Southwark Council (202210187)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210187

Southwark Council

9 November 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of disrepair issues causing pest infestations including rats, mice and tropical ants.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour by other residents involving fly tipping and incorrect rubbish disposal attracting pests.
3. Report of a fire in the bin close to her property.
4. Request for a direct offer to be rehoused pending the redevelopment of the scheme.
5. Associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning fly tipping and incorrect rubbish disposal attracting pests.
2. Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which ‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body’. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning fly tipping and incorrect rubbish disposal attracting pests falls in respect of the local authority’s responsibilities, falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Local authorities have duties as a waste collection authority under Section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act, as amended. The local authority also has powers under Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act to tackle fly tipping. These duties do not apply to the landlord function. The resident may wish to raise her complaint with the LGSCO in respect of this complaint issue. Whilst a local authority is responsible for dealing with fly tipping and inappropriate rubbish disposal, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response to the reported issues in terms of actions that it could take as a landlord.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and lives in a ground floor flat. The building is scheduled for redevelopment that is due to be completed by 2028.
Whilst the landlord reported that it has no vulnerabilities on record for the resident, it advised this Service that at the time the resident made her complaint she was pregnant. The landlord advised this Service that the resident has a bad knee and right hand. The resident confirmed her pregnancy with the landlord on 10 July 2022. The letter from the NHS advised the landlord that she had type 2 diabetes which made her vulnerable to infection.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 February 2022 as she wished pest control treatment to resume in respect of her reports of rats, mice and tropical ants. The landlord emailed on 2 March 2022 confirming an appointment for 7 March 2022.
The pest control service visited the property on 7 March 2022 and identified works required that would need a “full morning or afternoon due to amount of work required”. It found a low level mice infestation and a tropical ants infestation. Proofing works were required. A follow up appointment by pest control of 21 March 2022 did not take place as no access was reported.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 April 2022 to advise that some holes were proofed recently but that there were still holes in the skirting and around the door frame. It is not clear whether the repairs service had carried out these works as it is not detailed in the landlord’s repairs records. She also advised that she was having to wash clothes by hand since the previous September as her washing machine had been damaged at this time by rats.
The pest control service visited the resident’s property on 22 April 2022 but there was no access. The pest control service visited again on 6 May 2022 reporting that the resident had caught one mouse. It requested the landlord to remove the bath panel for proofing works. A follow up visit was booked by pest control on 23 May 2022 but no access was reported.
The landlord issued a letter to all residents affected by the estate regeneration on 16 June 2022. This advised of the need for residents to submit a housing application form so that when it was time to be allocated one of the new homes, the necessary information would be available. It detailed that phase 2 (including the resident’s property) would begin in summer 2025 and complete in early 2028. It advised that residents in phase 2 would be moved temporarily to a “new home in phase 1”. It detailed that tenants and resident leaseholders would be “guaranteed a newly built council home”. This was reiterated in a newsletter sent to residents dated June 2022.
The pest control service visited the property on 20 June 2022. The landlord also raised a works order on 20 June 2022 which was completed the same day to remove and renew the bath panel. The works order detailed that the pest control service filled in holes in the property. The pest control service reported that mice were discovered but there had been no infestation at this time.
The landlord issued an estate wide newsletter dated “early July 2022”. In this it detailed that bidding had opened on the first homes that had been redeveloped. The first priority would be to the affected residents, followed by residents who were registered for rehousing before February 2020. Then properties would be allocated to “others”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 July 2022 advising that she was pregnant. She requested a move from the property due to the issues of pests, inappropriate rubbish disposal and fly tipping. She provided a letter to the landlord from her midwife. The midwife requested that the landlord deal with the infestation as a matter of urgency for the safety of the resident and her unborn baby. The letter stated that the resident’s pregnancy was complicated by virtue of the fact that she had type 2 diabetes and was therefore vulnerable to infection. She advised the landlord that she had applied for arbitration and would proceed to court. The resident emailed the landlord again on 20 July 2022 with the same request to be rehoused.
