Slough Borough Council (202103054)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103054

Slough Borough Council

29 June 2022

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. A rat infestation at the resident’s property and her request for compensation.
2. The replacement of loft insulation affected by rat droppings and urine.
3. The replacement of a drain due to age.
4. Repairs to holes in the roof.
5. Repairs to paving leading from the front to the back door.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The replacement of loft insulation affected by rat droppings and urine.
2. The replacement of a drain due to age.
3. Repairs to holes in the roof.
4. Repairs to paving leading from the front to the back door.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
The resident provides information about repairs issues which are not the stated subject of the original complaint that was brought to and responded to by the landlord. The Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints that have not been responded to within and exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, except in circumstances that are not considered applicable here. The complaint about the rat infestation at the property and request for compensation is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is considered below, along with the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a house which the resident moved to via mutual exchange in March 2014. The resident has been stated to be a full time carer for her disabled son, but the landlord says it has no vulnerabilities recorded.
The landlord prioritises repairs under three categories and completes emergency repairs within two to 24 hours; urgent repairs within three working days; and routine repairs 20 working days.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure where it aims to respond at each stage within ten working days, although it will take longer if a case is more complex. Stage one responses are sent by its repairs service provider after draft responses are agreed by the landlord.
The landlord’s compensation policy confirms it awards compensation to put right service failures. The policy advises that claimed personal injury or loss as a result of the landlord’s acts or omissions must be referred to legal or insurance channels. The policy suggests that distress and inconvenience is compensated at £10 to £40 per week of a service failure. For damage to property, the policy allows for compensation of up to £1,000 allowing for wear and tear, and advises that claims exceeding this should be referred to insurance channels.

