Sanctuary Housing Association (202233982)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233982

Sanctuary Housing Association

28 March 2024

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 response to:
1. The resident’s reports of pest infestations in the property.
2. The resident’s request to be rehoused.
This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bed property on the 4th floor of a block that is owned managed by a housing association. The property was let under an assured tenancy agreement in 2020.
The landlord records that the resident has physical vulnerabilities due to her diagnosed medical conditions.
The resident has access to the local authority’s rehousing waiting list which is a choice based letting (CBL) scheme. Complaints about issues relating to local authority rehousing lists and the associated policies and procedures are matters for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. However, this report takes into account and considers the landlord’s referral to the local authority as part of its handling of the resident’s rehousing requests which is within the remit of the Housing Ombudsman.
Under a stock transfer agreement the landlord is required to offer 75 percent of its available empty homes to the local authority’s CBL scheme. It retains the remaining 25 percent of its properties which it lets to residents living in its own housing stock. The landlord operates its own rehousing waiting list for these properties and prioritises applicants based upon their housing need and the date the priority was awarded.
The Ombudsman notes that in her stage 1 and stage 2 complaints the resident has alleged that the landlord discriminated against her. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal term which is better suited to a court to decide. It is not clear to this Service if the resident has contacted the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) about this. The EASS are the appropriate body to assist in dealing with allegations of discrimination.
In a number of emails the resident sent to the landlord between 2020 and 2023 she said that her health had been extremely affected by the presence of bedbugs in the property and in the block. The resident referred to her health conditions in her stage 2 complaint of 2 March 2023 in which she said that if the landlord understood the nature of her condition then it would understand why the conditions were unsuitable. She also referred to medical letters she had forwarded that explained the requirements for the resident to reside in a dry clean space, to be uninfected with pests, to be free of damp and mould, and to be warm.. This Service is unable to look into and make a decision about the cause of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Relevant policies and procedures

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It also imposes a duty on landlords to deal with disrepair and the repair of defects that could lead to an infestation including walls, doors, windows, drains, pipes, and sanitation. The landlord is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The tenancy agreement says that the resident is responsible for the removal of any infestation of pests and vermin promptly. Failure to do so may result in the landlord removing the infestation and the costs being recharged. It also says that residents should permit the landlord to enter the property to inspect and repair the property. It also says that possession of the property might be sought if any obligation of the tenancy has been broken or not performed.
The landlord’s pest control guidance says that it is responsible for dealing with pests and infestations in communal areas and empty properties. It also says it will take responsibility for bed bugs in a communal area or occasionally if the pests in the property have come from a communal area or affect more than one property in a scheme.
The landlord’s voids, allocations and lettings policy says that it will undertake an assessment of each applicant’s housing needs and prioritise them using its banding system. It will consider recommendations made by an independent occupational therapist (OT) about the applicant’s level of priority and any property restrictions or requirements. Band A is used for ‘management transfers’ and ‘critical housing cases.’ These are defined as when the need for a transfer to be carried out as soon as possible is acute and urgent, when it is unsafe for applicants to remain at the current address, or if an inability to move will inevitably lead to significant and/or imminent harm to the applicant that can only be resolved by a move to alternative accommodation. Classification into band A requires a health and disability assessment by an OT and/or is recommended by a statutory agency. Properties will be allocated to applicants from band A first in order of their date of banding before being offered to applicants in bands with a lower priority. Staff should provide advice including signposting to external websites and advise residents how to access alternative housing options such as CBL and mutual exchanges schemes. If supporting evidence is required in order to assess the rehousing application the applicant should be advised that they have 28 days to provide it before their application will be cancelled.
The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider offering compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience due to its action or inaction, a lack of, or unreasonable delay to the provision of its services, and delayed or poor responses to residents’ complaints. It also says it will pay up to £75 for a minor delay in raising a complaint or responding to an issue without updating a resident .
Paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (‘the Code’) says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt. Paragraph 5.6 says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practise where appropriate. Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16 of the Code say that landlords must confirm the details of how to escalate the complaint if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.