The resident texted the landlord on 17 July 2022 to show pictures of holes in the kitchen cupboards meaning that pests could gain access to her property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 and 23 July 2022 to advise that she had found fresh mice droppings “mostly in the kitchen cupboards”. She asked for the landlord to help. She stated that the landlord had not responded to her and requested a move from her current property stating “I’m reaching out again pleading for help”.
The landlord issued an estate newsletter in August 2022. This detailed that planning permission had been granted for the redevelopment work. It would be holding drop in sessions on a number of dates in August and September 2022.
The resident submitted a change of circumstances form to the landlord dated 4 August 2022 to update her housing application with the details of her pregnancy.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 August 2022. She advised the landlord that in the middle of the night she had gone into the kitchen and a mouse had run past her foot. She had lost her balance and fell from the shock. She reminded the landlord of her pregnancy. She stated that she had wiped the cupboard down but had then seen mice droppings.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 14 August 2022 referring to a previous complaint she had made concerning the pest infestations and that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her request for rehousing. She advised that the landlord was ignoring her and she referred to issues concerning the location of the bins which were next to her property along with . This Service advised the resident that she should raise another formal complaint, as her previous complaint was over 12 months ago.
The pest control service emailed the landlord on 18 August 2022 to advise of a scheduled visit on 30 August 2022 and that subject to the resident’s availability it had requested weekly follow ups.
The resident’s midwife wrote to the landlord on 1 September 2022. This detailed that the resident had reported her “long standing problem with mice infestation in her flat and that pest control last attended on Tuesday but this hasn’t helped the problem”. The midwife felt that the resident’s flat “does not sound like an appropriate environment for a pregnant woman and will not be safe for her to bring a new–born baby back to as the infection posed a risk to both her and her baby’s health”. The midwife asked for urgent assistance with the matter.
The resident submitted a formal stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 10 September 2022. In this she detailed:
1. That the landlord’s communication was poor. She stated that it had not responded and that she would have to “email, call and text to get a response”. She felt that she was being ignored.
2. She referred to a long history of pests in the property going back to 2012. She stated that she was bitten by “possibly a rat”. She advised of her pregnancy and that her midwife had written to the landlord’s redevelopment team but was ignored.
3. She alleged that there had been a data breach by the landlord and that an officer had congratulated her on her pregnancy at a public event and wished to request a subject access request.
4. She stated that following a “settlement figure of £1000”, that she had only received £200 with the rest being paid off her arrears. It is not clear whether this related to a historic issue or complaint.
5. She referred to a previous direct offer of a property that the landlord had made to her on 11 August 2021. She stated that this was unsuitable due to the property being on the highest level and that she was afraid of heights and had some mobility issues due to a “long-term knee injury”. She referred to a charter that she had received from the landlord that stated that residents would be given choice when moved.
6. She felt the landlord had treated her unjustly and as a remedy she wished to be placed in a “priority band” and to be able to bid for a suitable property. She also requested compensation.
The landlord sent an automatic acknowledgement email on 10 September 2022.
The pest control service visited on 20 September 2022. It undertook some minor proofing work under the toilet. It had discovered mice in the bathroom but stated that this was not an infestation.
The resident submitted a further formal complaint on 23 September 2022. In this she advised that “this complaint is further information to support a complaint that was submitted on 10 September 2022”. She stated that the acknowledgement had said that she would hear something within 3 days but she had heard nothing. She advised that on 13 September 2022 that she had got up in the night and could smell smoke. On opening the door she found that one of the bins outside of her window was on fire. She called the fire service. She advised that her midwife had asked her to attend accident and emergency and stated that she had to sit in another flat due to the smoke. She restated her request to be rehoused.
The landlord’s internal email of 26 September 2022 sent to its environmental services advised “luckily the fire started on a rare day when the area was not congested or else there would have been more properties to feed the fire”. It asked if its environmental services could assist.
The landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement on 28 September 2022 advising it would respond by 19 October 2022.
The landlord raised a works order on 3 October 2022 in connection with carrying out works identified by the pest control service. The landlord’s repairs records detail that its contractor attended on 4 October 2022, however, it was unable to carry out work as “tenant states that she is not aware of appointment”. It detailed the pest control service would need to rebook this with the resident.
