Southern Housing Group Limited (202015888)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015888

Southern Housing Group Limited

21 July 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

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

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, living in a flat in a block.
The resident initially raised concerns with the landlord from 2011 onwards regarding an ongoing mice infestation at her property since she had moved there in 2007. An independent pest controller’s inspection commissioned by the resident’s solicitors was completed at the property on 7 August 2018, which identified that investigation, monitoring, proofing, and baiting works were required at both the resident’s and neighbouring properties until the mice infestation was eradicated. This was because the inspection found that the infestation at the resident’s property was prejudicial to health under section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The resident continued to report issues throughout 2018 and contractors attended on several occasions to carry out proofing and baiting at her property at that time.
The resident contacted this Service on 14 February 2021 as she was dissatisfied that the landlord had removed her from the housing transfer list, as she wanted to move due to the ongoing rodent infestation issues, and we asked it to respond to her complaint on 12 March 2021. The resident then reported her dissatisfaction to the landlord on 16 March 2021 about it neither sealing all the mice entry points at the property nor moving her. The landlord subsequently raised a stage one complaint about its handling of the infestation at our request, which it responded to on 18 June 2021.
Following further inspections, proofing, and baiting by the landlord in 2021 to 2022, the resident reiterated her reports about the mice infestation at the property to the landlord on 24 February 2022, adding that this had damaged her kitchen cupboards, as well as her carpets and sofa that she would have to dispose of. She escalated her complaint on 31 March 2022, as she disagreed with the landlord’s proposed plan to complete baiting works again prior to proofing the property.
This was because the landlord’s earlier actions and its subsequent inspections on 7 May 2021 and 9 March 2022, proofing on 8 June 2021 and baiting on 29 March 2022 had been unsuccessful, with it initially being unsure what further works could be completed. The resident also subsequently said that its contractor had stated that mouse droppings had made the property “uninhabitable,” and she reported that she had therefore frequently stayed away from the property since she had moved in, due to this and her phobia of the mice, which she explained had damaged her mental health.
The landlord has been unable to provide its stage one response to this Service, as it did not keep a copy of this. It went on to carry out further proofing works at the resident’s property on 5 May 2022, remove a radiator and seal the hole behind it on 26 June 2022 that she had been pursuing following a contractor identifying the issue in December 2018, and fill holes behind the kitchen cupboards on 12 July 2022. The resident reported that new gaps were created by the latter works, as the cupboards were not properly sealed by it when reinstated.
In the landlord’s final complaint response on 10 August 2022, which it issued following a request from this Service on 28 July 2022 as the resident had told us that she had still not received a response, it acknowledged that the pest control issues had been ongoing for a prolonged period of time and that it had provided the resident with various conflicting information. It therefore apologised to her and stated that the communication between the different contractors could have been improved and it would work with specialist contractors to resolve the issue. It advised that she was not eligible for a management move, but it would contact her to discuss alternative property move options. It offered £150 compensation, comprised of £100 for the delays in resolving the issues, £25 due to the delay in the stage two response, and £25 as a goodwill gesture.
In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she remained dissatisfied as the landlord had not fulfilled the outlined actions in its stage two response. The mice infestation was still ongoing, and she had not been contacted regarding property move options. She wanted additional compensation and to be moved from the property. The resident subsequently confirmed that she had made a separate complaint to the landlord about its handling of her transfer request, but that the landlord had never acknowledged that complaint.
The landlord informed this Service that it had introduced a new complaint management system in December 2021, which retains all complaint documents, and it provided us with its records that stated it was unable to access the property on 19 August 2022 to complete a pre-inspection.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her complaint to this Service, the resident has raised that she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the rodent infestation issues since the beginning of her tenancy. Although it is evident that the issues have been ongoing for a prolonged period of time, the resident did not make any reports to the landlord between December 2018 and March 2021, following which she raised a complaint.
As a result, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the issue from 2021 onwards. This is because, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period, normally within six months of the matter arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident has also explained that her mental health was damaged by the handling of her reports of the mice infestation, and that her subsequent separate complaint to the landlord about its handling of her transfer request was never acknowledged, including it not contacting her about her property move options. It is very concerning that she reported damage to her mental health, but this is not something that this investigation can consider because determining liability and awarding damages for ill-health is an outcome that is not within this Service’s authority to provide, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Also, we may not consider complaints made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and so the landlord’s reported lack of response to the resident’s transfer complaint has been addressed below instead of the transfer complaint itself.

