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

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202301452)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301452

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited

15 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
    1. A pest infestation;
    2. An outstanding repair;
    3. Staff conduct.

Background and summary of events

  1. At the time of the complaint, the resident was an assured tenant of the landlord in a 3 bedroom, end of terrace house. The records show that she moved into the property in December 2007.
  2. On 10 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that she could hear “scratching noises” at night in her bedroom, and believed there were rodents in her loft. She asked the landlord to inspect her loft space. The landlord responded on 19 May 2022 to say it would arrange for a pest control specialist to attend her property. It asked her to let it know when she was available so it could book an appointment. There is no evidence that the resident responded, or that the landlord took any further action.
  3. It is unclear what happened following the interaction in May. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 14 September 2022 to say she had not heard from the pest control contractor. She added that with a change in the weather, the situation with rodents in her loft had worsened. She said the noise was keeping her children up at night and she wanted to make a complaint about the time it had taken for the landlord to resolve the issue. The landlord telephoned her on the same day to apologise for the delay and to advise her its pest control contractor would contact her within 24 hours.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 21 September 2022 and told her that it would aim to respond by 5 October 2022. On 22 September 2022, the contractor attended the property and found evidence of rat droppings in the loft space. It carried out an initial treatment and recommended that the landlord proofed the potential ingress points that it had identified during its visit. On 29 September 2022 the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response, which stated that:
    1. It acknowledged it had failed to respond to the resident’s original report in a timely manner and admitted this was “unacceptable”. It apologised for its poor customer service.
    2. Its contractor carried out the first treatment on 22 September 2022, and that its repairs team confirmed it would complete the recommended rodent proofing works on 7 October 2022.
    3. As it had failed to resolve the resident’s pest infestation within reasonable time, it upheld her complaint.
  5. The landlord carried out 2 further pest control visits, on 6 and 20 October 2022. Following the third visit, the resident wrote to the landlord on 20 October 2022  to say the treatments had not remedied the problem and that she could still hear rats in her loft at night. She stated that the problems would “never be resolved” as the rats were in the walls and the entry points could “never be identified”. The resident went on to say that the problem had been going on for years and had affected the wellbeing of her household. She added that she had asked the landlord on numerous occasions to rehouse her because of overcrowding. She wanted to know what it would do to resolve her housing situation.
  6. In response to the resident’s further reports of pests in her loft, the landlord carried out 3 further pest control visits, on 2 November, 16 November and 7 December 2022. On 18 January 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to say she would like to raise a stage 2 complaint regarding her living conditions and constant rodent and fly infestation. She said this was affecting her and her children’s mental and physical health and stated that:
    1. The landlord had failed to acknowledge the seriousness of her living conditions or provide a “valid response” to how it planned to rectify the ongoing pest problem;
    2. There were no doors on 2 of her bedrooms as the frames were “very weak and damaged” and could not handle the weight of a door;
    3. When she had spoken to a customer services officer to ask how long she would have to wait for her doors to be repaired, the officer asked her why she was asking and that she was “using taxpayers’ money”.
    4. She wanted the landlord to move her, or to help her move to another property.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 23 January 2023 and stated that it would aim to provide her with a full response by 20 February 2023. The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 February 2023 to report that she had large flies in her home again. She added she believed the constant presence of flies and the smell in her property was having a direct impact on her children’s education. She asked the landlord to rehouse her as it was “extremely difficult” living in her then current conditions.
  8. On 20 February 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It stated that:
    1. It was “very sorry” it had failed to take any action between May and September 2022.
    2. It agreed that it needed to undertake a thorough inspection of the property to identify appropriate repairs and proofing.
    3. It had booked works for 22 February 2023 to fully investigate the issue. This included any required “opening up” to trace, treat and proof the source of the smell, and establish what further works were needed to resolve the issue.
    4. It had listened to the call between the resident and its customer services officer. Although it felt the officer had dealt with her enquiry appropriately, it acknowledged that the comment about “judicious use of taxpayers’ money” was inappropriate. It apologised that this “came across as rude” and confirmed it had arranged for the officer to attend further training.
    5. It apologised the replacement of her doors had not been completed within its standard 90 day timescale for routine repairs and confirmed that it had booked this repair for 14 March 2023.
    6. The resident’s home was overcrowded and the council had assessed her as needing a 4 bedroom property, with band 4 priority. It had explored whether there were any home ownership schemes available to her and confirmed the only option was shared ownership, which it could send her details about.
    7. It was carrying out a review of its pest control policy and would use the resident’s experience to inform this. It would also establish a dedicated complaints team to ensure all complaints were “fully investigated, responded to and monitored to completion”. In addition, it would provide further training to its call centre staff.
    8. It apologised for the failures it had identified and offered her £650 in recognition of the delay and distress caused in dealing with the pest control issue. Furthermore, it offered £75 for the delay in carrying out the repair to her door frames.

