Sanctuary Housing Association (201914678)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914678

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 July 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a rat infestation in the property.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured joint tenant of the landlord in a 2 bedroom bungalow, in a terrace of 4 bungalows. The landlord told this Service it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the resident told this Service on 8 July 2021 that her husband (joint tenant) suffered from dementia.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair record, provided for this investigation, shows that the landlord was dealing with a rat infestation at the resident’s property in June 2017. This is the earliest entry on the recorded provided, and it is noted that the resident said the rat issue had been ongoing for “6 years” at the time of her complaint. The record shows that the landlord attended to block access holes at the property on 3 December 2018.
The resident reported further issues with rats on 20 November 2019, and asked the landlord to seal the her property “internally” to stop the rats getting in. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 December 2019, to make a complaint and said:
1. She was “promised 3 weeks ago” that the problem with the rats would be dealt with “once and for all”;
2. She was told that a pest control company would be in touch to make an appointment to inspect the loft, but nobody had contacted her;
3. She was told that the inspection would seek to find “all ingress points” and the landlord would do follow up work to block all of the access holes.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 February and 27 February 2020, asking for an update as the pest control service had not attended, and no inspection had taken place.
On 10 March 2020, the landlord did a joint visit to the property with a pest control operative, and completed a “full inspection of the roof space”. In an internal email of 11 March 2020, the landlord said:
1. Some of the traps placed had been “activated” and 5 mice were found in the traps;
2. The pest control operative was of the opinion that “the trapped mice were not due to recent activity” and there was no evidence of “recent rodent activity”;
3. There were no “obvious access points”, but there was a gap between the rafters that it would block with wire mesh;
4. New traps and “tracing powder” were laid;
5. The pest control company would visit again on 16 March 2020 to inspect traps and tracing powder and “hopefully” fit the wire mesh;
6. Once it was sure there was no further rat activity it would fit new insulation “between the joists” as the insulation present was not installed properly;
7. It reported the resident was “happy” with what was put in place;
The landlord spoke to the resident on 23 March 2020 and she confirmed that no rats had been found at recent pest control visits. It said that the pest control company were going to make recommendations, which would be on hold due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Its notes reflect that the resident agreed for her complaint to be closed, subject to the landlord confirming its position in writing. The landlord emailed the resident on 30 March 2020 and said that she had agreed to close her complaint “on the understanding that all recommended works” would take place once restrictions were lifted.
The resident contacted this Service on 22 January 2021 and said that she was unhappy with how the landlord was dealing with the rat infestation at her property. This Service wrote to the landlord on the same day and asked it to contact the resident to discuss her complaint.
Internal emails for the landlord on 4 February 2021 show that it decided to open a new stage 1 complaint, due to the length of time the previous complaint had been closed. It said that the contractor had made recommendations for access points to be blocked, and the resident had been told that, due to Covid-19 restrictions, the works could not be done at the time. It said there had been a failure because the recommendations were “never followed up”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 February 2021 and said that it had opened a new stage 1 complaint to “look into the potential failings” of its handling of her complaint. The resident responded on the same day and said that she was unhappy her complaint was being dealt with at stage 1 again. She asked the landlord to “abide by the written agreement” and take the action it had agreed when it closed her original complaint. The landlord responded on 5 February 2021 and said that it had opened a new complaint, so that it could investigate why the recommendations from her previous complaint “were not followed up”.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement letter on 5 February 2021 and said that she would be contacted within 20 working days. It said she would receive a written response 10 working days after that.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 February 2021 and said that she had not been contacted by the landlord’s surveyor, as it had promised. The landlord responded on 10 February 2021 and apologised for the delay. It said it had “chased up” the surveyor to ask them to arrange the survey.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 March 2021 and said that her complaint had now been assigned and it had started its investigation. It said it had asked for an update from the surveyor who had been overseeing the investigations into the cause of the rat infestation.
A contractor for the landlord completed a ‘structural report on vermin infestation’ on 15 March 2021, it inspected the resident’s property, and the 3 adjoining properties. The report said:
1. There was an “ongoing rat infestation in the roof voids” of the properties. It said the clear points of entry for the rats was the “perpendicular weep joints” of the brickwork;