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

In accordance with the landlord’s pest management policy, it will provide a pest management service to residents if there is a clear health and safety risk, including when mice are present. Such infestations are required to be treated without delay under the policy, and proofing works must be carried out as part of treatments to avoid repeat infestations. This is together with structural or repair issues, including to block all holes and gaps connecting properties, communal and external areas, which are to be reported to ensure necessary repairs and proofing. Mice are acknowledged by the landlord’s policy as being considered a health risk, and as causing psycho-social stress in some people.
The landlord is also responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, in line with the tenancy agreement. As such, if there were structural issues that had contributed to the rodent infestation, the landlord would be expected to complete the required repairs.
The resident initially re-raised her concerns regarding the rodent infestation to the landlord on 16 March 2021 as she was dissatisfied that it had not sealed all of the mice entry points at the property, and the landlord would be expected to resolve the repair issues in the property.
Given the time since the previous reports in 2018, it was appropriate that the landlord raised a work order to inspect for proofing works to assess the current condition. Following a no access appointment, the inspection was completed on 7 May 2021. The contractor noted that previous proofing works had been undertaken, but they were unsure what further works could be completed. The landlord subsequently noted that proofing works had been carried out on 8 June 2021, but no further details of the works were provided so it is unclear exactly what was completed. It is important to note that this Service would expect the landlord to be able to provide such records.
There is a gap in the records provided between 18 June 2021, when the landlord issued its stage one response, and 24 February 2022, when the resident re-raised her concerns, adding that the mice infestation had damaged her kitchen cupboards, carpets, and sofa. As the landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the stage one response, it is unclear whether it had proposed a resolution that satisfied the resident in the interim, or if it addressed her reports of damage that it would also be expected to respond to. Regardless, it is clear a resolution was not reached in full because both parties subsequently confirmed that the mice infestation was still present at the property.
A contractor then attended the resident’s property on 9 March 2022. The resident advised the landlord that the contractor stated that the mice droppings made the property “uninhabitable.” It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to acknowledge her concerns or take steps to liaise with the contractor to determine whether any further action was required. This is particularly concerning considering the previous pest controller’s finding that this was prejudicial to health in 2018, and its pest management policy requiring this to be treated and proofed without delay. In addition, this Service would expect to see evidence of a report with any recommended works, but there is no further information regarding the outcome of the appointment.
On 29 March 2022, a pest control contractor laid bait in the property, and the landlord subsequently advised the resident that the proofing works would be completed following the baiting works. The resident raised concerns that previous contractors had identified baiting would not be effective if there were still entry points in the property.
Although the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified contractors when determining how best to proceed with the repair, it would be expected to consider the resident’s concerns and provide suitable reasons for its decision. This is especially because her concerns were in line with its pest management policy’s requirements for it to report and proof all structural or repair issues, including to block all holes and gaps connecting properties, communal and external areas, as well as to do baiting. The landlord did not meaningfully engage with her concerns and maintained that the baiting works would be completed first, which caused the resident additional time and effort in pursuing the issue.
The landlord noted that proofing works were completed on 5 May 2022. However, again there were no further details of the works provided. In the resident’s timeline of events provided to this Service, she said a contractor removed the radiator and sealed the hole behind it on 26 June 2022, which she had been pursuing following a contractor identifying the issue in December 2018. The landlord has not provided an explanation for why the works were delayed, contrary to its pest management policy’s above requirements. The resident also stated a contractor had filled holes behind the kitchen cupboards on 12 July 2022, but new gaps were created as the cupboards were not properly sealed when reinstated, which again contravened the policy.
It is evident that the landlord has provided a lack of sufficiently detailed repair records regarding the works that have been completed at the property. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If this Service investigates a complaint, the landlord is expected to provide its records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, although the landlord has attended on numerous occasions, due to the lack of reports following inspections, it is unclear whether it arranged required follow-on works.
This Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management found that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate.” This is evident in this case as the landlord did not consider the recommendations made by previous contractors to determine how best to proceed with the repair, which was likely due to the lack of detailed records regarding the outcome of the repair appointments. As a result, there was a missed opportunity to complete the necessary repairs at an earlier date, which would have reduced the impact to the resident. The resident also had to become unreasonably involved in order to progress the repairs, such as by providing a comprehensive timeline of the repairs to the landlord to give to contractors.
It was appropriate that the landlord recognised in its final response that it could have improved its repair service through better collaboration between the various contractors in attempt to resolve the issues. It stated it would work with specialist pest control services to eradicate the rodent infestation. It also stated it would contact the resident to discuss property move options.
However, the resident advised this Service that the landlord failed to fulfil the commitments made in its final response. It is noted that the landlord’s repair records stated it was unable to access the property on 19 August 2022 to complete a pre-inspection, but there is no evidence that it advised the resident of the appointment or attempted to rearrange it to proceed with the works. As such, the landlord failed to complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe, which is considered a failing.
Overall, it is unclear whether the landlord has taken sufficient action in response to the resident’s reports of the rodent infestation in the property due to the lack of detailed repair records provided. It is evident that the resident has experienced prolonged distress and inconvenience due to the rodent infestation in the property due to the landlord’s failings and has spent a significant amount of time pursuing the issues. As a result, an order has been made below for it to inspect the property to identify the required structural, repair and proofing works, provide the resident and this Service with an action plan outlining the repairs it will complete, and the timeframe for the works.
It was appropriate that the landlord’s final response recognised its failings and offered £100 for the delays in resolving the issues and £25 as a goodwill gesture. However, the compensation offered was not proportionate to its failings. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which recommends compensation of up to £600 for failures that adversely affected the resident, where the landlord made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation, additional compensation of £475 is appropriate and so has been ordered below. This is because, although the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made an attempt to put things right, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation, given the number of additional failures we identified that went unaddressed by it.
The landlord has therefore also been ordered below to carry out a case review of its handling of the resident’s reports of the mice infestation at the property, before writing to her and this Service to acknowledge, apologise for and explain all of its failures in her case, and how it will prevent these from occurring again in the future. It has additionally been ordered below to write to the resident to provide her with details to enable her to submit a liability claim to it or its insurers for the damages that she reported to her belongings and her mental health. This is as well as reviewing its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to their application of its pest management policy, and of their record keeping for this, in light of this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Complaint handling