Summary of events

The information provided advises that the resident reported rats entering her house through the external brick wall of the house, after which the landlord and its local authority enforcement team inspected on 14 October 2020. The enforcement team’s report noted pest proofing would be arranged and noted concerns about the condition of the kitchen, which had doors hanging off and kickboards missing. The landlord requested on 20 October 2020 for repairs to be raised to repoint around a completely loose brick under a window, and to fill holes in an understairs cupboard; an airing cupboard; and under a bath. The repairs service provider raised these and said the resident would be contacted once a date was available. The landlord then chased on 3 November 2020 when the repairs had not been yet scheduled.
The resident complained on 4 November 2020, having contacted her MP the previous month. She said that after experiencing the issue for a few weeks, the landlord had done nothing apart from confirm the issue had been ‘passed on.’ She said that her son had been prescribed antibiotics due to a skin infection, and that rats had contaminated bedding, a sofa, the kitchen and bathroom carpets, which she requested a compensation form for. On 9 November 2020, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and referred this to its repairs service provider, noting she was dissatisfied with a rat infestation and that she wanted compensation.
The resident and her housing officer later chased the matter on several occasions. On 17 November 2020, her housing officer reported urgent pest proofing requested at the property had not been carried out. On 23 and 30 November 2020, the resident chased about making a compensation claim, after which she was informed the repairs service provider had been asked to address the compensation in addition to the pest infestation issue. On 26 November 2020, the repairs service provider then confirmed the repairs requested on 20 October 2020 had been scheduled for the first week of December 2020; and information provided confirms they were completed on 3 and 7 December 2020.
The repairs service provider issued a stage one response to the complaint on 7 December 2020:
1. They acknowledged and apologised for the delays, inconvenience and distress caused. They said they were aware of the long waiting times some customers had experienced, and that they were currently monitoring, reviewing and improving service to mitigate delays and improve performance.
2. They noted a recent conversation raised issues with holes causing infestations and holes under a stairs cupboard. They confirmed that they attended on 3 December 2020 and completed the repair for the holes under the stairs, and attended on 7 December 2020 and completed the repair to the outside wall.
3. They said they would now close the complaint, and detailed how the resident could escalate it if she felt it had not been resolved satisfactorily.
On 10 December 2020 the resident detailed that she wished to escalate the complaint. She did not feel the issue was treated as an emergency and she was left in a terrible situation for seven weeks. The long delay sealing walls had allowed the rats to infest the property, damage belongings and impact her and her son’s mental health. Her son had also had a skin infection which had left scarring. The landlord acknowledged this the same day and said it aimed to respond within 10 working days. The resident later chased a response on several occasions and was advised to expect a delay due to the festive period.
On 7 January 2021, the landlord contacted the resident. It queried when she first reported the repairs to its repairs service partner and requested evidence in relation to the belongings that had been damaged due to the rat infestation. The resident evidences the landlord subsequently spoke to her and sent her an email, in which it asked her to provide a list of items she believed should be compensated and why, so it could review this and advise what it could compensate; and to send sofa and bed links for it to review so it could ‘get the ball rolling’ for a delivery. On 10 February 2021 the resident emailed some receipts but explained that she had paid cash or lacked receipts for rugs, a toaster, a kettle, a bread bin, stair carpet, bedding, a jacket and shoes; while on 2 March 2021, she emailed invoices in relation to her kitchen. This investigation understands the resident provided:
1. A bed invoice from 2015 which totalled £1,038.
2. An invoice which appears to be for recent completed teeth whitening work, which totalled £2,000, submitted to support a claim for a teeth whitening machine that had been damaged.
3. A sofa invoice which totalled £1,976.
4. Photos of her son’s skin infection.
5. Invoices for kitchen components which totalled approximately £4,900.
This investigation understands the landlord then arranged for an inspection by a technical surveyor, after which it contacted the resident on 1 April 2021. It said the inspection had highlighted a number of issues and in recognition of the damage and distress caused, it proposed to renew the kitchen and a bath panel, and compensate her £2,500 for damaged items. The information provided advises the landlord’s calculation was an estimate based on the condition of the items and what it believed to be a responsible figure. The resident was dissatisfied with the offer and she, her daughter and the landlord subsequently corresponded on several occasions in April 2021 by phone and email:
1. The resident queried if she could choose a new kitchen up to the amount stated on her receipts, and said she would like a payment if not; while her daughter queried if the landlord would refund the kitchen or contact the company that fitted it to fit another one.
2. The resident said the £2,500 did not cover the cost of the sofa and bed and queried what damages had been taken into account. Her daughter noted it was previously suggested that the resident choose a sofa and bed of the same price which the landlord would then order, but she had requested compensation as she wanted flexibility to order from another vendor. Her daughter queried why only £2,500 was offered when the landlord had been willing to purchase a sofa and bed nearly twice the cost.
3. The disregarding of a carpet and a laser teeth whitening machine was queried, and the resident said the costs of these should be added.
4. The landlord had not included an element for distress caused to the resident and her son living in the infested property for several months. The resident said her son, who had a mental health disability, had permanent scarring on his face and back from the infestation, and had to live with anxiety for the rest of his years.
In its correspondence to the resident, the landlord subsequently informed her that it was seeking legal advice. It said it could not finalise her final response but it would update her until it was able to conclude the matter. It acknowledged frustration she expressed about the delay in resolving the matter, and explained it was seeking the legal advice to try to ensure that what it offered was fair and reasonable. It clarified that its current offer comprised fitting of a replacement kitchen with a choice of colours from its standard range; fitting of a replacement bath panel; and £2,500 to cover all other damaged items. It noted the teeth whitening receipt was for treatment, and invited further evidence to be supplied for damage to a teeth whitening machine.
The landlord received advice from its legal advisor on 28 April 2021, after which the landlord issued a stage two response on 7 May 2021, that said:
1. It had previously offered a renewed kitchen and bath panel and £2,500, which comprised £1,000 towards a new sofa, £1,000 towards a new bed, and £500 for all other damaged good such as pots, pans, kitchen appliances, cutlery and crockery.
2. It considered this to be more than reasonable in the circumstances, and covered the period during which rats had been endured in the property up until their removal, but it offered an additional £500 for distress and inconvenience, as well as a nearest matching replacement of stairs and landing carpet which it would supply and fit.
3. It could not provide compensation for a teeth whitening machine. It noted that a receipt the resident provided was for a teeth whitening treatment, and she could not evidence there being any damage or the purchase of the machine.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service and expressed dissatisfaction the landlord had agreed to pay ‘like for like’ for a sofa, a bed and carpets in an email, but had then reduced the offer by half of the original amount; said it would replace the kitchen she had paid £5,500 for with a standard ‘council’ one; and rounded the compensation up to include her kitchen, teeth laser machine which rat urine was on, and her son’s skin condition that had caused him pain and permanent scarring. The resident complained she could not find ‘like for like’ for her bed or sofa, as these were now more expensive in the shops, and complained there was no redress for the impact on her son and his health. The information provided advises that the resident subsequently informed the landlord that she accepted the replacement kitchen, bath panel and carpets.