Summary of events

The landlord’s pest control contractor attended the block to complete ad hoc bed bug treatments between February 2019 and October 2019.
The pest control contractor attended the block on 14 October 2019 to complete a 2-day heat treatment in all properties. The contractor could not access all of the flats because some residents had not been prepared for the treatment.
The landlord sent an internal email on 29 October 2019 that said it had been hard to arrange a full day when all the residents were available for the heat treatment due to their work commitments and vulnerability.
A heat treatment had been planned to take place in the block on 1 November 2019, but this was cancelled for an undisclosed reason. A further treatment was arranged for 13 and 14 November 2019. The landlord confirmed that the treatment was completed in an internal email it sent on 20 November 2019.
The landlord’s housing database confirmed that an OT assessor had classified the resident as a Band A applicant on 13 January 2020 and that the decision had been based upon a neurologist’s letter of 25 November 2019.
The landlord contacted the resident on 16 January 2020 to say that it did not have any 2 bed properties in the area that she had chosen and so it could not process her housing application. It asked her to review a list of available properties that it had attached and to provide some further missing information. The landlord confirmed that the transfer application had been reviewed and reinstated on 16 March 2020.
On 28 March 2020 the Government issued guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidance recommended that “access to a property is only proposed for serious and urgent repairs.”
On 18 May 2020, the Housing Minister sent a letter to all social housing residents saying that “As we start to ease lockdown measures, landlords should be able to carry out routine as well as essential repairs for most households. There will be a backlog of repairs that they will need to address, so it may take longer than normal to carry out more non-essential work…
On 1 June 2020, the Government issued updated guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidance said that landlords “can now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken in line with public health advice” and that “Where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs, as well as any planned internal works.”
The pest control contractor attended the block between January 2020 and December 2020 to complete surveys, and bed bug and mice treatments. The pests had been affecting 11 properties.
The landlord sent an internal email on 25 September 2020 that said every flat in the block had been issued with a notice of seeking possession and that the flats that previously had not allowed access for the pest treatment had now engaged with it.
The landlord sent an internal email on 17 August 2021 that said it had updated the resident about the areas she had chosen on her transfer application and that they had discussed the pest control issues but it was limited in what it could disclose.
On 4 October 2021 the landlord provided the resident with copies of the repair reports it held about reports of bed bugs at the property and the communal areas since 2019.
The resident again reported bed bugs to the landlord on 5 and 9 October 2021. The landlord treated the property for bedbugs on 11 October 2021.
The resident reported further issues with bedbugs and mice in the block to the landlord on 19 October 2021 and on 15 November 2021. The landlord treated the property on 15 November 2021 and completed a further treatment on an undisclosed date in December 2021.
The resident’s healthcare team emailed a letter to the landlord on 15 October 2021. The letter said the 4th floor property she resided in did not meet her health needs. It said that her condition prevented her from climbing the stairs and completing daily tasks and the property had a longstanding pest problem. The resident would benefit from living in an accessible ground floor property.
The resident reported mice in the communal areas to the landlord on 19 October 2021. The landlord attended the property on an undisclosed date and laid traps.
The resident reported bed bugs to the landlord on 13 January 2022. The contractor treated the property the following day.
The resident again reported bed bugs to the landlord on 8 April 2022. The landlord treated the property on 14 April 2022.
The contractor treated the property for bed bugs on 11 May 2022 and 30 May 2022.
The landlord raised a pest control repair on 11 June 2022 and completed a bed bug treatment on 14 June 2022.
The resident sent a photo of the communal areas and a bed bug to the landlord on 3 August 2022 and reported the matter again on 9 August 2022. The contractor attended the property on 9 August 2022. It did not find any evidence of bed bug activity but completed a precautionary spray.
The resident reported mice to the landlord on 29 August 2022. The landlord attended the property on an undisclosed date and laid traps.
The resident emailed a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 31 January 2023. The resident said that she had first made the landlord aware of her medical issues in 2019. Things had drastically changed within the preceding 4 months during which she had been staying with her unwell mother in her 1-bed flat. This was because she could not manage the 60 steps to her property due to her health conditions and due to rat and bedbug infestations in the entire building. She said that she felt that she was a victim of direct discrimination and was being treated less favourably than others.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 1 February 2023. The landlord said:
1. It was sorry to hear about the issues the resident experienced accessing the property.
2. She had been registered as a band A transfer applicant which was the highest priority, but due to the limited availability of homes it had not yet been possible to move her.
3. It could not provide her with any guidance on how long she might wait to receive an offer of accommodation until it found a suitable property.
4. It had previously provided her with information about accessing mutual exchange and the local authority as alternative rehousing options.
5. It would grant her temporary permission to stay away from the property for a period of time due to her health needs.
6. It was sorry that she was experiencing bed bugs, however this was subject to a legal case, and it could not disclose any further information due its confidentiality.
7. It had raised a further order for pest control treatment to address the particularly difficult matter.
8. It could not see any evidence of discrimination and therefore it did not uphold the complaint.
9. It advised the resident she could escalate the matter if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord received a report of bed bugs from an undisclosed source on 3 February 2023. It raised a works order on the same day for pest control treatment to be completed in a number of properties in the block and for residents to be given advance notice of appointments.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 24 February 2023 in which she asked to be moved into one of 2 specific first floor or ground floor properties.
