Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (202210367)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210367

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

19 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 response to the resident’s concerns about the type of tenancy issued, lack of welcome visit, and request for rehousing.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property condition when let.
3. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
4. The landlord’s handling of a pest infestation and associated remedial works to the property.

Background

The resident was a secure tenant. The tenancy started in July 2021 and ended in March 2023, after the resident secured new accommodation.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 8 September 2021. The resident said there was a problem with ants in the property when she signed for the tenancy. Although the landlord had promised to resolve the problem, she had to “fight” for the landlord to arrange pest treatment. She now had a rat problem, which was affecting her health and was causing stress. The resident wanted the landlord to reinstate her priority and position on the housing waiting list so that she could move.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 September 2021. The landlord said that it had treated the issue with the ants. It accepted that it should have kept the resident better informed in relation to this. It would raise this at its next staff meeting. It had arranged for pest control to treat the rats in the loft space. It could not justify moving the resident but would keep in contact with the resident until the problem had been resolved.
The resident made a new stage 1 complaint on 9 December 2021. The resident said that the landlord’s inspector had promised to clean the loft and replace the loft insulation. However, the landlord had since explained that this work would have to wait for a programme of works. The resident argued that the loft smelt. The matter could not wait.
The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 14 December 2021. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that an informed decision had been made to remove and replace the loft insulation. Works had been added to a planned works programme, for a specialist contractor to deep clean the loft and replace the insulation. However, it was unable to complete these works until it had confirmation that pest treatment was no longer required.
The resident raised another stage 1 complaint on 9 February 2022. The resident explained that the landlord’s inspector initially promised to install an additional electric socket for her freezer. However, its inspector had since reneged on this and was not returning her calls. The resident said that she was waiting for a new bathroom and kitchen. She had not been sleeping, as the rats had come back and were in the bathroom.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 February 2022. The landlord gave an update on the socket installation, and its intentions concerning replacement of the bathroom and kitchen. It had reminded complaint officers to make sure they responded to follow up enquiries in a timelier manner. Although not expressly stated, the landlord’s records show that it upheld the complaint. It recognised that it had not provided adequate feedback following requests for updates abouts scheduled works.
The resident made a further complaint on 4 March 2022. The resident said that the landlord had not addressed her complaint about its inspector, she had been unable to live at the property for 4 weeks due to the rats, and she expressed an intention to make a claim for compensation. The landlord told the resident on 8 March 2022, that it had asked the service area to review the complaint. However, the resident could request that the complaint be escalated to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied after receiving a further response from its service area.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 7 March 2022. The landlord committed to talking with its inspector about not returning telephone calls and the perceived lack of progress in regard to agreed planned works. It recognised that it could have communicated better about expected timescales. It said that it would arrange a post inspection, during which time it would also discuss the resident’s request for compensation.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 14 April 2022. The resident said that the property was not let to her in a habitable condition and the property had never been assessed. She disagreed that there was no evidence of the rats returning. On 20 April 2022, the resident clarified that her complaint was also about being signed up as a probationary tenant, the level of support offered by the landlord to move, and the length of time it had taken to get repairs completed. The resident said that she wanted £3,200 in compensation.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 20 June 2022. In summary, the landlord:
1. Said it had found no evidence to support a view that the property was not in a habitable condition upon letting. The resident had not raised any issues at viewing or during sign-up.
2. Said it had found no evidence that the property was infested with rats when it was let. It had responded to subsequent reports about rats by bating. It had also treated the infestation of ants.
3. Sympathised with the resident’s concerns about rats, but with the exception on not meeting the 24-hour standard, it had acted reasonably to resolve the problem.
4. Accepted that the resident was anxious for repair work to be completed as soon as possible, having moved into the property. It said it was not always possible to carry out immediate repairs unless they were urgent. It recognised there had been service failure regarding repairs to a light fitting outside the bathroom.
5. Found no evidence to show that a welcome visit had been carried out, in accordance with its policy. The landlord recognised this as a service failing.
6. Accepted that the resident was signed up as an introductory tenancy in error. It had since changed the status of the tenancy to a secure tenancy after the resident raised this.
7. Said it had provided the resident with appropriate support and assistance in relation to securing alternative accommodation.
8. Suggested that the level of compensation sought by the resident was unreasonable. However, in view of service failures identified and likely impact on the resident, it was minded to offer £300 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
The landlord provided an updated stage 2 response on 15 July 2022, after the resident challenged some of the evidence that the landlord had relied upon. Ultimately, the landlord’s decision remained unchanged.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 14 August 2022, that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. To resolve her complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to apologise and pay compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the type of tenancy issued, lack of welcome visit, and request for rehousing.

