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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202005281)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005281

Sanctuary Housing Association

19 August 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. The complaint concerns how the landlord handled the resident’s:

Reports of a pest infestation in the property.

Dissatisfaction with the quality of its window cleaning service.

Concerns over the conduct of a landlord staff member.

Request for compensation in view of these issues.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
  2. The landlord’s guidance on pests and infestations states that it is responsible for dealing with pests and infestations in communal areas and empty properties, and that tenants are usually responsible for dealing with pests and infestations within their own property.
  3. The guidance goes on to describe the circumstances where the landlord would be responsible for pests and infestations within a tenant’s property. These are for woodworm, for bed bugs (when the infestation came from a communal area, if it affected more than one property or if it was within a supported living scheme), or if there are exemptions for a specific area or tenure. For example, the landlord is obligated to treat cockroach infestations in all cases for its properties within a specific postcode. The guidance does not list exemptions for an infestation of mice within a tenant’s property or general any exemptions within the area where the resident’s property is.
  4. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord will aim to acknowledge the complaint within two working days and look to work with the complainant to reach an acceptable resolution. A stage one response will then be sent within five to ten working days.
  5. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

  1. On 9 June 2020 the resident called the landlord regarding an issue with mice in the property. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident informed it that he was struggling to cope with the problem and that he believed that the source of the mice was from the property above his.
  2. The landlord called the resident on 12 June 2020 and informed him that its pest control contactor would be attending the following week to undertake an inspection of the building. The resident called back on 30 June 2020 and explained that he did not believe that the contractor had undertaken a full inspection as they did not visit his property. The landlord sent a text message to the resident saying that it would follow this up with the contractor.
  3. The resident called the landlord on 6 and 31 July 2021 to give it updates on the ongoing issue with mice in the property. The landlord called the resident on 4 August 2020 and left a voicemail message informing him that it had arranged a new appointment with the pest control contactor, who would be contacting him directly.
  4. On 6 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to say that it had been informed by the pest control contractor that he did not permit them access to the property. The landlord asked the resident for suitable dates to arrange an appointment with the contractor.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 August 2020 and informed it that:

a. He can see no reason for the pest control contractor to visit his property as the source of the mice was from the property above.

b. The landlord had ignored ongoing issues with tenant in the property above and the effect that this has had on him.

c. He was not happy about a visit from a landlord staff member to discuss his rent account without giving 24 hours’ notice of the visit.

d. The windows in the property had not been adequately cleaned in 2020 despite him paying for this service.

  1. The landlord replied to the resident on 15 August 2020. It informed him that:

a. Pests are usually the responsibility of the tenant to resolve. However, in this case as the source could be from outside of the resident’s property, it had asked its pest control contractor to investigate.

b. The contractor had inspected the communal areas and basement of the building. It now required access to the resident’s property to conclude its investigation. If the tenant in the property above was the source of the issue, the landlord would first need the professional opinion of its contractor to allow it to take further action.

c. It had passed on the resident’s comments on the window cleaning and would provide an update when it heard back.

d. The resident’s comments on the staff member had been passed on to their manager, who would contact the resident to discuss the matter.

e. It had asked its pest control contractor to contact the resident to arrange a new appointment.

  1. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 August 2020 to informed him an appointment would be required to remove the kickboards in the property to allow the pest control contractors access.
  2. The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 September 2020. He confirmed that he removed the kickboards himself and that the pest control contractors had attended. The resident also highlighted his dissatisfaction with how the landlord had handled issues with the tenant in the property above and that he was considering legal action regarding this.
  3. On 2 September 2020 the resident called and then wrote to the landlord to request to raise a formal complaint. He described the elements of his complaint as:

a. He had an ongoing issue with mice in the property for several years from the property above and the landlord had been unhelpful in his attempts to get the matter resolved.

b. Over the last two months, the infestation had worsened. He had difficulty sleeping at night due to the noise of mice in the ceiling space.

c. His windows had not been properly cleaned for several years. Due to a metal plant box attached to the outside of the building, his windows had only been partially cleaned but he continued to pay the full service charge for this.

d. A staff member visited his property to discuss his rent account without giving 24 hours’ notice. He also noted that in light of the restrictions at the time due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the landlord should have sent a letter rather than visiting.

  1. The landlord opened a complaint on 7 September 2020 and sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 16 September 2020. It informed the resident that:

a. The pest control contractor confirmed that there was mice activity in the kitchen and living room areas of the property. They identified entry points and proofing issues that need to be addressed. The contractor then blocked these areas,

b. The contractor also informed the landlord that they had visited the property above and did not believe that it was the source of the infestation. The landlord would however continue to investigate the matter.

c. It had made arrangements to contact the resident to discuss the issue of window cleaning further.

d. The manager of the staff member who visited the resident had been made aware of his concerns about their conduct.