The landlord and resident held an email conversation on 27 February 2023 during which the landlord explained that it was required to offer 75 percent of its available empty properties to the council for letting. It also said that it retained the remaining 25 percent of its housing stock to let itself but that it had a lot of residents that required new homes for a multitude of reasons. It was impossible to say what number the resident was on the list due to the requirements of other applicants but that she would be contacted when a suitable property was identified.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on an undisclosed date prior to 27 March 2023 to advise her that it had arranged pest control treatments in the block and required access to her home on 27 March 2023, 17 April 2023, and 9 May 2023. It said that it had to get into all the flats in the building without fail to maximise the impact of the treatments.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint using the landlord’s online portal on 2 March 2023. The landlord replied to the resident the next day to say that it could not log her complaint because it had already responded to the matters in a previously closed complaint. It also said that an order for pest control treatment had been raised and an appointment would follow.
The resident emailed a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 5 March 2023. She said that she had not been happy with the landlord’s stage 1 response of 1 February 2023 which was why she had raised another complaint. She also said:
1. Bed bug treatment had not worked since 2019 and that it was not dealing with the problem which was unacceptable.
2. It was not healthy for the resident and her child to live in the property full of chemicals and asked what the landlord was it going to do about mice and rats.
3. She could not risk getting bitten due to her health conditions and so could not go into the property.
4. She again requested to be moved to a ground or first floor property.
5. She would not be able to complete a mutual exchange due to the condition of the property.
6. She had been registered with the local authority since 2019 when the issues started but that it was no quicker than the landlord.
7. She said that she felt discriminated against and that if the landlord understood the nature of her condition then it would understand why the conditions were unsuitable.
8. She had provided information from her medical consultant but that the landlord did not acknowledge this.
The landlord sent an internal email on 10 March 2023 which asked for the resident’s complaint to be reopened and escalated to stage 2.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement to the resident on 13 March 2023. It said that it would provide a response to her by 12 April 2023.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 17 March 2023 to confirm that the resident was registered in band A and asked if she had an OT assessment completed as this would enhance her housing application with other housing providers. It also asked if she had registered with the local authority CBL scheme. The resident replied to the landlord on 20 March 2023 to say that she had completed an OT assessment and was registered with the local authority.
The landlord commenced a 3-course treatment for bed bugs on 27 March 2023.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 11 April 2023 to advise her that it had arranged pest control treatments in the block and required access to her home on 17 April 2023 and 9 May 2023. It repeated the advice it had provided in its previous letter about the treatment.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 13 April 2023. The landlord said:
1. It had reviewed the stage 1 complaint and apologised for the delay in issuing its response which had not been acknowledged within its timescale.
2. It understood that the outcome the resident was seeking was rehousing, but that it could not facilitate a move as part of the complaints process.
3. It was made aware of a bed bugs issue in October 2021 by another tenant and treatment works were completed at several properties by a specialist contractor. Further reports were received from the resident in April 2022 and 3 treatments were arranged during April and May 2022.
4. The resident reported bed bugs again on 9 August 2022 and the contractor attended the same day but did not detect any activity, but a precautionary spray was conducted due to historical issues.
5. It received a further report of bed bugs on 3 February 2023 and arranged a 3-course treatment to commence on 27 March 2023.
6. There was an ongoing legal case regarding the infestation in the block, which it had referred to in its stage 1 response and it could not disclose any further information due to confidentiality.
7. It could not find any records to show that the resident had reported any rat infestations, only mice infestations. One report had been recorded on 19 October 2021 in the communal areas and another on 29 August 2022 on the balconies. The landlord had attended and laid traps on both occasions and had not received any further reports.
8. It was clear from the resident’s communication that the property was no longer suitable due to her health conditions and that she was dissatisfied with the time she had waited to be offered a transfer.
9. It was required to follow an allocation process which meant 75 percent of its properties were let by the local authority under its CBL scheme. This was why the resident had been signposted to register with the local authority.
10. The remaining 25 percent of its housing stock was let via its own waiting list and shortlisted from bands A – C.
11. The resident had been placed in Band A which was the highest band and was registered with the CBL scheme and had an occupational therapist assessment.
12. She had been registered for a ground or first floor property, but the landlord did not have enough available housing stock to meet the demand. It strongly recommended the resident to widen her areas of choice to increase the chances of an offer.
13. It did not provide information about where applicants were on the waiting list to avoid disappointment and/or raising expectations because applicants may move up or down the list dependent on a number of factors.
14. It encouraged the resident to pursue a mutual exchange.
15. It was satisfied that it had acted in accordance with its voids, allocations, and lettings policy and that this part of the complaint was not upheld.
16. It did not uphold the complaint about it handling of infestations because reports had been dealt with by a specialist pest control contractor within reasonable timeframes.
17. It had been unable to substantiate a claim of discrimination because the resident had not provided any evidence of when or how this had occurred and so this aspect of the complaint was not upheld.
18. It offered a compensation award of £75 for its failings in the handling her stage 2 complaint.
19. It said that the letter was its final response and referred the resident to this Service.

