Southern Housing Group Limited (202108927)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108927

Southern Housing Group Limited

22 October 2021(Amended on Review)


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: –

 

  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.

 

b. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.

 

  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

Background and summary of events

 

Background

 

  1. The resident moved into the property in January 2021. She is an assured tenant. Shortly after that move, the resident reported a pest infestation and issues with her kitchen.

 

Scope

 

  1. The resident lodged a complaint with the landlord and during their communications with each other, the resident reported, and/or the landlord identified, further repair works that were outstanding at the property. These repairs involved the bathroom, windows, front door, garden gate, and outside fencing. The landlord aimed to deal with these as part of the complaint but it’s handling of these repairs was not included in the complaint itself. However, reference is made to these additional issues below to provide context to the complaint which is being considered.

 

Summary of Events

 

  1. On 5 February 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord’s service centre and reported she could hear “scuffling” in the walls and had seen something run between two bedrooms. The landlord advised that its pre–tenancy inspection had not revealed any pest infestations and that its policy was to treat communal areas only – not individual properties. It stated that had the problem been apparent during the void period, the landlord would have attended to it.

 

  1. The resident was dissatisfied with this decision. She considered that the problem must have predated her tenancy given it arose so quickly after she moved in. She pressed the landlord further and on 8 February 2021 the landlord agreed to arrange for its pest control operative to attend the property, which was confirmed with the resident shortly afterwards. However, by then, the resident had arranged for her own pest controller to attend and contacted the landlord on 9 February 2021 to request reimbursement of the £250 she had spent on this. She lodged a formal complaint about the situation at the same time.

 

  1. On 12 February 2021 the landlord discussed the situation with the resident by telephone and confirmed that it was aware of her complaint. The resident reported that her expenditure was actually around £300 (including traps and an ultrasonic pest repeller) and she was finding it difficult to sleep in the property, knowing there were pests around. She reported that the pest controller she had advised that the pests were gaining access from a neighbouring property. Bait had been laid at a first visit and a second visit had taken place.

 

  1. On 16 February 2021 the landlord emailed the resident, confirming that the pest control issues she had raised were being handled as a complaint. In the meantime, its repairs team were investigating other issues she had raised about the property, namely that the kitchen units were bowing; laminate was coming away from the doors; there was a piece missing out of the bath; and there was a leak from the kitchen sink. The landlord agreed to look into the outstanding repairs and confirmed that the complaint would be responded to as soon as possible but it had a backlog. The resident responded, confirming that it was rats, not mice, as originally recorded, which were the problem in the property.

 

  1. Also, on 16 February 2021 the landlord’s pest control operative attended the property and noted some evidence of pests and placed three baited boxes under the bath area. It was noted that a follow up visit would be required in four to seven days after that.

 

  1. On 23 February 2021 the landlord’s pest control operative made a follow up visit to the property. They noted no activity on site and removed their boxes as the resident was “using her own pest control company”. No further action was recommended.

 

  1. On 22 and 26 February 2021, the landlord contacted the resident, reporting a backlog in complaints but confirming her request for compensation for her expenditure would be considered as soon as possible.

 

  1. On 1 March 2021, in an internal record, the landlord noted that, according to a report from the pest control operative, the infestation had been dealt with, but the entry point was from a drainpipe into the loft. The suggestion was made that works be undertaken to seal off this entry point. The landlord was considering carrying out proofing works at the property.

 

  1. On 10 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord as she had not heard further about her complaint and reported that she could hear pest activity again. She was concerned that she had spent money on pest control and that expenditure had left her with a deficit to pay household bills and support her young child. She wanted to hear from the landlord urgently regarding a refund and compensation.

 

  1. On 19 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord again to report that rats were still accessing the property through the drainage within the loft, and this needed investigating.

 

  1. On 24 March 2021 the landlord emailed the resident, formally confirming receipt of her complaint. It summarised the issues as, “Rats accessing your house through the drainpipe within the loft; pest control has attended and ask that we investigate further; you are seeking compensation of £250”. It noted the remedy sought by the resident as proofing works required to close off pest access points and compensation of £250 for the resident’s expenditure on pest control.