Events following completion of the complaints process

  1. On 22 February 2023, the landlord attended the property to carry out external rodent proofing. It fixed an air vent cover to prevent access, sealed external ingress points and used rodent proof plates to block any entry points beneath the floor of the property.
  2. The resident contacted the Service for assistance on 10 March 2023. She said that her property had suffered with rats and blue bottle flies “for years”. Although the landlord had been made aware of this it had failed to carry out thorough works to remedy the problem. She believed that “disrepair” to her home was causing rats in the walls, loft space and under the flooring.
  3. The landlord carried out further pest control visits on 10 March and 3 April 2023. Furthermore, on 4 April 2023, a contractor attended the property to investigate the drains. It readjusted the rat blocker flap to ensure it was in working order and carried out a CCTV survey of the runs in the manhole. It found no evidence of rodents.
  4. On 17 August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to say that she believed there were rats underneath her flooring. She told it she was satisfied with the previous proofing repairs but wanted the landlord to arrange for her floor to be excavated to investigate the cause of the noises. Furthermore, she said she had still not received the compensation agreed as part of the stage 2 complaint resolution.
  5. The landlord responded on 18 August 2023 to apologise for not having made the payment and offered an increased compensation amount of £875, in recognition of this delay. In response to the resident’s concerns about rats under her floors, the landlord carried out an inspection on 5 September 2023 and found evidence of rat droppings. It recommended further works, which it booked for 25 September 2023. During its visit, the contractor advised the resident that works could not proceed while the family was still in the property. On 9 October 2023, the landlord agreed to offer the resident a management transfer as a permanent solution. The records show that the resident moved permanently to a 4 bedroom house in December 2023. The landlord has told the Service that it would like to further increase its offer of compensation to £1,125, to include an amount in recognition of its delays in undertaking some of the investigations it said it would carry out in its stage 2 response. It is unclear whether it had made this offer directly to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Legal and policy framework

  1. As per Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the resident’s home. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy lists 5 different categories of repair. Out of hours emergency repairs are attended to within 2 hours, and same day emergency repairs within 4 hours. Everyday repairs are those of a minor nature, which are unplanned and do not pose a health and safety risk. The landlord will respond to these within 28 calendar days. Gas urgent repairs and enhanced repairs are attended to within 7 calendar and 30 working days respectively. Enhanced repairs are those that are outside the landlord’s normal repairs service, and which the resident requests and pays for.
  3. The landlord’s pest control policy states that in tenanted houses it is responsible for blocking holes that allow pigeons or squirrels to access the loft or mice to access the house. Once holes have been blocked, the landlord will provide treatment for pigeons or squirrels in lofts but not for mice or other pests within the property itself. It says that, where it is responsible for pest control, it will provide the following treatment:
    1. Mice: Up to three visits to bait and remove them.
    2. Squirrels: Trapping and removing them from inside spaces like lofts, once any holes are blocked.

It will not treat the following:

  1. Rats: Local authorities offer baiting treatments for free or a low cost.
  2. Any other insects (including flies, ants, fleas, spiders, silver fish, bedbugs and ladybirds): If treatment is required, this can be done by residents using domestic products, and would not normally require treatment from a pest control contractor.
  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may offer A discretionary financial payment or other gesture of goodwill made to the resident without it accepting any liability. The policy does not provide details of any minimum or maximum discretionary compensation amounts it can offer.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has stated that the problem with pests in her property had negatively affected the mental and physical health of her family. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her family’s health but 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. These are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  2. The resident states she had been raising concerns about pests in her property for a number years. The records show that she had reported pest infestations in 2019 and 2020. However, there is no evidence she had made any further reports to the landlord between November 2020 and May 2022. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because, with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 10 May 2022 onwards. This was when the resident reported the possible presence of rodents in her loft, which led her to raising a complaint. Reference to events that occurred prior to this is made in this report for the purpose of providing context.
  3. As part of the resident’s complaint, she stated that she had asked the landlord on numerous occasions to rehouse her due to overcrowding. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing on a local authority’s choice based lettings scheme, and the assessment of such applications. In this case, the housing register is managed by the resident’s local authority. Since a request for a change in priority banding due to overcrowding falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996, it cannot be reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman. As a result, this aspect of the complaint is better suited to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. It is noted that, after conclusion of the landlord’s complaints process, the resident asked for a management move and the landlord made her 2 offers of alternative accommodation. As mentioned previously, she subsequently moved into alternative accommodation in December 2023. However, if the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord responded to her initial concerns and request to be rehoused, she may wish to contact the LGSCO accordingly.

A pest infestation

  1. The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident and her family have experienced a great deal of distress over a lengthy period of time, while reporting pests within her property. We recognise how upsetting and uncomfortable it must have been to live in a home that suffered from pest infestations. The Ombudsman’s role when investigating the resident’s complaint is to consider whether the landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps in response to her reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
  2. It is not disputed that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial report of a possible pest infestation. It was appropriate that it acknowledged her report of 19 May 2022 on the same day, and advised her it would arrange for its specialist contractor to attend and inspect her property. However, following this, the landlord and contractor made no further contact with her. It was only when the resident chased the matter up, 4 months later, that the landlord took any action. It is unclear from the records whether the resident had chased the landlord prior to 14 September 2022. Nevertheless, once it was put on notice of a possible infestation, the landlord should have made sure the resident’s report was responded to correctly, and in a timely manner. This demonstrates that there was a failure in the landlord’s process for raising and tracking pest control callouts, and a lack of an effective system for ensuring the instruction was passed onto its contractor. When responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged this delay and offered redress accordingly. The level of redress that was offered has been addressed later in this report.
  3. Once the resident made the landlord aware of her outstanding pest control report, it was appropriate that the landlord took immediate action. It arranged for its contractor to carry out 3 pest control visits, in line with its policy. The evidence shows that, from this point on, the landlord was proactive in responding to further reports by the resident. According to the records, the landlord had carried out 10 visits to either inspect or treat the property for pests between September 2022 and April 2023. It was also positive to note that, although its policy stated that it was the local authority rather than the landlord who dealt with rat infestations, it exercised its discretion and arranged for its contractor to treat the property after finding evidence of rat droppings. This was appropriate given that it had identified ingress points for which it was responsible for repairing, which were causing or contributing to the infestation. It should be noted that, given there were access points for which the landlord was responsible for repairing, it was correct to have assumed responsibility for addressing the infestation.
  4. The evidence shows that the landlord made reasonable efforts to treat and prevent further infestations. It carried out work to proof the property in line with the commitments it made in its stage 2 response. In addition, the records show that, following the failure of the treatments to fully eradicate the problem, the landlord carried out an inspection on 5 September 2023. This wasfollowing concerns the resident had raised about possible rats under her floor, and her request to carry out intrusive worksto her floor to investigate the issue.
  5. Given the resident had continued to report evidence of pest activity over a 12 month period, and that the treatments had proven not to have eradicated the problem, the landlord could have considered alternative options at an earlier stage. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to first make every attempt to address the issue by using its pest control service, before considering works that could have entailed a greater degree of disruption to the resident and her family. In fact, once the landlord had drawn up a scope of works, it concluded it could not complete the repairs while the family was in the property. The landlord could therefore not be criticised for initially taking steps to treat the problem more conservatively. In addition, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its pest control specialist to deal with the infestation before considering other options.
  6. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair; put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any failings identified. Although in its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged its failure to respond to the resident’s initial report of a possible pest infestation, it did not offer any redress. It would have been appropriate for it to have done so at this stage. However, in its stage 2 response, it offered £650 for its lack of response, which was broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would have awarded for similar failings. Furthermore, the landlord apologised for its failings and detailed the steps it would take to address the ongoing problems of pests in the property. It also outlined the learning from the outcome of the complaint and the actions it would take the address the failures it had identified.
  7. It is noted that, following completion of the landlord’s complaints process, it offered the resident further redress in recognition of its delay in paying the compensation offered at stage 2. It subsequently advised the Service it wanted to offer additional compensation for delays in completing some investigative works to the property. Although the landlord made its additional offers of compensation following conclusion of the complaint, the Service has taken this into account as part of the landlord’s efforts to put things right. This is because the redress the landlord had offered related directly to the landlord’s delays in completing actions from the stage 2 response.
  8. For the reasons stated above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