Events that took place after the completion of the internal complaints procedure.

During a conversation the resident held with this Service on 19 September 2023 she said that mice was an ongoing issue and that none of the properties had balconies, so she didn’t know why the landlord had referred to this in its complaint response.
The landlord met with the resident on 17 October 2023 during which she added additional areas of choice to her transfer application.
The landlord sent an email to this Service on 23 October 2023 which confirmed that the resident had made a new complaint to it about bed bugs and vermin. It also said that she had since said that the bed bug issue had been resolved.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of pest infestations in the property.

The landlord completed various treatments for bed bugs in the block in 2019. The landlord took responsibility for the treatment of the pests which was over and above the conditions of the tenancy agreement which said that the responsibility for the treatment of pests was for residents to resolve. However its pest control guidance said that it may have responsibility if more than one property was affected by pests. Given the extent of the infestation in the block this was an appropriate decision for the landlord to have made.
The landlord sought to arrange a more comprehensive heat treatment for bed bugs within all affected properties over 2 days in October 2019. The landlord rescheduled the treatment when access difficulties caused the treatment to fail which it successfully completed in November 2019. Completing an enhanced treatment was an appropriate decision for the landlord to have reached based upon the ongoing pest reports it received from residents.
It is evident that the heat treatment completed on 20 November 2019 did not provide a lasting resolution to the bedbug issues as further reports and treatments were completed subsequently in 2020. During 2020 it continued to provide treatments when matters were reported and identified that the bed bug issues affected 11 properties. It is recognised that the landlord’s response to the matters would have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact this had on access and resident engagement.
Having experienced difficulties in accessing all the flats within the block in September 2020 the landlord recorded that it had issued notices of seeking possession to all the residents within the block. We have seen no evidence that the resident had refused the landlord access for pest treatment. It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord to issue a notice seeking possession to a vulnerable resident when it hadn’t recorded any breach of tenancy obligations by her.
The landlord held conversations with the resident on 17 August 2021 during which it said that it was limited in what it could disclose to her about a legal case it had escalated related to the pest control matters. It was appropriate for the landlord to have considered taking legal action to address the bed bug issue and to have protected the confidentiality of the case.
The landlord responded appropriately to the reports it received about pest control issues in the block by raising works orders and coordinating treatments with a specialist contractor. It was appropriate for the landlord to have sought the expertise of a specialist in the treatment of the pests. It is evident that the landlord responded to pest reports it received within reasonable timescales and completed appropriate pest control treatments, even when no signs of infestation had been found, demonstrating that it took steps in accordance with its pest control guidance. The responsive and precautionary approach the landlord took to addressing the matters was reasonable in the circumstances.
It is not the role of this Service to comment on the adequacy or appropriateness of the pest treatments carried out by the landlord, neither are we qualified to do so. Whilst the situation has understandably been distressing for the resident the landlord had no control over the return of the bed bugs. However the landlord acted inappropriately in issuing a notice of seeking possession to the resident in circumstances where it could not evidence that an obligation of the tenancy had been broken or not performed. This would have caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident that could have been avoided. Consequently this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of pest infestations in the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