2. The rats were likely using the weep joints to gain access to the wall cavity and were then moving up into the roof space. The rats could then move freely between the properties, due to the openings in the party walls;
3. It recommended that the landlord “urgently” engage a pest control company to bait and trap the roof spaces of the properties;
4. It noted that the landlord had already blocked the weep joints at the resident’s property with wire mesh, and it should block the weep joints in the other properties urgently;
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 April 2021 and said that rats were still in the roof space of her property, and she could hear them in the wall cavity. The landlord responded on 21 April 2021 and said that it was “speaking with the pest contractor” to decide what action was required and it would keep the resident updated.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 June 2021 and said it had asked for an update on the entry point works and when they would be completed. It apologised for the delay and said it would provide an update, as soon as it had a response.
The landlord’s records show a pest control operative visited the resident’s property on 18 June 2021, and set up bait at her property and the adjoining properties. The landlord emailed the resident on 23 June 2021 and said that the pest control works had started, but it was still waiting for a response from the surveyor about the building works.
The pest control operative visited the resident’s property again on 23 August 2021 and found “no activity” of vermin. The landlord emailed the resident on 26 August 2021 and said it was “still awaiting a decision” on the building works to block the access holes. It apologised for the delay and said it would keep the resident updated on its progress.
An internal email for the landlord of 15 September 2021 shows that it had inspected the works to block the weep holes and it was satisfied the access points were blocked.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 20 September 2021 and said:
1. It was pleased to confirm that the repairs linked to the complaint had now been completed;
2. The infestation works were an ongoing programme which would involve regular visits, including inspections of the roof space;
3. The works took longer than expected and it apologised for the delay;
4. It wanted to reassure the resident that it would address and give feedback to the relevant teams about the delays in completing the works;
5. It offered the resident £200 in compensation for the “overall impact” of its handling of the matter;
6. It offered the resident £50 in compensation for the “lack of communication”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 September 2021 and said:
1. She was unhappy with its complaint response and wanted to escalate her complaint to the next stage;
2. She did not believe the landlord had “done all that [was] required to resolve the issue;
3. Sending a pest control company out “again and again” did not stop the rats at source and was a temporary solution;
4. She felt that “no amount of compensation would cover the stress and upset” the matter had caused;
The landlord responded on the same day and said that it wanted to assure the resident that the “entry points identified in the report” were blocked. It asked the resident if she had witnessed recent rodent activity or there were “any works specifically” that were not done.
The resident’s MP emailed the landlord on 27 September 2021 and said:
1. The resident felt that when she previously agreed for her complaint to be closed, she was of the view that it was “on hold” due to the Covid-19 pandemic;
2. The resident felt that it should have opened the complaint at stage 2;
3. The resident was dissatisfied that shortly after a meeting with the landlord at her property, it issued its stage 1 complaint response on the same day. She felt that it had not addressed the matters discussed at the meeting.
The landlord responded on the same day and said that “paths had crossed” and that it accepted there was an “issue around communication” which it would feedback to the relevant teams. It wrote again on 29 September 2021 to acknowledge her stage 2 complaint, and said it would complete its investigation within 20 working days.
A pest control operative attended the resident’s property on 1 October 2021 and reported there was no evidence of recent rodent activity. The pest control company completed a joint visit to the property with the landlord on 14 October 2021. The report indicates that the surveyor for the landlord believed rodents were accessing the property “deep under the path at the side of the house”. The report says the surveyor was of the opinion that the landlord would likely “not sanction digging up the side of the house” but would include the recommendation in the report.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 25 October 2021 and said:
1. It was disappointed that it had not completed the recommended works as it had agreed on closing the resident’s original stage 1 complaint. It apologised for the inconvenience it had caused and said it was not the standard of service it expected;
2. It shared the resident’s concerns about how the complaint had been dealt with at stage 1 and would give feedback on its findings to the “relevant senior manager” to avoid it happening again;
3. The most recent visit from the pest control contractor had found no evidence of rodent activity, but it would continue the pest control visits until June 2022;
4. Its surveyor and the pest control contractor had done a joint visit to establish where rodents were entering the property. It would agree a “plan of action” once it received the report from the joint visit;
5. It had decided to increase the offer of compensation for the inconvenience caused by the infestation issue and for its complaint handling, as follows:
  1. £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience;
  2. £75 for its complaint handling.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure

The resident contacted the landlord on 29 October 2021 and said that she could hear rats moving around in the loft space of her property. On 1 November 2021, the landlord raised an “urgent drain survey” to identify “all internal/external runs” to identify where the rats were entering the building.
A pest control operative attended on 3 and 11 November 2021 and found no recent evidence of rat activity and noted that no bait had been taken. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 November 2021 and said that it was not taking the steps it had agreed to “prevent the rats entering the property” and pest control visits were not fixing the problem.
A pest control operative attended the resident’s property on 18 November 2021 and found there was evidence of rat activity, as bait boxes had been “chewed”. The operative laid bait in the drains of the property, and returned on 6 December 2021 and found no bait had been taken from the drains.
The resident emailed this Service and asked us to investigate her complaint, as the rat infestation was ongoing, and was “very distressing”. She said the landlord was just inspecting “above ground level” where there was “no possibility” of the rats getting in.
A pest control operative attended the resident’s property on 21 January 2022 and found no bait had been taken. An operative attended again on 1 March 2022 and the resident reported that there had been no recent rat activity.
On 25 March 2022, the landlord excavated 30 slabs on the pathway outside the property and found no “no evidence of rat runs or ingress into the property from underneath the paved pathways”.
In its communication with this Service the landlord said that it had opened a new stage 1 complaint in relation to its handling of the rat infestation, on 8 May 2023, and it was still conducting investigations into the rat infestation, in particular how rats are entering the property.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies, procedures and obligations

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
The landlord’s pest and infestation guidance for residents states it is responsible for “any infestation in an internal communal area, which affects more than one property in a building, where access is through a defect in the fabric of the building.”
The landlord’s repair procedure has two categories for repair: ‘emergency repairs’ which it says it will attend to make safe within 24 hours and ‘appointed repairs’ which it aims to complete within 28 days.
The landlord’s complaints procedure, at the time of the resident’s complaint, stated that it should acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, and send stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days. The procedure stated it should issue its stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that for “high impact” instances of time, trouble and inconvenience it can offer up to £400 in compensation. The guidance states that it can offer up to £150 in compensation for poor complaint handling when the resident experiences “significant difficulties” when going through the complaints procedure.
The government guidance for landlords in relation to repairs and the Covid-19 pandemic, around March 2020 (when the resident’s initial stage 1 complaint was closed), stated:
1. It was recommended that access to property was only undertaken for “serious and urgent” issues;
2. Restrictions may prevent “routine” repairs;
3. Visits could still be made for “urgent health and safety issues” such as testing fire alarms and emergency lighting systems.
On 18 May 2020 the government updated its guidance to state that there should be a resumption of “routine repairs”.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation in her property