An outstanding repair

  1. The records indicate that the resident first reported 2 rotten door frames in her property on 6 September 2022. It is evident that the resident had to remove the 2 doors as the frames could no longer support them. The landlord’s repair log shows that the resident cancelled the repair in September 2022 but did not provide a reason for the cancellation. The Ombudsman accepts that there can be many reasons why it may not be convenient for the resident to allow work to go ahead. However, delays to a repair being resolved because of issues with gaining access to the property cannot be considered to be within the landlord’s control.
  2. However, there is no evidence the landlord had made any attempts to rebook the repair or to follow this up with the resident. It was only when the resident raised the issue of the outstanding repair in her stage 2 complaint of 18 January 2023, some 4 months later, that the landlord raised a repair. It was appropriate the landlord completed the door frame replacementon 14 March 2023, as it had advised it would in its complaint response. However, it took the landlord over 5 months to carry out the repair, which was a failure. That it had departed significantly from its repairs policy, which states repairs should be attended to within 28 calendar days amounts to maladministration.
  3. It is noted that, in its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that it had failed to complete the repair within its 90 day target for routine repairs. However, there is no reference to a 90 day response time in its responsive repairs policy. The Ombudsman will recommend that, if this was not an inaccuracy within the response, the landlord reviews its repairs policy. It should ensure it includes all its target timescales for repairs, including the 90 days for routine repairs it had quoted, in order to ensure full transparency of its repairs obligations.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in replacing the resident’s 2 internal door frames. It also offered her £75 compensation for its failure to complete the repair within a reasonable time. However, the delay in replacing the door frames meant the resident had to live with 2 missing doors, which had to be left off their hinges in the property for an unreasonable length of time. Given there were children in the house, the fact the resident was unable to close off 2 of the bedrooms for around 5 months would have caused avoidable inconvenience for an unnecessary length of time. The landlord’s offer therefore does not fully recognise the extent of the delay or the impact, and distress and inconvenience this would have caused. The landlord’s failure to complete the outstanding repair in line with its repairs policy therefore amounts to maladministration and the Ombudsman will order that the landlord pays the resident further redress to put things right.

Staff conduct

  1. The resident raised concerns in her stage 2 complaint about a conversation she had had with a customer services officer, and comments they had made during the telephone call. The records indicate that, as part of its investigation, the landlord listened back to the recording of the discussion. This was appropriate. It subsequently apologised to the resident for the offence caused by a comment the officer had made, and confirmed that it would be arranging for the staff member to attend additional customer services training. The evidence shows that the landlord had conducted a proportionate and reasonable investigation into the concerns raised about its staff member. It is acknowledged that the resident was left upset by this interaction. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s report of poor staff conduct.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its response to the resident’s reports about a pest infestation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about an outstanding repair.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about staff conduct.

Orders

  1. The landlord has told the Service that it would like to further increase its offer of compensation to £1,125. Furthermore, the records indicate that the landlord has already paid the resident £875. Therefore, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident £375, which is comprised of:
      1. An additional £125 in recognition of the delay in carrying out the repair to the resident’s bedroom door frames;
      2. An additional £250 it told the Service it wanted to offer for its delay in carrying out some investigative works for the presence of pests in the property.

The total compensation figure of £1,250 would replace the landlord’s original offer of £1,125. If it has still not made any payments to the resident, the landlord should pay the full amount of £1,250 within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, as advised above.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that, within 8 weeks of receiving this report, the landlord reviews its responsive repairs policy to ensure all response times are included. This includes the 90 day response time for routine repairs that the landlord quoted in its stage 2 response. This will ensure transparency of its repairs obligations and will avoid any confusion over how long residents should expect to wait for certain repairs to be completed.