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

Southampton City Council (202202900)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202900

Southampton City Council

17 August 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodent infestation.

Background

  1. The resident lives with her four children in a three-bedroom semi-detached house owned by the local authority landlord. The tenancy agreement began on 24 July 2017.
  2. Since the resident moved to the property, she raised the issue of a rat infestation with the landlord. The landlord took action, such as proofing works, which seemed to address the issue, but in October 2021, the resident reported that, once again, she could hear rodents. The landlord contacted the local authority’s (LA) environmental health (EH) team and asked it to raise an order to inspect and treat. The EH’s pest control team performed a five-week treatment from 8 November 2021 to 6 December 2021. This did not resolve the issue.
  3. The resident raised a complaint via her MP on 2 January 2022 and said that ever since she moved to the property, she had carried out a significant amount of work and paid a substantial amount of money to treat the house against pests to try to make it a ‘safe place’ for her children to grow up in. She said: “I’m constantly worried [the rats] have gotten into food, and I wouldn’t even know. I’m worried about our health and our future here. I’m absolutely gutted as I have put blood, sweat and tears into this house”.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 18 March 2022 and detailed the involvement of the EH pest control team and joint visits the landlord and pest control had undertaken. The letter also described several works it had agreed with the pest control team that it would carry out to block ingress points. It said it hoped these measures would resolve the situation.
  5. The resident said the landlord’s work focused on one aspect of the house when it should have planned work to treat the entire house. She requested a survey of her whole house and that of the adjoining neighbour to identify and carry out a ‘full and robust’ program of work. She asked to escalate her complaint to stage two.
  6. The landlord sent its final response letter on 25 May 2022 and said pest control works were ongoing before the resident’s complaint and were still ongoing; this showed it was committed to pursuing a long-term solution to the infestation, including a clear-out of a nearby wooded area to disrupt the habitat of rodents in the surrounding areas. Therefore, it did not uphold the complaint.
  7. The resident told this Service that the landlord failed to treat the entire house and all ingress points. She gave examples: the new loft insulation was damaged because the cavity walls were left exposed, and the new kitchen was damaged because the drain hole was not sealed. She stated that the landlord had still not done all the works recommended by EH’s pest control team. To resolve the complaint, the resident would like a full survey of the property and the recommendations of the survey to be followed up in full and in a timely manner. She also would like to be compensated for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised several complaints with the landlord about this issue, including one in 2019, which the landlord upheld. While historical events provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from October 2021, when the resident reported that the issue had returned.

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement reflects the landlord’s repairs obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ‘keep in repair’ the structure and exterior of the property.
  2. Landlords must consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Pest infestations, including rodent infestations, are potential category-one hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. This can result in, among other things, gastro-intestinal disease (from the spread of infection), stress (because of difficulties in keeping the home clean), infections (spread by insects, rats, and mice) and nuisance. Preventative measures include blocking holes through the roof, eaves, and verges to deny ingress to rodents.
  3. The landlord does not appear to have its own pest control policy.
  4. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond at stage one within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage two.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodent infestation