Type of tenancy

It is not in dispute that the property was let to the resident on the incorrect tenancy type. The resident was initially signed up as an introductory tenant. After the resident questioned the status of her tenancy in July 2021, the landlord sought clarification from the local authority about the resident’s past tenure. It is noted that the resident had to chase the landlord several times for updates before the landlord acknowledged that it had made an error. This was unreasonable and caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble. The tenancy was corrected to a secure tenancy 6 months later. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 response that the tenancy was not corrected in a timely manner. It apologised and offered compensation (assumed to be £100) for the distress and worry caused to the resident as consequence. The landlord should have been clearer about how its offer of compensation was broken down. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the type of tenancy was reasonable and showed that it was taking responsibility for its failings.

Welcome visit

The landlord commits to carrying out a welcome visit within 8 weeks of the start of a new tenancy. The evidence shows that the landlord wrote to the resident to arrange a welcome visit for 6 December 2021. The resident said that she waited in for the landlord, but no contact was received. After chasing the landlord, the resident was informed that an appointment would take place after Christmas. The landlord does not dispute that no welcome visit was carried out. The landlord recognised that this was a missed opportunity to capture the resident’s concerns about the property which may have allowed it to take appropriate action at an earlier stage. The landlord accepted that “further anguish” had been caused, which was likely to have affected the resident’s mental health and wellbeing. The landlord accepted that this amounted to service failure, for which it apologised and offered compensation (assumed to be £100). The landlord should have been clearer about how its offer of compensation was broken down. The landlord’s response showed that it was taking responsibility for its failings.

Request for rehousing

In accordance with paragraph 41 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters in respect of local housing authorities in England, which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. Accordingly, the Ombudsman is unable to consider decisions made by the local authority in exercising its duties under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. Therefore, this investigation will focus on whether the landlord provided a reasonable level of support in response to the resident’s request for rehousing, in exercising its housing management responsibilities.
The resident told the landlord on 8 September 2021, that she had contacted the local authority housing team, asking to go back onto the housing register. The resident asked the landlord to consider moving her until the issue with the ants and rats had been resolved. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint of the same date, the resident said that living at the property was making her asthma bad with stress. She could not sleep and was struggling with her nerves. To remedy her complaint, the resident wanted to rejoin the housing waiting list. Furthermore, she wanted her bidding rights, position on the waiting list, and medical priority reinstated.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord requested that the local authority housing options team contact the resident to discuss options for moving. It also arranged pest control as a priority and a property inspection, following which it raised several repairs. The landlord updated the resident. This showed that the landlord was giving the resident’s concerns the attention they deserved. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s decision not to decant the resident was reasonable, since it was taking appropriate steps to remedy the issues with pests. But in view of the resident’s evident distress, the landlord should also have shown that it had considered the resident’s mental wellbeing. The landlord’s stage 1 response is likely to have left the resident feeling unheard, which gave rise to further resident dissatisfaction.
However, after the resident provided medical evidence highlighting the impact upon her, the landlord committed to reviewing the case. This was positive and allowed the landlord to reflect on how it could best support the resident with moving in view of her vulnerabilities. It is noted that within 2 days of the resident’s representation, the resident’s housing application and bidding rights were reinstated.
The distress expressed by the resident when rats returned in January 2022, was understandable. The resident indicated that she was unable to cope living in the property anymore and would be moving out. The resident suggested that she had bid for other accommodation but did not know if these bids had been successful. The landlord responded by asking the local authority housing options team to contact the resident. It then took appropriate steps to address the new reports about rats. The landlord’s response was reasonable and proportionate.
After the resident raised her stage 2 complaint, the landlord met the resident on 23 May 2022 to discuss her concerns. The resident repeated that she had been bidding for properties but had no success. In its stage 2 response, the landlord commented on the resident’s bidding history and made suggestions how the resident might improve her chances of moving faster. The landlord concluded that it had provided appropriate support and assistance in relation to moving.
When considering all of the evidence available, the landlord afforded the resident with a reasonable level of support in relation to her request for moving.
On balance, the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the type of tenancy issued, lack of welcome visit, and request for rehousing.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property condition when let.