Assessment and findings

This Service understands the resident experienced disruption, distress and inconvenience in respect to the rodent infestation at the property, and we recognise how upsetting and frustrating this must have been her. This Service also notes the resident’s general dissatisfaction and understandable desire not to be out of pocket for any damages that occurred through no fault of her own.
The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is limited by its Scheme, and Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for damage to the resident’s possessions, but it can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. While the Ombudsman can take a view on the position by reference to law and policies, if this is disputed, only a court or tribunal can offer a definitive and legally binding decision.
In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for repairs in relation to property structures such as the walls. It is not clear when the resident specifically reported the rodent infestation and access to the property via the walls, however the landlord attended in respect to reports it received on 14 October 2020. The completion of identified works that included filling in rodent access points on 7 December 2020, almost two months, exceeded the timeframes of the landlord’s repairs policies and how long such an urgent repair should reasonably have taken. This investigation notes that the landlord has not disputed this, and has clearly sought to consider any detriment caused to the resident and appropriate remedy it should offer.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets expectancies about how the landlord will consider compensation claims, and in this case, the landlord does not demonstrate it fulfilled all the expectancies, such as referring claims to its insurers if claimed damages exceed £1,000. However, the policy does say the landlord will take into account wear and tear, which reasonably means that some offers of £1,000 the landlord makes may be for items that exceed £1,000 in value and reflects their having had use. The allegations of damage were also referred to legal advisors reasonably in accordance with the policy, and an appropriate response to the claim based on available evidence appears to have been considered. The information provided advises that this included assessment of all the damages alleged by the resident, which confirms that overall the landlord does demonstrate that it considered her claims in a reasonable and careful way.
The landlord did not specifically address the resident’s claims of mental and physical injury in its response, however the landlord does demonstrate that it reviewed these aspects to consider its liability; and it would be more appropriate for the resident to seek legal advice if she wished to pursue a personal injury claim, as these are normally outside the scope of the complaints and Ombudsman procedure.
Moving on to the landlord’s specific offer totalling £3,000, the landlord has explained that this comprised £1,000 towards a new sofa, £1,000 towards a new bed, £500 for all other damaged good such as pots, pans, kitchen appliances, cutlery and crockery; and £500 for distress and inconvenience. In addition, it has offered supply and fitting of a replacement to some stairs and landing carpet.
The landlord refused to accept the resident’s claim for reimbursement of a laser teeth whitening machine, and its explanation and reasons for doing so appears reasonable. The landlord did not refer the matter to the insurers to consider this, however it was reasonable to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to show damage to such a machine, as no information seen by this investigation evidences this. The landlord appropriately explained this decision and the reasons behind it to the resident, and appropriately invited further evidence in support of her claim.
The landlord has explained that the kitchen replacement was offered out of goodwill due to the condition, not due to damages caused by the repairs delays. This appears reasonable, as there is no evidence that the landlord considered the kitchen condition to directly relate to the rodent infestation. A kitchen is normally expected to last around twenty years, with repairs generally falling to a resident, and a landlord normally replaces them as part of a major works programme after they have reached the end of their natural life. The landlord has responded to concerns raised about the kitchen condition in a positive and customer focused way that is mindful of its general responsibilities toward the resident as a tenant; and there is no evidence that in the circumstances it was specifically obligated to replace the kitchen or replace it like for like.
The £2,000 offered toward a sofa and bed appears reasonable and generally in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord did not refer the matter to the insurers to consider specific damage to these, however it sought legal advice, which shows it did carefully consider its offer. When the resident queried why the landlord would not provide compensation to the value of replacements it was willing to purchase, it could have provided some explanation, and re-offered to purchase replacements instead of giving monetary compensation. However, the landlord’s decision to not compensate full amounts that the resident paid was reasonably in line with its compensation policy, which as noted at paragraph 23 of this report allows damages awards of up to £1,000 to take into account wear and tear.
The £500 offered towards other damaged items such as pans, crockery and cutlery appear reasonable, and shows the landlord considered these in customer and resolution focused way and exercised discretion, although there appears to be no specific evidence that such items will have been rendered unusable.
The £500 for distress and inconvenience also appears reasonable and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, and it is not the purpose of this investigation or in this Service’s jurisdiction and expertise to decide specific damages in respect to physical or mental health. The landlord’s compensation policy advises that for distress and inconvenience caused by a service failure, the landlord pays between £10 and £40 per week the failure is experience. This investigation notes that the period between October and December 2020 (the affected period based on information available) is eight weeks, while the resident has stated she was affected for three months. The £500 that the landlord offered equates to twelve and a half weeks compensation at £40 per week, which exceeds the affected eight week period noted by this investigation and equates to the three month period reported by the resident.
In its own Remedies Guidance, the Housing Ombudsman Service sets out three compensation ranges which this Service takes into account when determining cases. The financial remedy of £500 provided by the landlord falls in the second range, where there has been considerable service failure and maladministration, a failure to act in accordance with policy over a considerable period of time, and where the impact includes some distress and inconvenience, time and trouble and delays in getting matters resolved. These appear applicable to what the landlord has acknowledged and what this Service identifies in respect to the repairs delay, which will have understandably caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Accordingly, the financial remedy of £500 offered by the landlord for distress and inconvenience is in accordance with its policy and this Service’s Remedies Guidance and, considering all of the circumstances of the case, in the Ombudsman’s opinion appears suitable financial redress for this aspect.
