Sanctuary Affordable Housing Limited (201914180)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914180

Sanctuary Affordable Housing Limited

26 November 2021

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 was about:
1. The landlord‘s response to the resident’s report of rodent infestation, including the level of compensation offered to the resident.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling, including delays in responses.

Background and summary of events

The resident was a single mother with a baby and was the assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 29 March 2018. She occupied a two-bedroom, top–floor flat in a building with access to a loft. While the landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, the resident reported mental and physical health issues during the course of the events covered by this investigation.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for keeping the structure and installations for sanitation (including sink pipes) in good repair. The resident was responsible for removing any infestation of vermin promptly on it coming to the resident’s attention.
Under the repairs policy, an emergency repair was defined as a repair necessary to remove a serious threat to the health and safety of the resident or the structure and fabric of their home. Examples included a blocked sewer, a water leak, doors and windows that were insecure. The response time to make the property safe was 24 hours. A second appointment could be required to complete all remedial works following an initial attendance. “Appointed“ repairs or routine repairs included leaking gutters and roof leaks. Its aim was to complete repairs within 28 days of a report. Unless the resident contacted it by phone, the landlord would offer an appointment once a works order was raised. Repairs should be diagnosed as accurately as possible at the time of reporting the repair. The customer service team could contact the relevant surveyor to discuss any issues or concerns.
The complaints procedure was a two-stage procedure. At the first stage, the landlord was to contact the customer within two working days to acknowledge the complaint; treat the issue with the utmost priority and try to resolve it in the shortest possible time (normally within five to ten days, but in many cases sooner). It was to keep in close contact with the customer, and inform them of progress at every opportunity, make the necessary enquiries to put in place the measures to address the complaint; and when a resolution was developed and agreed timescales put in place, speak to the customer to ensure they were satisfied. It was to manage expectations of the customer and be clear what the landlord could and could not do and monitor progress of the measures put in place to address the complaint and follow up with the customer on the agreed date. There was no requirement to write to customers at this stage.
If the resident was not satisfied, the complaint would be referred for an investigation. The timescale for a response was usually within 20 working days.
Under the compensation policy operating at the time of the events in this report, the landlord could consider payments as follows:
1. Failure to complete any repair within the published timescales where the landlord has been able to do so, it would pay £10 for the first day or part thereof, and £2 for each day or part day that the repair remains outstanding; up to a limit of £50 per repair.
2. Distress and inconvenience due to delayed resolution of a reported repair, request or concern, it would pay a monthly payment for inconvenience, time or trouble of up to £50 for the duration of the delay.
3. Failure to attend an appointment or unnecessary appointments, the landlord may pay £10 in compensation per failed/unnecessary appointment.
4. Failure to meet standards of service detailed in policy or procedure documents or cases of serious inconvenience or a failure to follow a policy or procedure the normal payment would be up to a maximum of £25.
5. It may consider utility costs where the landlord had failed to follow a procedure or meet service standards.