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman expects that when a resident reports pest infestations (and where the landlord has responsibility to address these), the landlord will investigate the property. If it is found that a pest issue is present, the Ombudsman will look to see that the landlord follows the advice of specialists and undertakes the recommended course of action to solve the issue.
  3. In this case, the landlord did not contest its responsibility. It is also important to highlight that the property is located near a wild park which, according to the EH team, is an ideal breeding ground for rats. Therefore, the presence of rats is not evidence of failure in itself. However, the landlord was responsible for addressing any repair issues/ingress points that were allowing rats to access the property.
  4. There is some evidence that the landlord carried out joint inspection visits with EH in early 2022, and there is a reference to some works being carried out to proof the property following this. This was appropriate and shows that landlord working in partnership to try and address the issue. In its March 2022 stage one response the landlord described several works it had agreed with the pest control team that it would carry out to block ingress points, which included inserting wire mesh at the bottom of the cladding, adding wire mesh behind skirting, closing off gaps in the loft area, and filling in holes in an old fireplace. It said it hoped these measures would resolve the situation.
  5. However, the repair records do not show that these were completed, and in May 2022, a formal report by EH stated that several suspected ingress points had not been sealed/blocked effectively, including the cladding. In June, EH noted that proofing (wire mesh) in the loft had not been done, and proofing (wire mesh) along the base of the house on the outside leading into the walls had not been done. In July, EH noted that cladding still needed to be proofed.
  6. This evidence suggests that the works the landlord said it would do in its stage one response in March 2022 were not undertaken. Despite this, the landlord’s May 2022 stage 2 response did not acknowledge that these works had not been carried out, and therefore it took no action to ‘put things right’ in this regard. The records also note in late September 2022 that the landlord was still trying to resolve access issues to the property. The resident informed this service as late as April 2023 that the landlord has still not completed the repairs recommended by the EH team. This service understands that both sides acknowledge further pest control and proofing work remained outstanding, and the infestation continues.
  7. Overall, there was a failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter. As the ingress points remained accessible, rats continued accessing all areas of the resident’s house. Therefore, the landlord failed its obligation under HHSRS. Pest infestations, including rodent infestations, are potential category-one hazards, and the resident and her four children have lived with the unsanitary nature of rodent infestation for an extended period which is not appropriate. Rodents were able to enter the property through holes in the structure of the house that the landlord had failed to block effectively. As ingress points to the house remained, it also indicates that the landlord did not meet its obligation under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ‘keep in repair’ the structure and exterior of the property.
  8. The resident shared with the landlord on many occasions how she and her children had been adversely affected by the long-standing and widespread infestations affecting the property:
    1. The sounds of rats trying to enter through a wooden slab sounded like someone was breaking into the property; rats in the bedroom’s wall cavities disrupt the children’s sleep.
    2. Her children were afraid to go to the kitchen in the mornings; she constantly worried for the safety of her children coming into contact with infection spread by rodents.
    3. Gnawed flooring, insulation, cabinets, and pipes; rats dropping throughout, and a stench of urine and dead carcases.
    4. Continuous work by the resident to try and prove the house caused distress, expense, time, and effort.
  9. It is noted that the landlord has taken steps to offer the resident an alternative home as a way to resolve the matter, although this service has not received confirmation as to whether alternative accommodation has been confirmed. However, the resident specifically said she was not looking to relocate. The resident requested that the landlord repair the house so that she and her children could settle into their family home.
  10. Given the unpleasant nature of rat infestation; the time the resident had been experiencing the issue; the trouble she went through trying to resolve the matter; the detriment she had detailed this has caused her and her children; in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has missed an opportunity during the complaint procedure to review the evidence, recognise its failing, put things right for the resident, and improve services.
  11. A compensation amount of £850 has been made to redress the failures identified in this report. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where a failure by a landlord caused significant detriment to the resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance can be found on this service’s website.
  12. As the infestation is ongoing and it is unclear what action the landlord plans to take to resolve this, an order is made below to address this, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which can be found on our website.
  13. Finally, there is no indication that the landlord has ‘learned from outcomes’ in this case or detailed any actions it would take to prevent similar issues from recurring. A further order is made below to address this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodent infestation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Review its handling of the matter, with reference to the failings outlined in this report, to determine the reasons for these, and what action has/will be taken to prevent a recurrence. It should write to this service detailing the outcome of the review.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £850 for the distress, time and trouble, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports of rodent infestation. This must be paid into the resident’s bank account and cannot be offset against any rent arrears the resident may have. Evidence of the payment must be sent to this Service.
    3. Work with the EH team to inspect the property and create an action plan to address any identified pest issues. This action plan must include timescales for action (to be adhered to) and be shared with both this service and the resident. As part of the action plan, the landlord should consider whether a full survey of the property would be beneficial to address the rodent problem, and if so, arrange for this to be undertaken. If it is not felt that this would be beneficial, it should outline the rationale for this in the action plan.
    4. If it has not done so already, the landlord should discuss the possibility of a move with the resident, to determine whether this is something that she would consider as a resolution.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider developing its own pest control policy.