The landlord has a voids lettable standard and an agreement with its contractor to complete works necessary to bring its vacant properties up to this defined standard prior to letting. The landlord completes a void inspection which only identifies works required that are not covered by the lettable standard. The landlord has stated that it does not keep a record of works carried out in order to bring a property up to the lettable standard.
The landlord’s records show that a void inspection was carried out by the landlord on 17 June 2021. The landlord’s inspector made a comment on the void inspection sheet, that the property was a “nice condition bungalow with average works”. The landlord has indicated that the inspector took a large number of internal photographs of the property which it viewed as part of its complaint investigation. These photographs have not been seen by the Ombudsman. The resident later viewed the property with the landlord on 20 July 2021. In relation to property condition and repairs, the viewing checklist commented “all good”, but noted that there were ants by the back door.
From the evidence provided, it has not been possible to determine based on fact, what works were completed prior to the tenancy start date or the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. However, it is noted that the resident raised several repair requests over the course of several weeks following sign-up, which the landlord ought to have addressed prior to the tenancy starting. The Ombudsman does not intend to list all of the repairs reported. However, to exemplify, in accordance with its lettable standard:
1. The landlord was required to ensure that all electrical defects were rectified prior to re-letting. It is of concern that despite this, on the day of sign-up, the resident reported that the kitchen light was split and was making a funny noise.
2. All gardens should be free of rubbish, trimmed back and left clean and tidy. However, soon after the resident moved in, she asked for the gardens to be cut back.
3. The loft should be checked for rubbish and cleared. However, the loft had not been completely cleared before the tenancy was let.
Based on the evidence seen, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that there was no evidence to support a view that the property was unfit for habitation at the start of the tenancy. It noted that neither the resident, nor her occupational therapist raised any issues with the condition of the property at sign-up. However, the Ombudsman suggests that by virtue of the nature of repairs that were raised following the resident’s occupation, it is likely that the landlord had not fully met its own lettable standards. While the repairs reported may not have prevented the resident from moving in, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have recognised this and considered offering redress for any inconvenience caused.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property condition when let.

The landlord’s handling of repairs.

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its expected response timescales for completing repairs. In respect of non-urgent repairs, it will “make good” in 9 days. All other repairs that are not suitable for inclusion in a programme of works will be completed in 28 days.
The resident has stated that she had to struggle and “fight” for repairs to be completed. While the repairs logs show that the resident had raised multiple repairs since the start of the tenancy, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of repairs investigated by the landlord as part of its stage 2 investigation. For clarity, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of pest control and associated works separately.

Light pendent

It is not in dispute the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about a light pendent in the hallway in a timely manner. Although this repair had been completed, the landlord accepted in its stage 2 response, that this job had been overlooked. It provided reasonable redress by apologising and offering compensation (assumed to be £100). Although, it should have been clearer about how much compensation it had apportioned to this service failing.

