the communal area and could not see any signs of rodents. Also, the pest controller could not see any gaps or holes in the communal walls and staircase. The resident’s mother has advised this Service that she was not aware of this visit as she had not requested the landlord to raise an order.
The resident advised this Service on 23 November 2023 that her son was still only staying in his property during the day and was sleeping at her property during the night because he was afraid that the rodents would appear during the night.
On 24 November 2023, the resident forwarded additional information to this Service, including photos of rodents in the property taken on 16 October 2020 and 23 May 2021.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s mother stated in her stage one complaint that she had been reporting rodent problems for 7 years. While the Ombudsman is not doubting the information from the resident’s mother, it has not been possible to investigate events dating back this far due to the lack of evidence available. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the reports of rodents from 2020. However, reference has been made to an earlier letter dated 11 October 2019 from the resident’s mother as this was considered relevant to the investigation. In the letter the resident’s mother reported the presence of rodents in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodents in the property

The landlord raised an order for pest control on 13 February 2020 and in response the landlord’s pest controller visited the property on three occasions (23 April 2020, 25 June 2020 and 29 June 2020). The Ombudsman has not seen any information regarding the details of the work carried out by the pest controller, however, the landlord’s records indicate that the company carried out a three-stage treatment. The timescale for completing the treatment following the initial order was reasonable given that three visits were required and sufficient time had to be left between the visits for the bait to be taken and to take effect.
A further order was raised on 14 October 2020 after the resident reported seeing a rodent in the kitchen. The resident’s mother has provided this Service with a photo of a dead rodent, which she states was taken on 16 October 2020 in the property and was sent to the landlord at the time.
The pest controller visited the property twice in October 2020 and found no evidence of rodents. The pest controller added that the proofing work previously carried out was still good and he could not see any access points. Nevertheless, the pest controller left bait, which he stated would be effective for six months. The action taken by the landlord in arranging for its pest controller to carry out further treatment in the property was appropriate as the resident had reported seeing rodents in the property. It was therefore important for the landlord to take action through its pest controller to respond to this immediate problem in a timely manner.
During 2021 and 2022, the landlord arranged for its pest controller to carry out various treatments in relation to rodents reported by the resident and neighbours in the block. These treatments included:
1. On 13 April 2021, the pest controller attended the resident’s property, added new bait and removed a dead rodent.
2. In October 2021, the pest controller carried out rodent treatment in a neighbour’s flat.
3. The pest controller attended the resident’s property twice in June 2022 and on the second visit found mouse droppings in the boiler cupboard, in the kitchen drawer and in the inspection hatch. The pest controller carried out further treatments by leaving bait.
4. Further visits were carried out by the pest controller in December 2022. The operative reported evidence of mouse droppings in the boiler cupboard during the first visit. He assessed the infestation as “medium” and found that all of the bait that had previously been left had been taken.
The information seen by this Service indicates that the landlord responded promptly each time the resident reported seeing rodents and arranged for its pest controller to carry out treatment. This usually involved leaving bait for the rodents. The landlord therefore responded reasonably in terms of treating the immediate problem following each report of rodents. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord considered a longer-term solution, such as carrying out more intrusive investigations to identify the source of the rodents. This was inappropriate as the landlord was aware that the problem of rodents had affected the resident’s property intermittently for some years.
Given the length of time the resident’s property had been affected by rodents, it was incumbent on the landlord, as per its pest control policy, to assess the risk in relation to the rodent infestation and consider how it should respond. Given the repeated reports by the resident, his vulnerability and the impact the situation was having on him, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered how a long-term solution could be found. The presence of rodents is identified as a hazard in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and was clearly causing the resident significant anxiety (so much so, that by the end of 2022 he was no longer sleeping in the property).
The absence of a risk assessment in relation to the hazards posed to the resident by the presence of rodents was particularly inappropriate because of his vulnerabilities. The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities because he had provided the landlord with a signed consent form in 2013, which stated that he suffered from “severe anxiety”. Also, the landlord confirmed to this Service that its records showed the resident as having mental health issues.
The impact of the rodent problems on the resident was outlined by his mother in her stage one complaint, in which she stated that her son had been unable to sleep and had suffered a lot as a result of the problems. She explained that she had needed to collect her son many times in the middle of the night because of the problem with rodents. Given the impact on the resident, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not proactively identified and managed the risks relating to the pest issues more effectively.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that more intrusive methods of investigation for pests would only be carried out if there was evidence of pest activity and further works were recommended by the pest controller. The Ombudsman appreciates that this statement was made after the pest control visits in January and February 2023 had not identified any evidence of rodent activity. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s suggestion that it would only carry out works if recommended by its pest controller was inappropriate as the pest controller would not be aware of the resident’s individual circumstances, including his vulnerabilities.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the recommendations made by its pest controller, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was the landlord’s responsibility to make the final decision about whether more intrusive investigations or additional proofing works were justified. In making its decision, the landlord could consider the recommendations of its pest controller but also the individual circumstances of the resident, including his known mental health conditions.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord took the resident’s vulnerabilities into account when deciding on its response to the reports of rodents. The landlord therefore failed to show due regard to its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010. This was unreasonable as it meant that the landlord had not fully taken into account the impact of its actions and decisions on the resident. In particular, the landlord appears not to have taken into account the cumulative impact on the resident of the intermittent presence of rodents over a long period of time (over 3 years between the letter dated 11 October 2019 from the resident’s mother and the pest treatment in December 2022).