The landlord rebooked the appointment from 4 October 2022 to 14 December 2022. However, the records detail that the resident was unable to keep the appointment and that pest control had not arrived.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent on 19 October 2022. The complaint response referred to the resident’s complaint submission of 23 September 2022 in connection with fly tipping and the fire in the bin. In this it advised that it had “asked the cleaners to place the bins back into the bin room to avoid such incidents happening again”. It had asked for the area to be “constantly monitored and any rubbish left in front of the bin room be removed instantly”. It suggested that it had to be “realistic and you also agreed with me, there is no quick fix to resolving the issue”. It advised that it hoped the response had ”adequately captured the nature of your concern and addressed it with clear reasons for my response”.
The resident emailed in response on 19 October 2022 asking “where is the rest of my complaint? Why have you chosen to ignore my full complaint”. She requested an escalation to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process.
The landlord issued an estate newsletter dated November 2022. In this it detailed that residents would need to fill in a housing application. It also advised of inappropriate disposal of rubbish and reminded residents that “any resident found disposing of their rubbish in this way will have action taken against them, as it contravenes the tenancy agreement”.
The landlord’s internal email of 8 November 2022 requested that the area by the bin room be cleared of any “combustible materials”. The landlord request that the area be monitored in future.
Between 10 and 11 November 2022 the landlord’s complaint handler and the resident exchanged emails. The landlord asked the resident where she sent her complaint of 10 September 2022. It asked her to resend it and then it would “trace the email and investigate why it was not responded to”. It would liaise with the service areas to investigate the history of the resident’s reports. The resident agreed to forward the complaint and the landlord then confirmed receipt of the resident’s email and earlier complaint. The resident declined an offer the landlord’s offer of a telephone call, preferring a written response instead.
The landlord’s complaint handler emailed internally on 11 November 2022 to ask if a complaint or correspondence had been received from the resident on 10 September 2022. The landlord could not see anything on its system, and felt that the resident may have sent an email.
The landlord’s internal email of 18 October 2022 stated that a number of emails had been sent concerning a direct offer being made to the resident due to the conditions that she was living in. It had requested that a direct offer be made to the resident in 2021. It had then made a direct offer which the resident had refused.
The pest control service visited the property on 21 November 2022 detecting a low mice infestation and an infestation of tropical ants. It advised the landlord that “bins need removing and taking on a daily basis otherwise it will attract rodents”. The pest control service arranged a follow up visit for 5 December 2022. The landlord emailed internally on 23 November 2022 stating that it did not think that this would be a good idea. It felt that “people will then dump their rubbish on the floor in front of the bin room which will attract not only rodents but foxes too”. It had spoken to the cleaning supervisor who “has agreed to monitor the area and ensure that it is always clean and clear of any overflowing rubbish”.
The landlord’s internal emails of 25 November 2022 suggested that it could not find a direct offer form for the resident. It detailed that the direct offer policy stated that an applicant should receive a minimum of 3 geographical preferences. It had understood that the resident wished to remain on the estate. It requested details of any property that would have direct lift access that the resident could move to temporarily. However, a further internal email stated that there were no 1 bedroom properties on the estate and that all the other sized properties were already under offer. The landlord stated that it had visited the resident as part of consultation process on the regeneration of the estate. The landlord stated that during this visit, the resident had raised concerns regarding the problems of “living next to the bin store and a pest issues” (sic). It stated that it had escalated the issue to a director. It had put a case for a direct offer to be made which would “immediately alleviate her anxiety”. The email did not state the date of the landlord’s visit.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 November 2022 to chase up a response to her complaint.
The landlord’s internal emails of 30 November 2022 advised that in its complaint response it would acknowledge that there was a need for the resident to move before her block was to be decanted. It confirmed that it would make a further direct offer so that the resident could “move temporarily whilst retaining the right to move back to the estate once regeneration works are completed in 2025”.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was sent on 30 November 2022. In this it detailed:
1. An acknowledgement of the “ongoing issue with pest infestations” and that the pest control service had visited on several occasions.
2. It confirmed that the “bin storage has also attracted mice to the area”.
3. It agreed that “temporary accommodation could be offered to you until the completion of the development and until such time when you will be offered a new permanent property”. It advised that the completion date for the redevelopment was 2025 and that the resident was in phase 2 of the redevelopment.