Under the tenancy agreement, it is the resident’s responsibility to deal with vermin in the property. Where there is an infestation, a landlord should ensure that the property is free from any outstanding repair (for which it is responsible) which is leading or contributing to the infestation. The rat infestation was a complex issue, given there were multiple entry points that were not easy to identify. The landlord did show a genuine desire to resolve the issue and took responsibility appropriately. This investigation has considered whether the landlord’s communication, response times and overall approach were in line with its obligations, policies, procedures and reasonable in the circumstances of this case.
After the resident made her original stage 1 complaint on 11 December 2019, she sent the landlord 2 further emails in February 2020, stating that the landlord had not done what it said it would in relation to the infestation. The evidence does not show that the landlord was communicating effectively with the resident during this time, to manage her expectations about what it was planning to do to resolve the situation.
The landlord’s internal communications, around this time, suggest that it was taking the matter seriously. It was regularly seeking updates from its pest control contractor, as there were delays in the proposed works taking place. Given it was doing this proactive work, it would have been reasonable for it have given regular updates to the resident about what it was doing. This may have given her reassurance that the matter was in hand. Its failure to do this left the resident feeling that promises the landlord had made had not been actioned and “months” had passed. Had it explained to the resident that it was experiencing delays with its contractor, this would have gone some way to managing the resident’s expectations.
At the time of closing the resident’s complaint, in March 2020, there had been two recent visits from a pest control operative, that found no evidence of rat activity. Further recommendations were made to prevent future access of rats. The government restrictions at the time advised against completing repairs that weren’t “serious and urgent”. It therefore was reasonable for the landlord to advise the works would be done when restrictions were lifted. There was no evidence of recent rat activity and rats had not been present within the living space of the resident’s property, and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to categorise the proposed works as not urgent.
The landlord agreed to confirm in writing that it was closing the resident’s complaint on the basis that it would complete the proposed works when Covid-19 restrictions eased. The landlord’s email of 30 March 2020 did not detail what the proposed works were and did not give a timeframe of when it would update the resident. This was a failure to manage the resident’s expectations on the works it was proposing, and a failure to deal with the matter proactively. It would have been reasonable for it to agree a timeframe with the resident on when it would be in contact to discuss the matter. A proactive approach such as this would have reasonably helped to manage the resident’s expectations that the matter was being taken seriously by the landlord. It would have also removed the onus being placed on the resident to raise the matter and ask it take action at a later date.
In May 2020 the government eased Covid-19 recommendations for landlords and said that “routine repairs” should resume. The landlord had previously agreed that it would complete the recommended repairs, when restrictions lifted. It is reasonable to expect it to have contacted the resident in May 2020 to tell her it was able to complete the repairs it had agreed. By its own admission, the landlord did not do this. This was a failure to abide by an agreement it had made with the resident.
Following contact from the resident, in February 2021, advising that the rat infestation issue was not resolved, the landlord arranged a ‘structural report on vermin infestation’ which took place on 15 March 2021. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, as it was evident its previous work had been unsuccessful. This shows that the landlord took a thorough approach by arranging a survey to enable it to better understand the matter.
However, records show that it did not complete the works recommended in the survey (block “weep holes” and other access points) until September 2021. This was 6 months after the recommended works were suggested, and was a failure to abide by the timescale in its repairs procedure of 28 days for ‘appointed repairs’. Internal communications for the landlord evidence it discussing which budget the repair should come from and which team were responsible for paying for the proposed works. Given the length of time it had already taken to identify and propose the works, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to prioritise completing the works, and to have agreed budgetary responsibilities after the works were done.
It is noted that between the works being recommended in March 2021 and the landlord completing the works in September 2021, the landlord gave regular updates to the resident and repeatedly apologised for the delay. It sought to manage the resident’s expectations and explained it was chasing the relevant teams to get an update. This is evidence it sought to learn from its previous failing of not communicating effectively with the resident. This evidences a [EG1] proactive approach by the landlord, as it provided updates and explained the reasons for delays. During this period there were regular visits by pest control operatives, which shows that the landlord was taking the rat infestation seriously. It sought to reduce rat activity, while it worked to block access completely.
When the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 September 2021, the resident said that she was unhappy and wanted to escalate her complaint. The resident said she felt the pest control visits were not dealing with the substantive issue of the rats’ access. The landlord responded the next day and explained that it was of the view it had also blocked all of the access points, and asked the resident to clarify any access points she felt it had not blocked. This was a good approach, as the landlord did not wait to outline its position in a stage 2 complaint response. It sought to address the resident’s concerns, and asked her for further information about what work she felt was needed.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged that the issue was unresolved, and clearly set out what it planned to do to address it. The landlord gave a clear timeframe of when it would provide pest control support until (June 2022) and outlined that it would formulate a “plan of action” to block access holes. This is evidence that the landlord sought to learn from outcomes in its handling of the matter up to this point. It previously closed a complaint with an open ended approach and did not provide clarity by outlining what it planned to do, or when it hoped to do it by.
The landlord raised an order to dig up the pathway alongside the resident’s house in March 2022. This was 5 months after its joint visit with a pest control operative had identified the pathway as the likely area in which rats were gaining access. The landlord told this Service that it excavated the pathway in March 2022 and found no evidence of rat activity. The landlord could not provide evidence of its decision making at the time, but said it was “likely the excavation work was held until Spring 2022 because resource availability was low[…] due to the Covid-19 pandemic.”
The landlord had acknowledged that there was poor communication and a delay in dealing with the matter. It is therefore reasonable to expect the landlord to have taken this action sooner, or be able to provide evidence of the reasons for its decision not to take action. It is also reasonable to expect it to be able to detail how it explained its decision making to the resident. The lack of evidence suggests it did not communicate its decision making to the resident, and is a further failing in its communication with the resident in relation to the matter.