Chronology

Throughout the process, the resident made a number of reports to the landlord in relation to the infestation, outlining the impact the infestation was having on her. The sound of the rats was affecting her mental health, including anxiety and stress. She was concerned about risk to the health and safety of herself and her small baby, and the financial cost to her. According to the resident’s correspondence, she made her first report of a rodent infestation in her loft due to gaps in her loft on 6 June 2019. According to the landlord’s records, the report was made on 10 June 2019.
The landlord’s response to the report was that the resident would have to arrange for infestation treatment but the landlord would repair the holes in the loft, once treatment had taken place. The landlord placed a works order to its contractor on 14 June 2019 to fill holes in the loft space following the pest control treatment.
The resident made a formal complaint on 17 June 2019 that there was structural damage in the loft and roof which had allowed squirrels to enter and had not been repaired. Again, there was a minor dispute about the date as the resident stated the complaint was made 15 June 2019. She explained she was a single mother with a young baby, she was incurring costs and the infestation was a health risk. An appointment for 25 June 2019 that had been made was not soon enough. She felt it was an emergency. The following day, she sent further emails with photographs of rubbish being left in the street by her neighbour. She reported that she suffered from anxiety and depression.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 19 June 2019. It recommended a loft clearance and proofing to the loft area, in order to stop access from neighbouring properties.
The resident’s contractor attended on 14,19 and 26 and/or 28 June 2019. The evidence, according to the contractor’s invoice and report, was contradictory. The resident’s contractor referred to an infestation of squirrels. He reported that there was no evidence of activity, and he removed the bait and poison. He recommended proofing the loft area to stop access from neighbouring properties and a loft clearance to remove any droppings.
On 10 July 2019, the landlord’s contractor attended again. He was to remove the insulation but did not do so, for reasons that are not clear. The contractor did not find any access points in the loft.
The resident made a new complaint on 10 July 2019 that no work had been carried out on the loft on 10 July 2019, despite previous assurances. She wanted the landlord to pay the invoice for the pest control treatment that she had incurred.
The landlord agreed on 15 July 2019 that it would pay for the infestation treatment as part of a goodwill gesture. On 5 August 2019, it offered £50 “in light of the inconvenience” as a gesture of goodwill in “full and final settlement” of her complaint, which the resident declined on 13 August 2019.
A contractor attended on 8 August 2019 to fill entry points in the loft. According to the resident’s report of 12 August 2019, it did not carry out a complete job.
There was a follow up visit on 13 August 2019, when the contractor found evidence of an infestation. It did not identify further places through which the vermin could enter. The contractor did not remove the insulation. Instead, baiting and traps were set. She wanted the landlord to arrange to check for possible entry holes, evidence of rats, and check the neighbouring properties.
The contractor attended on 19 August 2019 and found no evidence of any rodent activity or new points for proofing to stop further vermin gaining entry. The contractor’s report stated that access to the neighbouring properties might be required. The report also referred to “treating the grey squirrel”. It would follow up on 29 August 2019. The landlord stated it would re–assess the situation after the visit on 29 August 2019. According to the landlord, further works were identified.
On 28 August 2019, the landlord considered removing the insulation, arranging a further inspection of the holes which had been filled with wire wool and expanding foam, check for further holes and lay new insulation. It would then arrange for a pest control specialist to re-attend and re-bait the area. The date of 2 September 2019 was agreed, with a follow up on 5 September 2019. The landlord noted that in the findings that there was no evidence of an infestation but raised an inspection in order to rule this out.
The evidence is not entirely clear. However, it appears that the further attendances due to take place on 2 and on 5 September 2019 were cancelled as the infestation was deemed to have been resolved. The insulation was removed on 9 September 2019.
On 1 and 2 October 2019, the resident reported that an appointment had been made with a contractor for 15 October 2019 for an environmental clean. However, she did not see the point of an environmental clean until the entry point holes were blocked. No repairs had happened since the loft insulation removal on 9 September 2019. She had also learnt the landlord would only inspect one neighbouring property, not the entire block. She also reported that she felt the property was colder due to the lack of roof insulation.
There was a follow-up inspection by a pest control contractor. It noted there was no evidence of rodent activity. It noted the resident’s reports of banging in the loft. However, the baits and traps had remained untouched and there were no fresh droppings. It suggested it may be required to access the neighbouring properties.
On 11 October 2019, the landlord attended neighbours’ properties and left a card inviting reports of infestation.
On 14 October 2019, the landlord’s contractor attended to remove baits and traps in order to allow contractors to clean out the loft. The resident reported that the contactor identified holes in the loft.
The landlord wrote to the resident to state that the complaint was still at stage 1 but it would escalate it to stage 2 as requested by the resident.