4. It stated that would provide a direct offer to the resident before the block was due to be decanted as it “would be unreasonable for you to continue living in your property especially since you became pregnant”. It advised that it had not been aware of the resident’s reported fear of heights before the previous direct offer had been made. It stated that the resident had not mentioned this at the time.
5. It had raised works orders on its repairs system where it was required to fill in holes following pest infestations.
6. It denied any data breach and advised that the congratulatory message was given privately. It advised how the resident could make a subject access request.
7. It had spoken with the redevelopment team who had received the resident’s emails of 2 July 2021, 6 and 10 August 2021 and that an officer had responded on 11 August 2021.
8. It would not review its response in connection with the fire in the bin as it had already responded to this at stage 1. “For some complaints we may provide a final decision at the complaint phase so that there is no need for the complainant to go through the review phase. This is where we deem that the council is not at fault and that our response would be the same after a review of the complaint, when this happens, complainants will be informed of their rights to refer the complaint to the LGSCO or HOS (Housing Ombudsman Service) or the council will refer to the complaint to the Ombudsman directly”. It did not uphold the complaint as it stated it had taken the issue of pests seriously.
9. It stated that it had responded to emails and correspondence.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response at stage 2 and referred her complaint to this Service on 2 December 2022. The resident stated that as a remedy to her complaint she wished to be rehoused due to the pest infestations in the property.

Events following the end of the internal complaints process

The landlord completed a direct offer form on 16 December 2022. This outlined the resident’s 3 areas of choice for rehousing.
The pest control service visited the property on 19 December 2022. It found mice and tropical ants stating that this was a low infestation. It arranged a follow up visit for 4 January 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 February 2023 and advised that she would be notified of a direct offer once a property was available.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 February 2023 to advise that her baby had been born. She stated that conditions were “getting worse as the construction works continue” with reference to the redevelopment work. She advised that the issue of pests continued and that she had found mice faeces on the toilet seat. She asked the landlord for a direct offer to be made quickly.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 March 2023 to offer the resident a second direct offer property. The landlord has since advised this Service that the resident did not respond to this offer.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. put things right, and;
3. learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation

It is recognised that the resident submitted an earlier complaint to the landlord in January 2021 concerning the issues raised in her subsequent complaint of 10 September 2022. The landlord’s final complaint response was to this complaint was sent on 26 April 2021. In accordance with paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint considered in this investigation is the complaint submitted by the resident on 10 September 2022. Paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure. The resident’s earlier complaint was referred to the Ombudsman on 14 August 2022, which was over 12 months following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 26 April 2021.
The resident has referred to the effects of the issues reported on her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident has health issues described above. Unlike a court however we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). However, this Service can take into account avoidable distress, inconvenience and time and trouble resulting from a landlord’s service failure.
It is recognised that the pest control service sits within the jurisdiction of the LGSCO. This is because the LGSCO can investigate complaints about local authorities’ activities which do not directly relate to their role as social landlords. Pest control is available to all residents of the local authority’s area, not just those who are tenants of the local authority. Therefore, it falls under the jurisdiction of the LGSCO rather than the Housing Ombudsman. The pest control visits to the resident’s property have been referenced above as background and to add context to the landlord’s actions in relation to repairs required. This investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling and response to the inappropriate disposal of rubbish and fly tipping as a landlord. A local authority is responsible for waste management and tackling fly tipping for all residents in its area using powers available to it. The resident may wish to raise a complaint concerning waste management and fly tipping with the local authority’s waste management service and the LGSCO if she is not satisfied with the waste management’s service response.
The landlord made an earlier direct offer of rehousing to the resident on 10 September 2021. This was refused by the resident at the time due to the location being on a high level and in connection with issues with the resident’s knee injury. However, this pre-dates the resident’s complaint referred to this Service on 2 December 2022 and is mentioned by way of background. It has not been considered in the Ombudsman’s current investigation.