The 5 month delay of raising the order to dig up and investigate the pathway fell well outside of the 28 day repair timeframe, set out in the landlord’s repairs procedure. Given the complexity of the issue, the Ombudsman accepts that it is not reasonable to expect the landlord to have resolved the matter within 28 days. The landlord also told this Service that the works to dig the pathway were “not urgent” due to limited evidence of rat activity at pest control visits. However, it is reasonable to expect it to have raised orders for non urgent works that were recommended by its operatives within the 28 day timeframe set out in its repairs procedure. The landlord has been unable to provide evidence for this investigation that it reasonably deviated from its repairs procedure. The result of the further delay for the resident was further distress, time and trouble, as the delay in progressing with the works increased her concern that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord offered the resident £400 in compensation for the “time, trouble and inconvenience” she experienced in its handling of the rat infestation. In line with its compensation policy , this was the maximum it could offer in “high impact” cases. This is evidence that the landlord had due consideration for the impact the situation had on the resident and was reasonable in the circumstances up to that point. However, after the landlord made its offer of compensation there were further failings. There was a delay in ordering the works to dig up the pathway, which resulted in further detriment to the resident. Therefore its offer of compensation in its final complaint response, did not fully put things right for the resident, and has been taken into consideration in the orders below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord agreed with the resident to close her original stage 1 complaint in March 2020, on the understanding it would complete works once Covid-19 restrictions were lifted. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, as it was a time of significant uncertainty, and the landlord did not know when it would be able to commence the works. As outlined above, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have outlined a timeframe in which it would contact the resident to give updates.
The resident made contact with this Service on 22 January 2021 and asked for assistance with the matter, as she was unhappy with how the landlord was dealing with it. This is evidence that the open ended approach, and failure to maintain proactive communication with the resident cost her time and trouble. Had the landlord sought to manage her expectations and give regular updates about its position, this may have reduced the resident’s concern that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
The landlord opened a new stage 1 complaint in relation to the matter, when it was raised again in January 2021. It said that it did so due to the amount of time since the original stage 1 complaint was closed. Also, so it could investigate its failure to not follow up on its agreement. When the resident expressed her dissatisfaction at this approach, the landlord explained its position that it had opened a new complaint, so it could investigate its handling of the previous complaint. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage one complaint acknowledgement said that the person investigating her complaint would contact her within 20 working days, and she would receive a written response within 10 working days of that contact. This approach was not in line with the timeframes set out in the landlord’s complaints procedure, and those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s procedure at the time said it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, however its complaint acknowledgment indicated that the resident would not get a response for 30 working days. This was a failure to apply its complaint procedure and the Code.
The result was a protracted complaints process for the resident. The landlord contacted the resident within 20 working days, on 4 March 2021, stating that it had started its complaint investigation. This was in line with what it had said it would do, but the result was a near month delay of it not investigating the resident’s complaint. Its procedure stated that it should have started investigating her complaint within 5 days of her making it, and the delay was a further inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord kept the resident’s stage 1 complaint open while it was trying to resolve the substantive issue of the rat infestation. During this period, the landlord provided the resident with regular updates on what it was doing. It repeatedly apologised for the delay and explained that it was chasing contractors and the relevant team to progress matters. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, as the landlord sought to learn from its handling of the previous complaint. Rather than issue a response and outline what it would do to resolve the issue, it deviated from its complaints procedure and kept the complaint open. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, as it sought to learn from its poor communication before and ensure that it was in regular contact with the resident about her case. Keeping the complaint open enabled to maintain oversight of the issue to ensure it was progressing.
When the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 September 2021, the landlord offered £250 in compensation for its handling of the rat infestation, £50 of which was for a lack of communication. The landlord failed to give a detailed explanation of what went wrong and why it did not follow up when it closed her original stage 1 complaint. The landlord said that it had opened a new stage 1 complaint, so it could investigate its handling of the previous stage 1 complaint. It is therefore reasonable to expect the landlord to have given an explanation of the findings to the resident. However, the complaint response was cursory and did not identify what it had learnt from the outcome of its previous handling of the matter. This was an inconvenience to the resident, as the landlord did not do what it had agreed to when it opened a new stage 1 complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not offer any compensation for its complaint handling. Its compensation guidance states that it can offer up to £150 for failings identified in its complaint handling. The landlord identified failings in its handling of the resident’s original stage 1 complaint, and it would therefore have been reasonable to try to put those admitted failings right.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on the same day that its operatives visited the resident’s property and agreed some actions with the resident. The landlord later said that there was an “issue around communication”. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have known its operatives were visiting the resident’s property to discuss the substantive issue. It is therefore reasonable to expect it not to have issued its stage 1 complaint response until it had discussed the issue with those who attended the resident’s property. It could then understand the latest issues relating to the matter and ascertain what actions it had agreed to take. By not taking this approach the resident was left feeling that its complaint response did not deal with the issues discussed at the meeting. The result was distress for the resident, as she was left feeling that she was not being listened to and the landlord’s complaint response was cursory.
The landlord’s complaints procedure, and the Code, state that a landlord should issue its complaint response within 20 working days. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 26 working days after the resident asked it to escalate her complaint. It is noted that the response was issued 19 working days after its complaint acknowledgement, but there was an unreasonable delay of 8 working days in acknowledging the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaint response did not acknowledge or apologise for the fact that its response was late. The Code states that when there is a delay at Stage 2 of the complaints procedure, the landlord should provide an “explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received”. The delay, although not significant, was a further failure in what had already been a protracted complaints process for the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did seek to address the matter which it did not in its stage 1 response. It gave an explanation that not following up on the works fell below the standard of service it expected and that it had learnt from the outcome by giving feedback to the relevant senior managers. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord offered the resident £75 in compensation in recognition of the failings it identified in its complaint handling. It said it had identified failings in its handling of the resident’s original stage 1 complaint and provided feedback to senior managers. This evidences learning from the outcomes of the case and that it sought to put things right for the resident. However, it did not acknowledge that its complaint handling at stage 1 in the resident’s new complaint was poor and did not address the main reason it had opened a new complaint (the need to investigate its handling of the original complaint).
The landlord did not acknowledge that the timeframes in its stage 1 complaint acknowledgement were not in line with its own procedure and the Code. It also did not apologise for, or acknowledge, the delay at stage 2. The result was a protracted complaints process for the resident and inconvenience of not having the substantive issues being dealt with at stage 1. The amount of compensation the landlord offered did not put things right for the resident and has and has been taken into consideration in the orders below.