  1. The resident called the landlord on 24 September 2020 and requested to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call stated that the resident was still hearing mice in the roof space and believed that this is from the property above. The resident also noted that the top half of his windows were not being cleaned properly and he wished to opt out of this portion of the service charge.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 September 2020. It confirmed that it had escalated the complaint that that it aimed to provide the response by 23 October 2020. The stage two complaint response was then sent to the resident on 22 October 2020. The landlord first gave a timeline of events from 9 June 2020 onwards and then informed him that:

a. It apologised for the delay in the pest control contractor attending following the resident call on 9 June 2020. It further explained that normally a mice infestation would be a tenant’s responsibility but as the origin of the infestation was not clear, it arranged for its contractor to investigate the issue.

b. Although it could not provide the resident with any detail, it assured him that it had investigated his concerns that the source of the infestation was from the property above and that it was satisfied that there was no evidence to suggest that this was the case.

c. It would continue to assist the resident with ongoing issues of mice infestation.

d. It apologised that the resident was upset by the visit of its staff member and noted that it is not always practicable to inform a tenant of a visit, as staff members will have a number of properties to visit in a certain area and the length of time of each visit and the day the visit will take place was difficult to estimate.

e. It had passed on the resident’s comments to the appropriate team and that they will form part of the next review of its income management guidelines.

f. It confirmed that the windows had been cleaned as scheduled and a visit of the building did not highlight any issues. The landlord had offered to visit the resident and that any home visit would be in adherence to social distancing and safety requirements.

g. When the resident called the landlord in September 2020 and requested to raise a complaint, he was informed that a complaint would need to be made in writing. This was not accurate, as the landlord would accept a verbal complaint. The landlord apologised for providing incorrect information.

h. In recognition of the delay in its pest control contractor attending the property and for the incorrect information provided about how to make a complaint, the landlord had awarded the resident a £75 goodwill gesture.

  1. The resident called the landlord on 27 October 2020 and disputed the stage two response. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident said that the £75 compensation offer did not reflect the years of dealing with the neighbour in the property above and that an award of £20,000 to £50,000 would be more reasonable. The resident also requested to opt-out of the window cleaning service and that they had not been cleaned since March 2020.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 October 2020. It explained that it had examined its work sheet logs and vehicle tracking information. and could confirm that the windows had been cleaned on a monthly basis since March 2020 and had also been inspected

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in the property

  1. When the resident informed the landlord of the mice infestation and his suspicions of the source in the property above, the landlord arranged an inspection of the building by its pest control contractor.
  2. This was appropriate action to take, as the landlord would be responsible for resolving the matter if the source of the infestation was from a communal area or if multiple properties in the building were affected. Further, if the property above was deemed to be the source, then the landlord would be obligated to ensure that the tenant was taking steps to resolve the infestation and consider taking action against them if this was not the case and other properties in the building had been affected as a result.
  3. This is also in line with section 2.3.5 of the tenancy agreement which states that “We [the landlord] are not responsible for infestations, including infestations of rodents and insects, unless it is due to our failure to comply with our repairing obligations”.
  4. The landlord was informed by the contractor that no evidence had been found that the source of the infestation was from the communal areas in the building. The contractor also visited the property above and undertook an inspection. They wrote to the landlord on 6 October 2020 and informed it that they had found no evidence of mice at the property above.
  5. The contractor undertook work at the resident’s property to seal entry points which may be allowing pests to get in. The contractor further informed the landlord that there were mice in the cavities of the building, but the source of this infestation was not clear. They also noted that although the resident had heard mice in the ceiling space, that did not necessarily mean that the source of the infestation was the property above.
  6. The landlord informed the resident in the stage two complaint response that it would continue to investigate the matter and work with the resident to resolve the issue. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in this regard. On being informed of the issue by the resident, it arranged for its pest control contractor to attend and investigate. It acted on the resident’s concerns that the source of the issue could be from the property above, and the contractor inspected that property as part of its investigation.
  7. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the recommendations of appropriately qualified contractors and staff when reaching conclusions about the source of the infestation and what action was required. In this case, the contractor had found no evidence of mice in the property above or in communal areas. However, as the actual origin had yet to be identified and that it was not in dispute that there were mice in the building’s cavities, it was appropriate for the landlord to instruct its contractor to continue to investigate and work with the resident to find the cause of the problem.
  8. The Ombudsman has not disregarded the resident’s concerns about the source of the infestation. However, the resident has not provided any supporting evidence to either the landlord or this Service which disputed the pest control contactor’s findings and suggested that the source of the mice infestation was from the property above.
  9. The Ombudsman also notes the concerns the resident has raised about the general cleanliness of the upstairs flat and the effect this has had on him. The resident has said that he has reported this issue to the landlord over several years but the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to show this. If the resident considers that his neighbour is committing anti-social behaviour, he can report this to the landlord and the landlord would be expected to investigate and respond appropriately, in line with its ASB policy. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of any ASB reports, he can raise a separate complaint about this to the landlord. In the absence of any specific information about ASB incidents, the Ombudsman is unable to consider this aspect of the complaint any further as part of our current investigation.