Policies and procedures

The terms of the tenancy are set out in a tenants’ handbook. According to the terms of the tenancy, the resident is required to pay the rent and other charges. The resident must also grant access, after receipt of 24 hours’ notice, to allow “officers, contractors or agents to carry out any inspection, safety check, treatment, repairs, major works or improvements. The resident is required to dispose of rubbish correctly and that the landlord will “prosecute those responsible” for inappropriate disposal.
According to the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for “maintaining the structure and outside” including “pipes for water, electricity, gas and drainage inside”. It states that “subject to reasonable expenditure and consultation” it may be responsible for “refuse collection facilities”.
The landlord’s repairing obligations are clear under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and echo the tenancy conditions above. The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation at the time a lease is granted and throughout the term of the lease.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. This includes protection from infection connected with hygiene, sanitation and water supply. This identifies hazards that can arise resulting from “access into and harbourage within the dwelling for pests”. The landlord should be aware of its obligations under the HHSRS. Where any potential hazards are identified, it would be expected that works are undertaken and that additional monitoring is required.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs will be completed within 3 working days and non-urgent repairs will be completed within 20 working days. The policy states a repair will be classified as an emergency if it “poses a serious risk to health and safety, poses a serious risk to the structure of the property, results in the property being insecure”. Urgent repairs include a partial loss of electrical supply, total or partial loss of heating or hot water between 1 April and 30 September and plumbing repairs such as a toilet not flushing or overflowing and a broken tap.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint detailed that it would respond at stage 1 within 15 working days. It would respond at stage 2 within 25 working days. The landlord has since updated its policy to bring its response times in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It now details that it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. It will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy details that it will consider compensation depending on the impact of a service failure from low to high impact. It will pay £250 per annum for a low impact delay. It will pay £500 per annum for a medium impact of a delay where there is “injustice to the complainant and the service has failed to meet the required standards”. It will pay £1000 per annum for a major impact delay with injury to health. It will consider a payment for distress on the same scales and may consider an award between £50 to £250 for time and trouble.
The landlord’s fire safety management plan June 2019 sets out its approach to fire safety in respect of communal areas and how it will comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. It states that it will undertake regular inspections of communal areas of flat blocks and to maintain escape routes/exits. This does not provide detail of its approach to managing waste storage in the vicinity of the dwellings to avoid fire. It states that it will carry out “sufficient” fire risk assessments. The landlord provided its fire risk assessment to this Service dated 16 October 2020. This identified a “low moderate” risk for the building. It highlighted the need for the landlord to continue to monitor the communal general rubbish bins “via the fire risk assessment process”. A photograph taken at the time of the assessment did not show any large accumulation of rubbish outside the resident’s property.
The Fire Safety Act 2021 updates the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Sections 1 and 3 of the Act came into force on 16 May 2022 which predates the resident’s complaint to the landlord. This includes a “building’s structure and external walls and any common parts” and “all doors between the domestic premises and common parts”.
The Building Regulations 2010 for Drainage and Waste Disposal states that “external storage areas for waste containers should be away from windows and ventilators and preferably be in shade or under shelter”. It states “storage areas for waste containers should be sited so that the distance householders are required to carry refuse does not usually exceed 30m (excluding any vertical distance). Containers should be within 25m of the waste collection point specified by the waste collection authority”. It states that “unsightly bins can damage the visual amenity of an area and contribute to increased levels of antisocial nuisance such as odour and litter, so bin storage should be planned carefully. Where the location for storage is in a publicly accessible area of in an open area around a building (e.g. a front garden) an enclosure or shelter should be considered”. It states that “Any compound for the storage of waste should be secure to prevent access by vermin unless the waste is to be stored in secured containers with close fitting lids”.
The British Standard for waste management in buildings code of practice states “ground floor communal storage facilities, i.e. a residents’ bring facility, or management arrangements for transporting waste and recyclable material to a ground floor storage facility are preferred options”. It also states “waste storage chambers, detached or as part of the building, should be sited within 30m (excluding any vertical distance) from each dwelling. They should provide convenient access for the collection of the containers by the collection agent”.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy and procedures state that following a report of antisocial behaviour, a risk assessment should be completed. Dependent on the risk, the complainant should be contacted within 3 to 5 working days. In the case of large-scale antisocial behaviour, the landlord should consider the options available to it including civil injunctions and action to be taken for breach of the terms of a tenancy agreement. It categorises “littering, dumping of rubbish” as “low risk”. It states that cases “should be investigated and resolved within 90 days unless involved in litigation”. It cites the importance of maintaining “accurate records and to record the reason for closure, notifying relevant partners at the same time”. It states that a case “should only be closed where it is resolved to the tenant’s satisfaction, resolved to the landlord’s satisfaction, unresolved but no further action can be taken, uncorroborated”.