 

  1. The resident responded the same day that she was also looking to be compensated for £31.49 and £21.99 for “traps etc” that she had bought, and she wanted compensation for the stress of moving into a home that had “been a nightmare”. The landlord discussed the situation with her further by telephone on 26 March. The resident then chased the landlord for a decision by telephone on 31 March and twice on 9 April 2021.

 

  1. On 17 April 2021 the resident sent the landlord photographs of her kitchen, which she stated showed instances of disrepair. The resident then telephoned the landlord on 22 April 2021 reminding it that she was waiting to hear further about the rat proofing works.

 

  1. Also, on 22 April 2021 the landlord’s repairs operative emailed its surveyor regarding the kitchen. The operative had attended the property on 10 March 2021 and reported “a lot of repairs”. It stated, “customer wants a new kitchen so maybe surveyor could have a look first as that is 90% of the kitchen that needs changing.”

 

  1. On 23 April 2021 the landlord noted the resident was chasing for an update on the outstanding work and also relating to the rat proofing to prevent any pests returning. Its staff member was to consider whether the kitchen works could go ahead or whether they were going to replace the kitchen instead.

 

  1. On 27 April 2021, the landlord reviewed the situation and noted that an appointment needed to be arranged to carry out the rat proofing works and fit a new bath. It was considering organising an inspection to decide whether the kitchen needed replacement rather than repair.

 

  1. The resident chased the landlord for a decision on that inspection on 30 April 2021 and reported there was also an issue with draughty windows. She was waiting to hear from the landlord’s surveyor.

 

  1. On 7 May 2021 the landlord’s repairs operative reported to it that the work in the kitchen and bathroom had been scheduled for 10 May, 17 May, and 1 June 2021 (the final date relating to the kitchen).

 

  1. The resident discussed the situation with the landlord again on 17 and 19 May 2021. She requested a new bathroom, stating that the amount of work required meant it needed replacement. She listed a number of other repairs she wanted to take place in the property – to the front door, mixer tap in the bathroom, toilet, sink, draughty windows, external fencing, and requesting an” L” or “P” shaped bath.

 

  1. On 20 May 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident by telephone, and she asserted she had been told that 90% of the kitchen needed replacing and a new kitchen had been agreed. She wanted a surveyor to go to the property to discuss all the issues she considered existed – not just with the pest infestation and kitchen. 

 

  1. In an internal email to the landlord, also dated 20 May 2021, its repairs operative clarified that it was the customer’s requests, relating to the kitchen, that amounted to a 90% change rather than the landlord’s operative’s advice that this was what was required.

 

  1. Also on that day, the landlord’s surveyor reported to it that the kitchen doors had been covered with “fablon” to change the appearance of them. He commented that once removed, the original door finish was disclosed, and the doors underneath were sound. He could not understand the suggestion that 90% of the kitchen needed replacing. He did not consider that the bathroom needed total replacement either. The resident was contacted and advised that the landlord would not agree to replace either kitchen or bathroom. It told her of the dates both were due to be replaced anyway. The landlord disagreed that it had confirmed that 90% of the kitchen needed repairs and so it might as well be replaced instead. 

 

  1. On 21 May 2021 the landlord phoned the resident to advise that its surveyor would attend the property on Wednesday 26 May 2021. As a result of that visit, the surveyor identified a number of “minor repairs” to a “sticking” front door, “draughty” windows, garden gate and fence panels, and the bathroom plug.

 

  1. On 2 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord requesting a response to her complaint pursuant to stage one of its complaints procedure, so that she could escalate the matter to a higher level.