On 18 October 2019, the landlord’s contractor filled the hole around a pipe in the loft. According to the resident, he was not aware of other holes she had reported.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 November 2019 prior to its formal response to her complaint. It accepted that the works had taken longer than “ideal”. It noted that there was to be a visit on 15 November 2019. It arranged for a member of staff to have oversight of the works to completion. It accepted that its communication could have been more proactive. It apologised. In the circumstances, it wanted to make an offer of redress which would be reviewed after the appointment on 15 November 2019 and it would write again after 25 November 2019.
On 15 November 2019, a joint visit by the landlord and its contractor took place, in order to identify and address any remaining holes. It was concluded that there were no more holes visible and no sign of rodent infestation. It did identify a small gap between the external party walls that needed further inspecting with a cherry picker.
On 20 November 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident saying that it would inspect and deal with the hole in the party wall, as well as check the fascias and soffits, in order to rule out access for the rodents. It had received no reports from next door. It concluded that the holes were proofed, except for the gap above, therefore it could fit new insulation. The resident replied she would get a camera to monitor the vermin.
The works to the party wall were booked for 9 January 2020 as the first available date. In response to the resident’s request, the contractor offered an appointment on the following day but the resident was unable to accept it.
On 1 December 2019, the landlord arranged to look at the gardens for rubbish in the property next door. The resident continued to make her reports and sent photographs of droppings.
On 9 January 2020, the landlord inspected the fascia and soffit. It filled two small holes with wire wool and expanding foam. It inspected the loft but could not identify any evidence of infestation, including that there was no sign of footprints in the flour laid by the resident. It concluded that no further works were required.
On 14 January 2020, the landlord instructed the relevant team to arrange for new insulation to be re-laid in the loft. The loft had been pest–proofed and all gaps filled to prevent further activity.
The resident wrote on 16 January 2020, disputing the landlord’s findings that there were no further gaps, and that there was no evidence of current infestation. The operative’s conclusion that there were no animal footprints in the flour contradicted that of her father. She also disputed that the droppings were not new as, according to the landlord’s own evidence, they appeared after the environmental clean.
The landlord wrote on 21 January 2020 to say it would extend its response time for the complaint to no later than 4 February 2020.
There was a dispute whether the relaying of the insulation was delayed by the landlord or the resident. However, no appointment was made.
On 21 January 2020, the landlord considered arranging an inspection by its surveyor. Its contractor had attended numerous times and there has previously been some evidence of rat infestation. At the most recent visit, no sign of activity was found and all works to seal holes had been completed. The surveyor was of the view that there were no further steps the landlord could take, unless the resident could provide new evidence of infestation.
On 22 January 2020, the landlord noted that there had been no reports from neighbouring properties.
The landlord wrote its “final” response on 30 January 2020. It briefly summarised the events. It stated it was difficult to determine exactly where the access points were, hence the number of visits. It had delivered cards by hand and letters by post to the neighbours inviting then to report any signs of rodent infestation. It asked the resident to report any evidence captured by her camera. It asked her to arrange an appointment for the insulation to be installed.
In recognition of the inconvenience she had experienced and having fully considered her individual circumstances, it offered £390 as a goodwill gesture. It stated the resident could respond within 20 days, after which she could refer the matter to this service.
The resident’s response on 24 February 2020 was as follows:
1. She felt the properties next door should be checked.
2. She felt that the area between the chipboard and ceiling should be checked.
3. The landlord’s communication was poor.
4. She had to wait a long time for appointments and they were briefer than expected.
5. She disputed there was no evidence of infestation. She could hear it still.
6. She did not decline the insulation, she had only pointed out it was pointless. She had not heard back from that team.
7. She was unhappy with the conduct of the landlord’s contractors and their comments to her in particular.
On 31 March 2020, the landlord wrote a further final response. The landlord would not inspect the properties next door unless the neighbours reported a concern. It agreed there had been delays and there had been numerous attendances. It confirmed it was not taking further action as it was satisfied all works were complete. It invited the resident to provide any new evidence (such as photographs and video) that was clearly dated and it would arrange a further attendance. It had raised the resident’s concerns regarding the contractors with the company but was not able to provide feedback due to data protection. It advised that the loft insulation be re-instated.
In relation to an offer of compensation, the offer was increased to £637 in recognition of the delays in carrying out repairs and of the inconvenience she had experienced and having fully considered her individual circumstances. It was broken down as follows:
1. Delays £50
2. Serious Inconvenience (June 2019 to January 2020) £200
3. Failed appointments £40
4. Time taken to resolve complaint £100
5. Communication £50
6. Ladders £42.50
7. Dust sheets £13.50
8. Increased utilities (September to January 2020) £141
9. Total £637
On 1 April 2020, the resident accepted the offer. She did not agree the matter was resolved, but accepted the complaint process had concluded. She stated that the landlord surveyor had not inspected the loft, as far as she was aware, despite assurances that he would. She felt the service improved once her complaint had reached the second stage. She hoped for improved responses to reports, better communication, and more empathy.

