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

Sanctuary Housing Association (201914691)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914691

Sanctuary Housing Association

5 March 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy agreement began on 25 October 2004 and describes the property as a 1-bedroom 1st floor flat. The flat is within a converted 2 floor building.
  2. The landlord has a pests and infestations leaflet for residents that advises that dealing with a pest infestation is usually the responsibility of the resident.
  3. The landlord has a bed bugs guidance document that states tenants are responsible for organising surveys and treatments where bed bugs are found in a ‘general needs’ self-contained property. It adds that where bed bugs are reported within a scheme with multiple properties, ‘the Area Manager/Scheme Manager and Housing Officer should be notified so that they can take responsibility for the process.’ The guidance states that the landlord should:
    1. arrange for specialist treatment services to carry out a survey and visit the site
    2. complete a risk assessment if a decant is required
    3. write to all residents in the scheme if the infestation is in a communal area or not contained to one property and if ‘there is an issue that cannot be treated straightaway, it would be good practice to update other residents as soon as possible’
    4. be clear about the level of intrusion into resident’s homes and belongings if inspection and treatment is required
    5. manage the situation with regular reviews to ensure the infestation is still contained and works progress in a timely manner
  4. The landlord has a two stage complaints process with a front line resolution stage (with a likely timescale of 5-10 working days) following by an investigation stage (with a 20 working day timescale).
  5. The landlord has compensation guidance that states it can pay compensation in exceptional circumstances – it includes tariffs such as £25 for a serious inconvenience of failure to follow policy. For damaged possessions, it adds that it ‘will only pay compensation where damage has been caused by the direct action of its employees, or if a lack of action by Sanctuary has led to damaged belongings’ and ‘will strongly encourage customers to take up their own contents insurance policy.’