 

  1. On 9 June 2021 the landlord noted that the resident wished to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure because there were still works outstanding in her property. The landlord wrote to the resident that day to acknowledge her telephone request for an escalation of the complaint. It noted that her reasons were because she was unhappy with delays to the kitchen repairs, she wanted compensation for her expenditure on pest control and there were other repairs outstanding too. As an outcome, she wanted a new kitchen, a new bathroom, all outstanding repairs to be completed and compensation of £500. The landlord stated that a response should be provided by “6 June” (sic).

 

  1. On 10 June 2021, the landlord confirmed in an internal email, that all agreed internal repairs were being carried out on 16 June 2021, and all external ones, on 17 June 2021. Its operative attended the property on 16 June 2021, as planned, and undertook repair works to the bathroom, and front door.

 

  1. The landlord considered the resident’s request for a new kitchen further and in an internal email dated 17 June 2021, its surveyor noted that there were no health and safety concerns relating to the kitchen. It accepted that the unit doors were “delaminating” and did require repair, but the renewal of the kitchen did not need to be brought forward, in its opinion. The surveyor recorded that at the recent visit the resident had “expressed her desire” to change the layout of the kitchen “significantly” and considered that this was the motivation behind her complaint.

 

  1. On 30 June 2021 the landlord spoke with the resident and explained its view that the kitchen did not need replacing – although it would be undertaken in two years’ time as a planned renewal. The resident was also advised that an “L” or “P” shaped bath were not standard and would not be agreed to. The resident had arranged the involvement of an occupational therapist (OT) to consider the accessibility of the bathroom. The landlord confirmed that if the OT recommended such a bath, it would still need to consider whether it had the budget to do the work and whether the bath was viable for that property.

 

  1. The resident expressed concern that if the intended repairs were made to the kitchen, it would not be replaced after all. She spoke with the landlord again on 1 July 2021 when it reassured her that repairs to the kitchen would not prevent a replacement at the due date and it was agreeable to installing two metres of new worktop now, as a compromise. It also confirmed that it would offer some compensation for missed appointments and delays. On this basis, the resident confirmed she would like to proceed with the repairs, and that the bath issue would be delayed pending her OT assessment.

 

  1. On 2 July 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with its “Stage 2 Senior Manager Review” response. It understood that the reasons why the resident remained dissatisfied were:

 

  1. It had not dealt with her concerns about the condition of the kitchen, and she still considered that there were outstanding works relating to the rat treatment/proofing.

 

  1. The offer made did not reflect the amount she had spent on pest control, or the delays experienced.

 

  1. The resident felt that the work surface in her kitchen was inadequate and this had not been considered.

 

  1. In response to the points, the landlord confirmed as follows:

 

  1. The kitchen was due for replacement in two years’ time. It was accepted that some repairs to the doors needed to be done before then and it had been agreed that two meters of additional work top should be installed. This work would not prevent the full replacement from taking place.

 

  1. The resident had agreed with the landlord for these works to now proceed and she would be contacted shortly to arrange an appointment. 

 

  1. An offer of compensation was being made which totalled £401.48 and was made up as follows: £25 service failure for pest control delay; £301.48 reimbursement for pest control treatments; £25 for delays in progressing complaint; £50 for contractor appointments cancelled at short notice. An apology was also given.

 

  1. The landlord then scheduled an appointment for 15 July 2021 to fit the worktop replacement; fill all rodent entry points throughout the household; and replace delaminating unit fronts in the kitchen. However, when the landlord’s operative attended that day, 15 July 2021, it contacted the landlord stating the resident had been irate and would not allow the delaminated unit fronts to be replaced, stating that she wanted two new base units.

 

  1. The operative then reported to the landlord later in the day that the resident had not allowed the filling in of rodent entry points identified in the loft space, and that she would only allow them to fit a new worktop in the kitchen.

 

  1. The resident also contacted the landlord that day and was stated to be angry because two kitchen units were not being changed. The resident maintained that she was not happy with the landlord’s complaint response and wanted a new kitchen. She wanted to discuss this further. However, the landlord explained that its complaints process had come to an end.

 

  1. The landlord spoke further to resident about her complaint on 6 August 2021 and explained that it would offer nothing further. Its surveyor denied that any kitchen units needed replacing; they just needed new fronts and doors.