Overall, the landlord appropriately carried out investigations of the complaint; identified and acknowledged repairs failings; took action to complete any outstanding works; and was resolution focused by seeking to consider and provide a remedy which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was reasonable redress for the rat infestation and the request for compensation.
While the above is the case, this investigation makes a recommendation to the landlord to review its processes to ensure these sufficiently allow repairs to be identified and flagged for completion as quickly as possible where appropriate.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Under the landlord’s complaints policy, the resident’s complaint on 4 November 2020 should have been responded to within ten working days, which the stage one response on 7 December 2020 exceeded by over ten working days. The stage two response also exceeded the ten working day response timeframe by around five months. The landlord’s responses acknowledged and apologised for repairs delays but it did not acknowledge this, which it should have. While this is the case, the stage one delay of around ten working days was not excessive, and this Service recognises the impact that Covid-19 has had on landlord’ staff and resources from March 2020. This investigation notes that some periods of delay at stage two were due to pending information from the resident, and that the landlord generally sought to try to remain communicative and progress matters until its final response.
It is unsatisfactory however that the stage one response did not address elements of the resident’s complaint about compensation, in line with good practise, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and our spotlight report on complaints about repairs. This was part of the original complaint and the resident was given the expectation that this aspect would be addressed by the repairs service provider in their response. Instead of the compensation being addressed in the response on 7 December 2020, it was addressed on 1 April 2021 and 7 May 2021, four to five months later. The lack of this being addressed in the stage one response appears to have made the resident’s consequent escalation inevitable. This is inappropriate, as this contributed toward the complaint being protracted; a landlord’s complaints process should from the start aim to address all the issues and prevent unnecessary escalation.
It is also unsatisfactory that, linked to the above, the landlord did not address certain issues in its stage two response, such as the resident’s claims of mental and physical injury. It was not reasonable or customer focused that the landlord was selective about this, and it should have provided its position on this considering this was part of the original complaint, if only to state that it was unable to consider such claims under its complaints procedure and to recommend the resident to seek independent advice. While the omission of certain issues in the stage two response followed legal advice, the landlord should not lose sight of all the issues raised in a complaint; and should therefore use legal advice to inform how it addresses certain issues, rather than allow this to direct a complaint response altogether.
This investigation notes that the landlord has an agreement whereby its repairs service provider issues stage one responses after drafts have been agreed with the landlord. It is unclear whether or not this was done in this case, however there is concern here that this process was not effective as it could have been. The landlord should ensure that this process is followed and that it uses the opportunity this provides to ensure that draft stage one responses address all issues raised in a complaint. If there are elements of a complaint the repairs service provider do not address, the landlord should ensure that these are progressed in a timely manner, to ensure that residents are not disadvantaged in any way by how initial repairs complaints are handled.
This investigation notes that the landlord has detailed changes made in response to the Ombudsman’s determination of a complaint from another resident, which includes resource for logging complex complaints. This demonstrates that the landlord has taken positive steps to improve its complaints handling, however it is unclear if such measures address certain issues identified here, so this investigation makes some orders and recommendations in respect to these.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress offered in respect to the landlord’s response to a rat infestation at the resident’s property and her request for compensation.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord was customer and resolution focused putting things right in respect to the impact of the repairs delays and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, made reasonable redress to the resident for repairs delays, distress and inconvenience she experienced, and belongings she said were damaged.
The landlord did not acknowledge delays and issues with complaints handling, including the stage one response not addressing all the issues, which led to unnecessary escalation of the complaint at that stage.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £150 for the issues identified with its complaints handling.
The landlord to review its complaint handling:
1. To consider if it is doing enough to review drafts before these are issued by its repairs service provider, and to ensure all points raised in a complaint are being addressed.
2. To clarify processes for how compensation is handled at stage one of its procedure.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service within four weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord to:
1. re-offer the £3,000 to the resident if it has not already paid this.
2. provide the resident with details of its insurers to consider her claim further if she is unhappy with the £2,000 offered for the sofa and bed.
3. if it has not already paid the £2,000, consider re-offering to purchase a replacement sofa and bed as it did previously, and set out the position on this to the resident.
The landlord to liaise with the resident concerning recording her son’s vulnerabilities and to review any appropriate changes in service delivery.
The landlord to liaise with the resident to review repairs concerns about holes in the roof and paving.
The landlord to review its repairs prioritisation processes, to ensure these sufficiently allow repairs to be identified and flagged for completion as quickly as possible where appropriate.
The landlord to review its handling of the legal advice it received, and to ensure that in future it uses this to inform how it addresses issues, rather than omit response to these altogether.