Determination (decision)

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

Reasons

The landlord failed to follow through on promises it made in relation to the rat infestation, which resulted in a delay for the resident. The resident was cost time and trouble in needing to follow up matters with the landlord, as the landlord was not proactive in dealing with the issue. After the landlord issued its final complaint response, there were further delays in completing works, which led to further detriment to the resident.
The landlord failed to follow up on actions it agreed to take during the resident’s original complaint. Despite saying it intended to investigate its handling of the original stage 1 complaint, the later stage 1 complaint response failed to address it in any meaningful way. It did seek to learn from the outcomes by providing more regular communication throughout the later stage 1 complaint. However its final complaint response failed to address the failings in its stage 1 complaint response and the delays at stage 2 of the process. Its offer of compensation did not put things right for the resident.

Orders

With 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report;
2. Pay the resident £725 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £400 it offered for its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation (if it has not already done so);
  2. A further £150 in recognition of the distress, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation;
  3. The £75 it offered for its complaint handling (if it has not already done so);
  4. A further £100 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident for the failings in its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to complete a review into its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation, and identify points of learning, with a particular emphasis on:
1. Reducing delays between recommendations and work orders being raised;
2. How discussions about budgetary responsibility contributed to delays in works being completed, and how this can be avoided in future;
3. How agreements made are followed up on, to ensure that agreed works are completed.

[EG1]evidences