 

  1. The resident has informed this Service that she wants a replacement kitchen because the cupboards are bowed and the plastic coatings peeling away. The kitchen is due to be replaced in two years’ time anyway and the resident considers it would be more suitable to do that now than to repair it. With regard to the infestation, she stated that the property was infested when she moved in. She was seeking compensation for her expenses and time spent dealing with the issue.

 

  1. The landlord has informed this Service that the resident has requested a replacement kitchen and £1,000 in compensation relating to the pest infestation and delays experienced. It confirmed that the kitchen was now to be replaced in “2 years’ time” and whilst the agreed worktop had been installed, the resident was refusing the other outstanding works. It commented that this may create a deterioration in the situation which it did not consider it was responsible for.

 

Agreements, policies and procedures

 

  1. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that routine repairs will be completed “as soon as possible”.

 

  1. The policy contains a procedure for pest management which states that it does not provide treatment for pests which pose “little or no health risk to people” and gives the example of squirrels and pigeons. However, it will arrange treatment to deal with “high risk” pests which typically includes mice and rats. It will do this to make a property safe and fit for habitation and where there are direct health implications. Its staff “should authorise treatment as they see fit”.

 

  1. The procedure continues by stating that where it accepts responsibility for pest treatment, its contactor “must carry out proofing works as part of their treatment service” to avoid repeat infestations.

 

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy sets out its approach to complaints handling. It operates a two-stage procedure. Under the first stage, it commits to providing a response within ten working days. If it is unable to do so, it will advise the resident of an alternative timescale. If the issue is expected to continue after the response, the resident is to be given an “action plan”. The landlord agrees to monitor the situation to ensure the plan is carried out.

 

  1. If the resident remains dissatisfied at the end of stage one, they can request an escalation of the complaint to stage two of the procedure, which is described as a “Complaint Review Panel” with a “hearing” taking place either in person or on a virtual basis. A report is to be prepared for the panel at least ten working days before the hearing, with the result also being notified within 10 working days thereafter.

 

  1. The landlord has revised its complaints policy effective from 31 December 2021, that is at the end of this year. That revised policy provides for three separate options when dealing with complaints that have been escalated to stage two of its complaints procedure. These are for a compensation review to take place; or for a complaint review panel to be convened; or for a senior manager review to be arranged.

 

  1. The landlord’s Compensation Framework sets out its approach to awarding compensation. It confirms that it can offer an award to cover financial losses suffered by a resident as a result of any service failure. It can offer a goodwill payment of up to £25 for failing to follow its own policies/procedures, which can rise to £50 where the resident has suffered inconvenience and distress.  Further, it can offer up to £25 for missed or failed appointments.

 

  1. In addition, the landlord can offer discretionary compensation to take account of the severity of the issues involved and the impact on the resident – to include consideration of any vulnerabilities that they have. The framework sets out that there is no limit to the amount that can be paid.

 

Assessment

 

The pest infestation

 

  1. The resident moved into the property in January 2021 and at the beginning of February 2021 noticed the pest problem. Given that this occurred so quickly after her move, her conclusion that it must have pre-dated her occupation was reasonable. However, the landlord’s void inspection had not revealed a problem and there is no evidence to contradict this or suggest that the pests gained entry due to a lack of repair. The timing may be coincidental, but the evidence cannot confirm this.

 

  1. Initially the landlord refused to treat the infestation, stating that it only dealt with communal areas. This position did not accord with its Responsive Repairs Policy as set out at paragraphs 43-45 above. However, its relatively quick change of decision was a reasonable response to the resident’s protestations.

 

  1. In the Ombudsman’s view, it was reasonable for the resident to arrange for her own pest control in the meantime as she was concerned about the health and safety implications. The landlord has offered to reimburse the resident for the monies she spent on this, to the total of £301.48 and it was appropriate that it made this offer as the resident made the alternative arrangement due to its delays in dealing with the issue.