It is noted that the resident has requested to be moved into a different property as the property is no longer suitable for her medical needs in its current state of repair. Whilst the situation has been distressing for the resident, we would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective resident’s waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing, such as people facing homelessness or fleeing domestic violence.
The resident submitted a request for a transfer to the landlord on an undisclosed date in 2019. The landlord registered her application in Band A on 13 January 2020 upon receipt of the recommendations of an independent OT assessor who had assessed her band based upon a neurologist’s letter dated 25 November 2019. It was in keeping with the landlord’s policies for it to refer to the medical expertise of an OT when awarding a medical priority band.
The landlord contacted the resident on 16 January 2020 3 days after it had registered her application to say that it did not have any available 2-bed properties among its housing stock in the area that she had chosen. It also said that it would not be able to process her application without some additional missing information. It was appropriate for the landlord to have requested missing information and to have advised the resident that it did not have any housing stock in the area she had chosen so as to manage her expectations.
The landlord communicated with the resident in February 2023 during which she asked if she could move to 2 named properties. The landlord responded to the resident with advice about its obligations to offer 75 percent of its vacant properties for letting under the local authority CBL scheme. The resulting conversation evidenced that the resident had not previously been advised that the landlord retained only 25 percent of its vacant housing stock for transfer under its own rehousing lists. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have managed the resident’s expectations of her housing application under the landlord’s rehousing procedures.
The resident raised her request for rehousing in her stage 1 and stage 2 complaints in January 2023 and March 2023. The landlord appropriately replied to the resident with information about its obligations to the local authority’s choice based letting scheme. It also confirmed that her application was live and in the highest priority band A and that it could not provide her with an exact timescale for receiving an offer.
In its complaint responses, the landlord also suggested alternative rehousing options for the resident to consider. Providing information about mutual exchange and other housing options was in keeping with its policy and good practice. However, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have considered, and/or made reference to, the likelihood that the presence of bed bugs in the property would have prevented her from obtaining a mutual exchange swap partner. This would have caused distress to the resident and impacted her confidence in the landlord’s response to her individual circumstances.
In its final complaint response the landlord encouraged the resident to reconsider widening her areas of choice so as to maximise the availability of housing stock. It also assessed its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing and concluded that it had acted in accordance with its voids, allocations, and lettings policy and that it did not uphold this part of the resident’s complaint. The landlord had registered and assessed the resident’s rehousing request appropriately and it was reasonable for it to have provided an overview of the resident’s rehousing situation. However the landlord did not consider that it had not previously explained its obligation to offer 75 percent of its housing stock to the local authority. It also failed to consider that locating a mutual exchange would be impractical given the pest infestation in the property, nor the time taken for it to have located alternative accommodation.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

There were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Did not recognise that the resident’s complaint of 2 March 2023 was an escalation to stage 2. Instead it replied to the resident the next day and said that it could not accept her complaint because it had already responded to the matters previously.
2. Did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 2 March 2023, which she resubmitted by email on 5 March 2023, until 13 March 2023. This was 2 working days later than its policy timescale of 5 days.
3. Responded to the resident stage 2 complaint 1 working day later than the target date it had previously provided to the resident.
4. Said that it had first been made aware of bed bugs in October 2021, despite previously providing the resident with repairs reports of bed bugs it had received and treated in 2019.
The landlord reviewed its complaint handling in its stage 2 response and recognised that it had not complies with its complaint policy and the Code. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will 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 (apology and an offer of compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes..
The landlord offered the resident an award of £75 compensation for its complaint handling failings. This amount was proportionate to the time and trouble that had been incurred by the resident as a result of the complaint delays and was in line with the provisions of its compensation policy. Consequently this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of pest infestations in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The pest control matters have been particularly difficult for the landlord to combat due to range of factors. However the landlord acted inappropriately by issuing a notice seeking possession.
The landlord processed the resident’s transfer application in line with its policies and procedures. However there were occasions where the landlord’s communication was unreasonable which it did not recognise in its complaint responses.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code during its handling of the resident’s complaints which caused minor delays in issuing its responses. The landlord reviewed its own complaint handling, apologised for the delays, and offered a reasonable compensation award for the detriment that had been caused to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for inappropriately issuing a notice of seeking possession and for its failings in responding to the resident’s request for rehousing while responding to pest infestations in the property. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
In addition to any previous compensation issued and within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £250 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by issuing a notice of seeking possession when responding to the resident’s reports of pest infestation in the property.
2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s rehousing request.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to inspect the property to assess if any outstanding pest control treatment is required. If treatment is required the landlord should send the resident and this Service details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss her transfer application and provide her with any relevant advice and/or support that may assist her to receive an offer of alternative accommodation.