Uneven slabs

Repairs to re-bed uneven paving slabs were dealt with as a responsive repair, within expected timeframes under its repairs policy. Had the resident not expressed concern about the appointment date first offered, it is possible that this job may not have been completed within expected timescales. This would have contributed to the resident’s overall feeling that she was having to “fight” for repairs to be carried out in a timely manner. However, it is also noted the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns at the time and brought the appointment forward, which was reasonable.

Damp in bedroom

It is understood that the landlord extended a downpipe and installed a soak-away to remedy an issue with damp in the bedroom. It is noted that the landlord had to arrange a couple of appointments before the job was completed. However, the Ombudsman is unable to form a view on the landlord’s handling of repairs to remedy damp in the bedroom, based on the evidence seen.

Kitchen and bathroom repairs

The evidence suggests that issues with the bath panel, toilet base, and kitchen shelving were inspected by the landlord. Some repairs were carried out to “make good”. However, to provide a longer-term solution, the landlord committed to upgrading the kitchen and bathroom in 2022/23. The kitchen was replaced in June 2022 and the bathroom in July 2022. The Ombudsman finds no failing in the landlord’s decision to handle repairs to the kitchen and bathroom in this way, since its decision-making was made in line with its repairs policy.

Wooden step

Repairs required to resolve an issue with a wooden step, were classified by the landlord as a non-urgent repair. In accordance with its repairs policy, this repair was grouped together with other similar jobs, into a programme of works. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the time taken to complete this repair was not unreasonable.

Installation of additional electric socket

The resident requested that the landlord install an additional electric socket in a walk-in cupboard. The Ombudsman notes that there was some confusion between the parties about what the landlord initially agreed. The landlord did not adequately manage the resident’s expectations, which would have caused uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord has explained that these works were agreed, were placed on a programme of future works, and were subsequently addressed as part of the kitchen upgrade. The landlord has already apologised to the resident for not being clear about this when she chased for updates.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of repairs was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord acknowledged its failings and offered redress to put things right. The Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs.

The landlord’s handling of a pest infestation and associated remedial works to the property.