Assessment and findings

The landlord‘s response to the resident’s report of rodent infestation, including the level of compensation offered to the resident.

There is some initial confusion as to whether this was a squirrel or rat infestation. However, this made little difference to the outcome of the resident’s complaint. There was also a dispute about the dates of the first report and complaint but again, it was so minor as to make no material difference to this investigation.
The initial response time by the landlord to the resident’s report was reasonable. It arranged for a contractor to attend the property within a few days to at most a week. Under its policy, its response timescale for routine repairs was 28 days (or 20 working days). While the resident’s concerns were very understandable, it was reasonable of the landlord to treat the report as routine, not an emergency, given there was no immediate risk to the resident’s health and safety or to the integrity of the property, such as a water leak. In any event, it stated that the repairs would take place after the infestation treatment, which did not conclude until 26 or 28 June 2019.
It was, however, a significant and inappropriate delay that the landlord did not carry out the works to fill the holes until 8 August 2019, approximately two months after the first report. From then on, there was a dispute whether the holes had been addressed. However, the landlord responded to the resident’s further reports by re-inspecting and carrying out further repairs. There was a further inappropriate delay in removing the insulation, contacting the neighbours regarding access and the condition of their garden, and carrying out an environmental clean. The landlord, however, acted reasonably carrying out a further inspection on 15 November 2019 and carrying out the further works on 9 January 2020.
In response to the resident’s further reports, the landlord considered what steps it could take. The resident’s own contractor was satisfied that the infestation had been dealt with as at 28 June 2019. While the contractor identified signs of infestation on 13 August 2019, none was identified thereafter, despite a number of visits to the property. The further inspections on 15 November 2019 and 9 January 2020 addressed the further potential entry points. The landlord identified no further entry points to repair. While the resident disputed the findings, the landlord was entitled to conclude after a number of inspections by both themselves and its specialist contractor that there was no evidence of infestation in the loft. It had also inspected the loft on a number of occasions and repaired all the holes it had identified. It was a reasonable conclusion not to take any further steps without further evidence. The landlord suggested the resident provide it with dated and timed photographs. It made assurances that it would take further steps, should the resident present such evidence.
However, both the resident’s and landlord’s contractors had suggested the neighbours’ properties were an avenue of enquiry. While the Ombudsman has reached the conclusion that the landlord’s position was reasonable the Ombudsman is also mindful of the clear distress suffered by the resident and her reports of hearing further noises. In these circumstances, it would be reasonable for the landlord’s own surveyor to inspect the property, as well as the neighbours’ property, if possible, and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard. While it was reasonable not to inspect the neighbouring properties, given the neighbours had not reported any infestation, it may be advisable to consider this, in order to be thorough.
The landlord accepted that there were delays. It also accepted that the process required numerous visits. Its explanation that the number of visits were due to the fact it was difficult to identify entry points was reasonable. Under the tenancy agreement, the responsibility of eliminating pests was the resident’s. The exception would be where the infestation was due to the fault of the landlord. There was no clear evidence of fault, and certainly none in respect of the initial infestation, however the landlord paid for the initial contractor and also it instructed a pest control contractor itself. In addition, it offered compensation of £340 in relation to the delays, lack of communication including the failed appointments. It also paid a contribution towards the resident’s expenses and increased energy costs in the amount of £197. It took into account the resident’s particular circumstances. The landlord had stated that the offer was more generous than the policy allowed. While the offer of compensation was not necessarily more generous than its policy would allow, the offer was certainly in line with its compensation policy.
When considering disputes about the level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a landlord’s own compensation policy and also this Service’s own Remedies Guidance when assessing whether an offer was reasonable. In addition, the Ombudsman’s compensation awards are not punitive, are generally moderate and take into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord. Taking the sums in total, in the Ombudsman’s opinion and taking all the circumstances into account, the compensation offered was fair compensation for the delays, distress and poor communication the resident experienced.

The landlord’s complaint handling, including delays in responses.

The delays in the landlord’s complaint responses were significant, in particular during the first stage. The complaint was made in June 2019. While it is noted that the landlord was seeking to resolve the issue, the landlord should nevertheless adhere to its complaints policy. Its complaints policy required that it provide a response at the first stage of the complaints process in five to ten days or less, unless a reason was given and 20 working days at the second stage. However, it is also noted that the landlord used its complaints process to investigate what action it could reasonably take and addressed the resident’s concerns. It provided a point of contact, continuity, and oversight. It offered compensation. It also reviewed its final decision. Given the fluid way that the landlord handled the complaint in this case was beneficial overall, the Ombudsman considered that the compensation to the resident was fair in recognition of its delays.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to:
1. The landlord‘s response to the resident’s report of rodent infestation, including the level of compensation offered to the resident.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling, including delays in responses.

Reasons

While there were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports, the landlord also undertook the necessary repairs. The landlord recognised the delays and offered compensation that was in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s own Remedies Guidance. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this was reasonable redress in the circumstances.
There were significant delays in the landlord’s complaint process. However, the overall handling meant that the landlord investigated its own actions and responded to the resident’s concerns. The Ombudsman considered that the compensation of £100 in relation to its complaint handling was, again, in line with its landlord’s compensation policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s own Remedies Guidance and constituted appropriate redress for the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

If the resident is still reporting infestation, it is recommended that the landlord arranges for its own surveyor to inspect the loft prior to the insulation being re-laid for access points, if it has not already done so.
The landlord considers requesting access to the neighbouring properties to inspect for infestation and access points between the properties.
The landlord takes note of the resident’s comments of 1 April 2020 regarding responses, communication and empathy.
The landlord should ensure that it adheres to its own complaint procedures, especially in relation to timescales, so that its complaint responses do not get delayed and continues to ensure there is oversight by a member of the complaint team and that it uses the complaints process to review its own actions. The landlord is referred to the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. Complaint Handling Code – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).