 

  1. Despite the landlord’s pest control operative reporting, after its last visit on 23 February 2021, that nothing further was required, the landlord identified, on 1 March 2021 that it needed to undertake pest proofing works to an access point in the loft. The evidence shows this being referred to on a number of occasions in the following weeks, and the resident chasing it. However, the landlord did not instruct its operative to deal with this work until an attendance was scheduled for 15 July 2021. Whilst the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy refers to “repairs” being dealt with “as soon as possible”, it is the Ombudsman’s view that this represented an unacceptable delay.

 

  1. Notwithstanding that, however, there is no evidence of any real continuation of the pest infestation during that period. The resident is quoted in the landlord’s internal records as saying that she thinks she can hear pests again in early March 2021, but there were no sightings since then. Indeed, the resident did not re-instruct her pest controller and there is no evidence of her requiring the landlord to re-instruct its operative. It is reasonable to conclude that had a problem such as this persisted, there would be evidence of the resident insisting on a pest control visit immediately. The landlord has concluded that the problem itself has abated. It has offered compensation for delay in dealing with pest control, but it is reasonable to conclude that that offer related to the initial delay in accepting responsibility and treating the problem.

 

  1. The landlord might reasonably have been expected to recognise that a further service failing had occurred in its delay in arranging rat proofing works between March and July 2021. The resident was put to the inconvenience of having to chase the landlord and she was distressed by not having ‘peace of mind’ in having more certainty that the problem could not repeat itself. The landlord’s policy, as set out at paragraph 45 above is to undertake proofing works to prevent recurrences of infestations and it delayed in implementing that policy.

 

  1. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord might reasonably have offered further compensation of £50 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience, as set out in its Compensation Framework (see paragraph 47).  An order will be made below that the offer of compensation accordingly.

 

  1. For the sake of completeness, the Ombudsman notes that the resident refused to have the rat proofing done on 15 July 2021 when the landlord’s operative attended the property ready and willing to carry it out. The Ombudsman will not consider any time after this as representing further delay on the landlord’s behalf. The resident wanted to withhold access to the repair until the landlord had agreed to replace the kitchen. In the Ombudsman’s view the two are not connected and dependant on each other, and the landlord reasonably points out that the resident will have to take responsibility for any deterioration in the ‘pest situation’ moving forward as a result.

 

The replacement kitchen

 

  1. On 17 April 2021 the resident supplied the landlord with photographs of her kitchen which she considered demonstrated considerable disrepair. That evidence has been supplied to this Service. However, the Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence as it is not possible for this Service to determine the location/circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, significant reliance is not placed on photographic evidence when this Service reaches it decisions.

 

  1. The landlord concluded that there were some repair issues to be addressed but they were cosmetic in nature. The resident did not wish to accept this and ultimately the landlord agreed for its surveyor to attend the property to carry out an inspection. Whilst this visit revealed a number of other minor repairs, there is no evidence that a replacement kitchen was agreed.

 

  1. There is a conflict between resident and landlord regarding whether one of its operatives had already agreed at that point, that 90% of the kitchen needed repair, in which case it was false economy and it would be better to bring a forthcoming replacement forward. The landlord’s operative states that it was the resident’s repair requests that amounted to a 90% change rather than that this being their view as to what was required.

 

  1. In the absence of a reliable independent witness during the inspection at the property, this Service is unable to verify what was discussed. However, it can look at the surrounding evidence to see whether it supports one version of events over another. Had a replacement kitchen been agreed, either after the landlord’s operative attended or after its surveyor inspected, it is reasonable to conclude that a written confirmation of this would have been provided to the resident, but there is no evidence of this taking place. The landlord’s internal records show that it was still considering whether the replacement could (and should) be brought forward. When the landlord advised the resident that its decision was negative, the evidence shows that she agreed to the repairs being done as long as a worktop was fitted, and she had reassurance that the repairs would not prevent a future replacement taking place. The subsequent evidence does not suggest, in the Ombudsman’s view, that a replacement was agreed at any stage.