How the landlord handled the resident’s dissatisfaction with the quality of its window cleaning service

  1. The resident informed the landlord that the windows in the property had not been cleaned properly for several months and requested to opt-out of the service.
  2. Section 3.5.1 of the tenancy agreement states that “If services are provided with your home, you will pay (as rent) service charge without deduction, a week in advance every Monday”. The tenancy agreement gives no provision for a tenant to opt-out of a particular service provided as part of the service charge.
  3. When informed of the resident’s concerns, the landlord offered to visit the property to inspect the windows and discuss the matter. This was declined by the resident due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This was an understandable position for the resident to take, but as a result the landlord could only rely on its records of window cleaning at the building to respond to this element of the complaint. The landlord explained to the resident that its records showed no missed visits, or any issues identified at the monthly inspections of the site. 
  4. Therefore, there is no evidence of the service failure in how the landlord responded to this aspect of the complaint. When the issue was raised, it offered to inspect the windows in the property and explained that the windows had been cleaned to schedule with no problems identified. The landlord would not be expected to offer a refund of the charge for this service without evidence to show that the service had not been provided as scheduled.
  5. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is able to consider complaints about the level of service charges, including whether service charges should be payable. The resident may be able to refer his concerns about his service charge to the First Tier Tribunal if he wishes to and he should contact the Tribunal directly for further information if he chooses to pursue this option.

 

 

How the landlord handled the resident’s concerns over the conduct of a landlord staff member

  1. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord explained the process of how it engages with tenants to help with rent account management and the identification, recovery and control of rent arrears. It went on to explain that visits to tenants can be difficult to schedule in advance due to the number of properties a staff member will scheduled to visit and the variable time length of these visits.
  2. When informed of the resident’s unhappiness, the landlord arranged to have a manager contact the resident. It also explained that the comments made by the resident had been recorded and will be part of the next review of its income management process.
  3. This was appropriate action to take and in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord recognised that it’s current procedures could cause upset to tenants due to unannounced visits, as if had with the resident. It used the resident’s experience as a learning tool to improve its procedures in the future.
  4. It apologised to the resident for the unannounced visit and explained how it would look to improve it’s procedures in the future based on his experience. An apology represents reasonable redress for this aspect of the resident’s complaint and the landlord is not required to take any further action in this regard.

The landlord’s compensation award

  1. The landlord offered the resident a £75 goodwill gesture to the resident in recognition of the delay in the pest control contractor attending the property and for providing incorrect information as to how a complaint can be raised. The resident suggested a compensation payment of £20,000 to £50,000 was more reasonable in light of the circumstances.
  2. It should be noted that awards of compensation considered by the Ombudsman are not intended to punish the landlord or ‘make an example’ of it, nor are they intended to reimburse damages to the resident in the way that a court or insurance claim might. The Ombudsman considers whether awards of compensation proportionately recognise any failings exhibited by the landlord and any distress or inconvenience likely to be experienced by the resident.
  3. The payment was made in line with the landlord’s compensation guidelines, which recommends a payment of £51 to £150 for service failure deemed as ‘low effort/high impact’. Definitions of low effort include “providing incorrect, insufficient, or partial information” while definitions of high impact include “excessive delays to works being carried out or issues being resolved”.
  4. This payment was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which is available on our website. This recommends a payment of £50 to £250 in circumstances where a complainant has experienced service failure of a short duration which had not affected the overall outcome of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s:

a. Reports of a pest infestation in the property.

b. Dissatisfaction with the quality of its window cleaning service.

44. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress in respect of:

a. the resident’s concerns over the conduct of a landlord staff member

b. request for compensation

which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves these aspect of the complaint.

Reasons

45. On being informed of a pest infestation by the resident which may have had an origin from outside of the resident’s property, the landlord arranged for its pest control contractor to investigate in line with its pest control guidance and tenancy obligations. This was an appropriate response, in view of all the circumstances.

46. The landlord explained to the resident that it’s records confirmed that the windows had been cleaned on schedule and no issues had been raised during inspections. It had also offered to visit the property to inspect the windows and discuss the matter with the resident. The landlord would not be expected to take any further action without evidence to show that the service had not been provided as scheduled.

47. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising to the resident for the upset the unannounced visit had caused. It explained the reasons why it carried out unannounced visits in these circumstances and confirmed that it would use this feedback as a learning tool to improve its income management procedures in the future.

48. The landlord recognised that there was a delay in the pest control contractor attending the property and that incorrect information was given to the resident as to how a complaint could be raised. It then awarded compensation proportionate to the service failures identified.