Summary of Events

  1. The landlord’s records show that the resident made a telephone call to it on 19 November 2019. The landlord noted that the resident reported a bed bug problem and that she was aware (from a neighbour) that another address within the scheme was undergoing treatment for this. The landlord recorded that the resident had sought an emergency decant but this was refused although staff stated they would liaise with the housing department the following day.
  2. The landlord’s records show the resident attended its office on 20 November 2019 and it was agreed that a pest control job would be raised. The landlord’s repairs records show a job was raised on 20 November 2019 with a note stating that the resident had originally noticed a problem around three weeks earlier. It was added that the earliest contractors could attend was 22 November 2019.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint on 22 November 2019. She advised that a neighbour had told her he had experienced bed bugs since April 2019 that were now impacting her. She stated that her property should have been inspected and advice given to prevent the infestation reaching her property. She added that the call centre had not been able to deal with her report on 19 November 2019 and that her housing officer had refused a decant despite the physical and mental impact of the bed bugs. She reported that she was seeking compensation as she would have to dispose of her mattress and manage all her other possessions.
  4. The landlord’s records show a decision was made on 22 November 2019 to provide hotel accommodation for two weeks and that the housing manager had agreed it could find a placement beyond its usual budget.
  5. The landlord’s records show that it authorised allowances for travel and meals to be paid to the resident during the period 25-27 November 2019.
  6. The pest control contractor produced a report of a visit on 29 November 2019 that showed all areas in the bedroom were treated during the visit. Under the pests found section, the contractor noted ‘bed bugs’.
  7. The landlord noted on 4 December 2019 that the resident was seeking £1752.70 compensation as part of her complaint. This was to cover replacement bedding, medical costs and distress caused.
  8. The landlord’s records show that the hotel decant placement was extended for another week on 5 December 2019 to allow more pest control treatment (an additional meal allowance payment was also subsequently paid).
  9. The pest control contractor provided a report to the landlord on 10 December 2019 – they advised that they had attended on 22 November 2019 and found a light bed bug infestation but had been unable to carry out a treatment as the property had not been prepared. It was added that they would not recommend bed removal or disposal of belongings at this stage (they would only do so with a high level of infestation). The contractor reported that it had not seen bed bug activity on 29 November 2019.
  10. A member of the landlord’s staff wrote to the resident on 10 December 2019 to confirm a hotel booking. It was added that the pest control contractor had advised that they could not carry out a treatment on 22 November 2019 because the resident had not prepared the property. The resident wrote back the same day querying aspects of this email.
  11. The pest control contractor produced a report of a visit on 11 December 2019 that again showed all areas in the bedroom were treated during the visit. Under the pests found section, the contractor noted ‘none’ and added that a ‘thorough inspection’ found ‘no live activity’. A recommendation was made for all bedding and clothing to be washed. The pest control contractor reported back to the landlord on the same day – they reiterated that they would not recommend disposal of belongings at this point.
  12. The landlord’s records show the hotel decant placement was ended on 13 December 2019 as the contractor had again reported no bed bug activity.
  13. The landlord’s records show that the resident called on 13 December 2019 to report that she had seen bed bugs in the property after returning to it. It was noted that the resident was informed that the treatment the day before would still be working and the contractors were due to return on 23 December 2019.
  14. The resident submitted photographs to the landlord on 6 January 2020 and reported that the pest control treatment had damaged her wardrobe and flooring. The records indicate an inspection was booked for 10 January 2020 to review this report. The pest control contractor subsequently referred back to the landlord on 14 January 2020 to state that the alleged damage was ‘not consistent with the products we have used’.
  15. The landlord issued a formal complaint response on 17 January 2020, concluding that:
    1. it is not required to notify residents of a pest infestation for smaller housing schemes
    2. although the resident reported the matter to the contact centre on 19 November 2019, an order was not raised for contractors to attend until the resident visited the landlord’s office on 20 November 2019
    3. the contractor attended on 22 November 2019 and reported a light infestation of bed bugs but no treatment could be carried out because the resident had not been advised to prepare the property in advance
    4. the contractor attended on 29 November 2019, 11 December 2019, 17 December 2019 and 23 December 2019 when it carried out treatments but did not witness any bed bug activity
    5. the resident had reported damage to a wardrobe and shelf on 6 January 2020 but the contractor inspected on 10 January 2020 and refuted that this was due to products used by it (as they used a diluted solution)
    6. the contractor had denied telling the resident that she should dispose of her mattress as she alleged in an email of 25 November 2019
    7. the compensation claim was refused given no service failure had been found so the resident was advised to make a claim through her insurance provider
    8. an apology was offered for comments made within the email to the resident on 10 December 2019 (that the resident had failed to prepare her property on 22 November 2019)
    9. compensation of £130 was offered for laundry costs (£30), miscommunication regarding the preparation of the resident’s home (£25), delay in the complaint response (£50) and inconvenience caused by preparing the property for treatment (£25)
  16. The resident expressed continued dissatisfaction on 29 January 2020 and suggested she had been discriminated against. She disputed the complaint outcomes on the following grounds:
    1. the resident claimed that the contractor had seen evidence of bed bugs during at least two visits
    2. she believed the landlord was responsible for the infestation reaching her property from a neighbouring property and queried why the size of the scheme made a difference
    3. she did not agree with the decision that the contractor was not responsible for the damage to her possessions
    4. she asked for further explanation of the email sent to her on 10 December 2019
    5. she reiterated that the contractor had told her to dispose of her mattress and this was common advice in any case
    6. she chased the collection of her neighbour’s household items from the garden
  17. The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 27 February 2020 when it concluded that:
    1. it decided not to inform other residents about an infestation at another address within the scheme given it was thought that the infestation was contained and treatment was ongoing
    2. the resident had reported bed bugs on 19 November 2019 and immediately asked to be moved into temporary accommodation
    3. its contractors had attended on 22 November 2019 and a decision had been taken to decant the resident for the period 22 November 2019 to 13 December 2019 due to the resident’s individual concerns
    4. pest treatment could not be carried out on 22 November 2019 because the resident had not been forewarned to prepare the property for this
    5. treatments were conducted on four occasions despite no bed bug activity having been found
    6. it had not found any evidence that its contractors had damaged the resident’s possessions or told her to dispose of her mattress
    7. it concluded that it had dealt with the compensation request appropriately by refusing the request on the grounds no service failure had been identified and signposted the resident to make an insurance claim
    8. another apology was offered for incorrect information within the email of 10 December 2019
    9. compensation of £140 was offered, including an additional £10 offer because the resident needed to chase the disposal of the neighbour’s items
  18. The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 March 2020 to advise that she would contact her MP to progress the matter.
  19. The resident wrote to this Service on 19 January 2021 to advise that she was still dissatisfied as she had been left out of pocket by these events and she had receipts for items she had to purchase and felt the landlord should reimburse her for these.