In assessing the landlord’s handling of the reports of rodents, this Service has taken into account:
1. That the landlord responded to individual reports of rodents by raising orders and arranging for its pest controller to carry out treatments in the property and to other properties in the block. The landlord therefore acted to alleviate the immediate problems.
2. The landlord had deep-cleaned a neighbouring property that was thought to have been the source of the problem.
3. The landlord had carried out some proofing work to the property.
4. The landlord’s pest controller had tried to identify the source of the rodents by using tracking dust and a camera.
However, despite these mitigations, the Ombudsman has found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of rodents because:
1. The problem of rodents had affected the resident’s property intermittently for at least 3 years, which was an unreasonably long period.
2. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord took into account the resident’s vulnerabilities when dealing with the reports of rodents and the significant level of anxiety that the problems were causing.
3. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment to assess the hazards posed by the rodents and used the results to decide whether the situation warranted more significant action.
In view of the failings outlined in this assessment, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident in order to put things right. The amount ordered is £1,000, which is within the range specified in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for situations where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
The resident’s mother has advised this Service that her son is still not sleeping in the property. He travels to her house in the evening and returns to the property during the daytime. Clearly, this is an unsatisfactory position and therefore the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to carry out a risk assessment in relation to the resident’s property, taking into account the resident’s vulnerabilities. Furthermore, the landlord should use the risk assessment to produce a plan with timescales for addressing any remaining infestation of rodents affecting the property. The plan should also set out the landlord’s plans for proofing the property against future problems with rodents.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages: stage one complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 responses are sent within 20 working days of receiving a request to escalate the complaint. At both stages of the process, the timescale for responding may be extended by up to 10 working days as long as the landlord provides an explanation to the resident. If an extension of more than 20 working days is required at stage one or more than 10 working days at stage 2, then this will be agreed with the resident.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord on 19 January 2023. On 6 February this Service wrote to the landlord advising that the resident had submitted a complaint and had not received a reply. The landlord therefore responded on the same day, which was 13 working days after receiving the resident’s complaint. It was inappropriate that the landlord had not replied to the resident within the time stipulated in its policy. The resident’s mother had outlined the impact the situation was having on her son, including not being able to sleep in the property. As a result, the resident had contacted this Service , which had then written to the landlord.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 February 2023 and stated that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one reply. The landlord wrote to the resident 28 working days later on 23 March 2023 to apologise for the delay in sending its stage 2 reply. The landlord then sent its stage 2 reply on 27 March 2023, which was 30 working days after it received the resident’s stage 2 complaint. Therefore, the landlord sent both its ‘holding’ reply and the final stage 2 reply later than the 20 working day timescale set out in its complaints policy. This was inappropriate as the resident’s mother had advised the landlord in her stage 2 email that the situation was impacting on her son’s health and therefore she was anxious to see the situation resolved.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord apologised for failing to meet its complaint deadlines and offered the resident £100 compensation. The amount offered was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for “poor complaint handling” where the landlord had failed to follow its complaint policy or procedure. The Ombudsman has taken into account that although the landlord’s stage 2 reply was late, the period of delay did not exceed the maximum permitted extension of 10 working days set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s offer of £100 was proportionate and, along with its apology, was a reasonable offer of redress to put things right in relation to its complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of rodents in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its complaints handling.

Reasons

The property was affected by rodents intermittently for at least 3 years, the landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when dealing with the infestation and the landlord did not carry out a risk assessment to assess the hazards posed by the presence of rodents.
The landlord apologised for its complaint handling failures and offered reasonable financial redress to put things right.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,000 for its handling of the resident’s reports of rodents.
3. Carry out a risk assessment in relation to the resident’s property, taking into account the resident’s vulnerabilities.
4. Use the risk assessment to produce a plan with timescales for addressing any remaining infestation of rodents affecting the property and for proofing the property against future problems with rodents.
5. Provide a copy of the risk assessment and action plan to the resident and to this Service.