The landlord does not have a pest control policy or procedure. Pest treatment is carried out by the local authority pest control team on behalf of the landlord.
It is accepted that there was an infestation of ants in the property on the day of the viewing. The landlord appropriately recorded this on its viewing proforma. The following day it established that it would take responsibility for treating the ants, but the resident must contact the local authority pest control team to arrange this. It is unclear from the evidence if this was communicated to the resident. The resident telephoned the landlord a week later, as the infestation had not been dealt with. The ant infestation was successfully eradicated in early September 2021, after 3 treatments. Although, it might have spared the resident some inconvenience, had the landlord retained control over arranging the treatment.
It is understood that the resident did not move into the property until the end of August 2021. After accessing the loft to store belongings, the resident noted rat droppings. She also found droppings in the kitchen and bathroom.
In early September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report the issue of rats in the property. The landlord asked the local authority pest control team to carry out baiting. Between 9 September 2021 and 2 December 2021, 7 rat treatments were carried out. The landlord also raised a works order to fill some holes in the loft. Evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that the landlord considered the impact on the resident’s mental health and prioritised both pest control and stopping up works. The landlord’s initial response to reports about rats in the property was both reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
There is no evidence that the local authority pest control made any recommendations for further remedial works. However, after the resident raised concern that the loft insulation was contaminated and smelt of rat urine, the landlord agreed to clean the loft and replace the loft insulation. Initially it said these works would be completed as planned works. After the resident raised concern that these works could not wait, a works order was passed to a specialist contractor and expedited. The landlord’s decision to replace the loft insulation showed that it had taken the resident’s ongoing concerns into account. When removing the loft insulation, its contractor identified more holes, which the landlord arranged to fill. Again, this was appropriate.
The resident feels that the landlord should have honoured its commitment to continue rat bating until she had found alternative accommodation. The landlord had previously agreed this with the local member of parliament. The landlord explained to the resident that it stopped rat bating when there was no further evidence of rats in the property. It suggested that it would have been “unnecessarily hazardous and inefficient to keep placing poisonous bait in your home when there was no reasonable reason to do so”. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s position was reasonable in the circumstances, however it should have told the resident if it had changed its decision and explained its reasoning. The landlord’s failure to update the resident and manage her expectations, led to further dissatisfaction. This was inappropriate.
The resident states that not long after moving in, a hole was discovered behind the kitchen units. From photographs seen by the Ombudsman, this appears to be an opening in the wall, created to allow cables and pipes to pass between rooms. In September 2021, the resident asked the landlord to fill this hole. The landlord said this would need to wait until the kitchen had been replaced. In response, the landlord took steps to bring the kitchen replacement forward. The kitchen was replaced in June 2022. The resident states that the landlord should have filled the hole when requested, and its failure to do so provided continued opportunity for rats to enter the property. It is unclear why the landlord did not endeavour to fill the hole from the bathroom side if it could not easily access the hole from the kitchen. Although this may have given the resident reassurance, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that pest control recommended that this hole be filled. The Ombudsman accepts that filling the hole in the kitchen may have stopped rats travelling between the kitchen and the bathroom, but it has not been possible to determine based on fact, whether this act would have stopped rats from entering the building itself as suggested.
On 17 January 2022, the resident reported rats had returned and were now under the bath. The landlord responded promptly and appropriately, by asking the local authority pest control team to bait again. Although pest control suggested the resident should contact them directly to arrange an appointment, the resident was redirected back to the landlord. This would have been frustrating for the resident and a cause of unnecessary inconvenience. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it may be helpful if the landlord were to agree a formal referral and feedback process with its preferred pest control provider.
Following this, the landlord agreed to place the resident’s bathroom onto a programme of works for replacement in 2022/23. In the meantime, the landlord raised a works order to fill any holes in the wall under the bath and replace the bath panel. It is understood that this work was completed on 1 February 2022. The resident’s dissatisfaction about the holes being filled with foam is noted. The landlord has stated that the holes were filled with foam and then cemented. The Ombudsman notes there is disagreement between the parties on this point and the resident feels that the landlord has been untruthful. It is positive there were no further reports of the rats after the holes were stopped up.
The landlord suggests that neither it, nor any of its contractors, had reason to suspect there was a rat infestation in the property prior to reletting. The landlord has accepted that photographic evidence provided by the resident, showing an old packet of rat poison under the bath, suggested there had been rats during a previous tenancy. But maintained that the property was rat free at the point of letting. The Ombudsman appreciates that finding evidence of rats in the property caused the resident significant distress. However, it has not been possible to determine based on fact, if there was a live issue with rats in the property when the property was let.
Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports about pests in the property. However, the landlord should have told the resident when it decided to stop baiting. A lack of clarity between the landlord and its pest control specialist in connection with referrals, was likely to have caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation and associated remedial works to the property.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response about the type of tenancy issued, lack of welcome visit, and request for rehousing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property condition when let.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation and associated remedial works to the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay compensation of £250 directly to the resident. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property condition when let.
2. £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in respect of the landlord’s response handling of a pest infestation and associated remedial works to the property.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Service that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must initiate and complete a review of the issues identified in this case and identify learnings. Where learnings are identified, the landlord should commit to bringing improvements into its operations within 3 months of the date of its review. As a minimum, the landlord must consider:
1. Making enhancements to its record keeping during the void period. The landlord should consider retaining records of all works carried out in a property, in order to bring a property up to the lettable standard.
2. Its approach to arranging pest control. The landlord may wish to consider developing a formal pest policy and process. The landlord should also consider developing an agreed referral and feedback process with its preferred pest control provider.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the £300 compensation it previously offered to the resident if it has not already paid it. This compensation is in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about type of tenancy; the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the lack of a welcome visit; and the landlord’s handling of repairs to a pendent light.