Assessment and findings

  1. In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. It is not disputed that the landlord was treating a bed bug infestation at a neighbouring flat to the resident prior to the resident’s report of bed bugs at her own address. This Service has not been provided with any evidence to show how extensive that infestation was or for what period the treatment in the neighbouring flat had been ongoing although the landlord described the matter in the neighbouring property as ‘ongoing’ within its repairs records in December 2019. The landlord’s bed bugs guidance states that it should notify other residents within a scheme if an infestation occurs in a communal area or if it is not contained to one property. This Service has not been provided with any evidence that the infestation had spread into communal areas or beyond the one property within the scheme – it was therefore appropriate that the landlord did not notify the resident of the bed bug issues in the building prior to her own reports in November 2019.
  3. The resident was initially told by the landlord that it had not informed her of the bed bugs in the neighbouring property due to the size of the scheme. However, the size of a scheme is not referenced as a factor within its own guidance so this explanation was inaccurate. When the resident escalated her complaint and asked why the size of the scheme should matter, the landlord failed to answer this question but added that it had not informed the resident partly because treatment was ongoing and it thought the infestation was contained. The landlord’s initial explanation as to why it had not notified the resident of the infestation elsewhere in the building was therefore incorrect but it rectified this within its further response in February 2020.
  4. The resident reported a bed bug problem to the landlord on 19 November 2019 – the landlord has already acknowledged that there was service failure in its handling of this report. However, the landlord did arrange for a pest control visit within three days of the initial report and decided to decant the resident within the same timeframe. This response was within a reasonable timescale and the decision to decant the resident demonstrates that the landlord was willing to use its discretion to resolve the complaint. It also arranged with the resident to reimburse her for travel and meal expenses. These actions would not be taken in all cases of bed bug infestations (particularly given the infestation was found to be ‘low level’) so again demonstrates the landlord was resolution focused.
  5. The landlord has acknowledged that it failed to advise the resident correctly so she could prepare the property in advance of the visit on 22 November 2019 – this was subsequently exacerbated by comments within an email sent to the resident on 10 December 2019 that indicated that the resident was responsible for failing to prepare the property. This was inappropriate as it meant that there was a delay of one week (until 29 November 2019) in the contractor being able to carry out its first treatment.
  6. The landlord has calculated a compensation offer of £80 (within a total award of £140) for the impact of these failures. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance recommends a range of levels of compensation that can be awarded dependent on the circumstances of a case. A range of £50 to £250 is recommended where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. The landlord’s offer of £80 was therefore reasonable to recognise the short-term delay and impact of its miscommunication in advance of the contractor visit on 22 November 2019.
  7. The landlord’s records demonstrate that it conducted four treatments over the course of the following month. There is contradictory evidence as to whether bed bug activity was witnessed by the contractor during the treatment of 29 November 2019 but it continued to carry out treatments until a conclusion was reached that bed bug activity had ended. It extended the resident’s decant arrangements for one week in early December 2019 to allow more treatment nonetheless and conducted a treatment after the resident had returned to the property. These were all reasonable actions and showed that the landlord was pro-active in attempts to resolve the bed bug issue.
  8. During the course of considering the resident’s complaint, the landlord noted that the resident was seeking compensation of £1752.70 for a combination of distress and inconvenience caused to her as well as reimbursement of damaged possessions and medical-related purchases and treatment. The landlord addressed this claim within both of its complaint responses when it rejected it on the grounds that it had not identified service failure that caused damage to the resident’s belongings so signposted her to make an insurance claim – this was a reasonable response to these aspects of the resident’s claim.
  9. Further, the landlord has evidenced that it made enquiries with its contractor on the resident’s claim regarding disposal of possessions such as her mattress and bedding – no evidence was established to show that this advice was given to the resident nor that it was necessary for the resident to do so (this was confirmed in reports from the contractor to the landlord where the former recommended washing of items rather than disposal). The landlord also directed the resident to make an insurance claim for these aspects of her claim – this shows that the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns appropriately and made an evidence-based decision.
  10. The resident made a specific claim on 6 January 2020 that pest control contractors had damaged a wardrobe and flooring (she provided photographs of staining to her flooring) during the treatment. The landlord’s contractors attended within four days and the landlord refuted the claim in its initial complaint response of 17 January 2020 on the grounds that the materials its contractors use would not have caused the type of damage alleged. The resident subsequently queried the explanation given in the initial complaint response by asking why the contractor’s use of a diluted solution meant that the claim for liquid substance damage had been rejected but the landlord did not add further explanation in its final complaint response. It was reasonable for the landlord to send its contractor to consider the resident’s allegation and to rely on their findings in its decision-making although it has failed to address all the points raised by the resident on this aspect of her claim.
  11. In summary, the landlord’s actions to resolve the resident’s reports of bed bugs were appropriate and in line with its obligations to progress works in a timely manner. There were service failures in regard to some of the communication with the resident at the point of her initial report of bed bugs but the landlord has offered proportionate redress for these given the circumstances of the case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in respect of their complaint about its handling of reports of a pest infestation.

Reasons

  1. Although the landlord acted appropriately to carry out bed bugs treatment to the resident’s flat, there were some failures in the way it communicated with the resident during this process. The landlord has offered compensation that was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to these failings.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay compensation of £140 that it previously offered to the resident.
  2. The landlord to review its complaint handling practices to ensure that it responds to all issues raised when handling complaints in future.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.