 

  1. Despite the fact that an agreement appears to have been reached that the repairs would be carried out (rather than a replacement being installed), when the landlord instructed its operatives to attend the property to do the repairs, the resident declined the work other than the installation of the work top. Accordingly, the landlord cannot be held responsible for any consequences of this delay in effecting the remaining repairs.

 

  1. In terms of the replacement of the kitchen, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord has considered the resident’s request and attended the property to look into her concerns. Such a replacement represents major financial expenditure on the landlord’s behalf, and it undoubtedly has limited resources. The kitchen is due for replacement in the next two years in any event. Further, and more importantly, no evidence has been produced to show the kitchen is not fit for purpose or to suggest that it represents a health and safety risk. It is not for this Service to compel the landlord to use its resources in this way, and under these circumstances, and its handling of the resident’s request has been reasonable.

 

  1. Notwithstanding this, the landlord did offer the resident compensation of £50 because of missed appointments relating to repairs. It is not set out as to whether this related to work in the bathroom, which is a separate issue. However, and again for the sake of completeness, this offer was appropriately made in the Ombudsman’s view.

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

 

  1. The resident lodged her complaint about the pest infestation on 9 February 2021 and the issue with the kitchen was treated as part of the complaint by the landlord when it gave its stage two response. It took the landlord until 24 March 2021 to formally acknowledge the complaint and there is no evidence it had given a stage one response by the time the resident requested that it be escalated at the beginning of June 2021. There is evidence of the resident chasing for a response on a number of occasions and the landlord explaining it had a significant backlog with its complaints handling.

 

  1. When the landlord acknowledged the stage two escalation request on 9 June 2021 it informed the resident that a response would be given by 6 June 2021, which was obviously an error, and did not manage the resident’s expectations. A “senior manager review” was then provided on 2 July 2021.

 

  1. The way in which the landlord dealt with the complaint bears little comparison to its stated policy, as set out above and this was inappropriate. Its use of a “Senior Manager Review” is not set out in the policy in force at the time, although it is noted that it is included in the new policy coming into effect later this year. The landlord acted reasonably when it acknowledged, in its complaint response, that there had been a delay in dealing with the complaint.

 

  1. However, its offer of compensation of £25 did not, in the Ombudsman’s view, reflect the distress and inconvenience to the resident in chasing the situation – and there is evidence she did so repeatedly. Indeed, the evidence suggests the complaint might not have been responded to at all, had the resident not maintained the pressure for a response. 

 

  1. The landlord’s compensation framework provides for further discretionary compensation to be awarded for the impact of service failings on its residents. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord should have applied this, and, as part of a fair dispute resolution, offered a further sum to the resident to reflect the impact on her of the situation. An order will be made for further compensation of £50 in addition to the £25 already offered in connection with the landlord’s complaints handling. 

 

 

Determination (decision)

 

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

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.  

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.  

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

Reasons

 

  1. Whilst the landlord recognised the failing in the service it offered to the resident over its initial refusal to organise pest control, it offered no redress for its further delay in organising “rat proofing”. The resident had been put to further distress and inconvenience in chasing the landlord for this work to be resolved.

 

  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen was reasonable. It considered her repair reports and photographic evidence, arranged a visit and an inspection, and set out what works it would do. When the resident remained adamant she wanted a replacement kitchen, it considered whether it could bring the replacement forward, it being planned for two years’ time in any event. It concluded this was not necessary and there is no evidence to contradict this, for example by showing the kitchen poses a health and safety risk.

 

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling process bore little correlation to its stated policy. There were significant delays, and the resident was left without vital resources whilst a decision was made.

 

Orders

 

  1. The landlord to pay compensation of £501.48 in total to the resident in recognition of the impact upon her of its service failings (£401.48 previously offered, plus £50 delay in rat proofing and an additional £50 for the impact of the delay in complaints handling).

 

  1. The landlord to contact the resident to arrange a date for the rat proofing works
  2. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order.