In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, it should respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
Following correspondence from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 12 March 2021 advising it to contact her regarding her stage one complaint. The landlord issued its stage one response on 18 June 2021, exceeding its complaints policy’s ten-working-day response timeframe by 56 working days. The landlord has not been able to provide a copy of its response, so it is unclear whether it recognised the delay.
In line with this Service’s complaint handling code “a full record must be kept of the complaint, any review and the outcomes at each stage.” As a result, it was inappropriate that the landlord was unable to provide its stage one response. The landlord advised this Service that it has a two-year data retention policy, so it no longer had record of its response due to the time elapsed. It is positive to note that the landlord has since introduced a new complaint management system in December 2021 which retains all complaint documents, which will prevent a further recurrence of the issue.
The resident escalated her complaint on 31 March 2022 and the landlord issued its stage two response on 10 August 2022 following another request from this Service, which was a significant delay of 69 working days later than its complaint’s policy’s 20-working-day response timeframe. Although it was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged its failing in its final response, the £25 compensation offered was not proportionate to the length of the delay. This is particularly given the amount of time and trouble that the resident would have been caused by this at both stages of the complaint procedure by both the length of the delays, and by having to contact this Service in order to obtain a response at both stages.
This Service’s remedies guidance recommends compensation of up to £100 for failures in the service by the landlord, including time, trouble, and delays in getting matters resolved, which it did not fully put right. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered below to pay the resident £100 further compensation in recognition of any unnecessary additional time and trouble that she experienced from its poor complaint handling in her case.
The landlord has also been ordered below to carry out a case review of its handling of the resident’s formal complaints, before writing to her and this Service to acknowledge, apologise for and explain all of its complaint handling failures in her case, and how it will prevent these from occurring again in the future. The landlord has additionally been ordered below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy, and of their record keeping for this, in light of this Service’s complaint handling code.
Moreover, it is of concern that the resident reports that the landlord has not acknowledged or responded to her separate complaint about its handling of her transfer request, including about it not contacting her about her property move options. This Service’s complaint handling code requires landlords to respond to complaints when the answer to the complaint is known, and to “address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.” Therefore, the landlord has also been ordered below to respond to the resident’s transfer request complaint, including about it not contacting her about her property move options if it has not done so already.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £725 within four weeks, which is broken down into:
  1. The £150 compensation that it previously offered her if she has not received this already.
  2. £475 additional compensation for its failings in handling the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
  3. £100 additional compensation for its complaint handling failures.
2. Contact the resident within four weeks to arrange for it to inspect the property to identify the required structural, repair and proofing works, provide an action plan to the resident and this Service outlining the repairs it will complete, and the timeframe for the works. The action plan should be provided within six weeks of the date of this report.
3. Carry out a case review of its handling of the resident’s reports of the mice infestation at the property, before writing to her and this Service within six weeks to acknowledge, apologise for and explain all of its failures in her case, and how it will prevent these from occurring again in the future.
4. Write to the resident within four weeks to provide her with details to enable her to submit a liability claim to it or its insurers for the damages that she reported to her belongings and her mental health.
5. Review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation their application of its pest management policy, and of their record keeping for this, in light of this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
6. Carry out a case review of its handling of the resident’s formal complaints, before writing to her and this Service within six weeks to acknowledge, apologise for and explain all of its complaint handling failures in her case, and how it will prevent these from occurring again in the future.
7. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy, and of their record keeping for this, in light of this Service’s complaint handling code.
8. Respond to the resident’s transfer request complaint, including about it not contacting her to discuss property move options, within four weeks, if it has not done so already.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four and six weeks to confirm that it has complied with the orders within the designated timeframes.