The landlord’s manifesto for residents dated November 2020, sets out its approach to the redevelopment of the scheme. It detailed residents’ requests that waste collection needs to be reconsidered for the new development as it was identified that there are issues of pest infestations. The landlord’s subsequent offer document to all residents early 2021 advises that the landlord would offer a “home based on your needs” to residents that would be affected by the regeneration work. It states that subject to planning permission being granted that affected existing residents would be able to choose a property that meets housing needs from its plans.
The landlord’s direct offer policy is contained within its allocations scheme dated November 2013. This states that the landlord “may make direct offers in certain circumstances”. It may consider a direct offer in “situations where urgent re-housing is required due to an existing property being uninhabitable, or where there are serious health and safety or personal protection issues that need to be addressed or in discharge of a statutory homelessness duty”. It may consider a direct offer where it “would not be reasonable to wait for the choice-based lettings process to take place”. Whilst the operation of the local authority’s allocations policy is within the scope of the LGSCO, a direct offer process as part of the landlord function can be considered by the Housing Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair issues causing pest infestations including rats, mice and tropical ants.

During this investigation, consideration has been given to the landlord’s responsibilities as detailed under the terms of the tenancy and legislation above. The landlord’s handling and communication of the resident’s concerns and how it responded to these reports has been considered.
Following the pest control visit of 7 March 2022, where it was identified that works were required that would take a “full morning or afternoon due to amount of work required”, the landlord’s repair records do not indicate that it completed any works as a result. However, the resident’s email of 6 April 2022 indicated that proofing work was undertaken. It is not clear therefore, whether this was completed by pest control services rather than the landlord as was the case during other pest control visits. If the landlord did complete works at this time, then its records are incomplete. In this same email the resident reported further holes that the landlord would need to fill in to prevent further access by pests. However, the Ombudsman has seen no further record that the landlord carried out work to fill in these holes at this time. The landlord should have responded to this in line with its repairs policy timescales, and this is therefore a failing. The lack of response at this point meant that the property was still susceptible to pests entering due to the holes present.
In response to the pest control service’s request that the landlord remove the bath panel made on 6 May 2022, a works order was not raised until 20 June 2022. This was 29 working days later and outside of the repairs policy timescales. Whilst the bath panel was removed and then renewed on 20 June 2022, it is not clear why there was a delay in raising this works order, or whether the landlord adequately communicated with the resident concerning the delay. As there was delay and a lack of communication, this was a failing by the landlord.
The resident’s email of 10 July 2022, along with the letter sent by her midwife requesting the landlord to deal with the infestation of pests, should have led to the landlord investigating whether there may have been further holes allowing access to pests. This email indicated that despite the proofing and work undertaken on 20 June 2022, that the issue had not been resolved. However, the landlord’s repairs logs do not indicate any further works order was raised to investigate at this time as would be expected. This was unreasonable and the landlord needed to take the necessary action to prevent pests in line with its repairing obligations and repairs policy above.
The resident continued to email and also sent a text to the landlord regarding the pests entering the property between 23 July 2022 and 8 August 2022. In the email of 23 July 2023, the resident specifically reported mice droppings “mostly in the kitchen cupboards”. This was concerning given the fact that food is stored in the kitchen and that the midwife had advised the landlord of the elevated risk of infection due to the resident’s diabetes. It is widely recognised that such pests carry bacteria that could lead to infection. The resident’s report that she had fallen after a mouse had run across her foot should have resulted in swift action. However, the landlord failed to raise any further works orders to investigate possible holes allowing access to rats and mice. As such the landlord should have acted with more urgency, in line with its repairs policy and it failed to do this. The lack of response and decisive action left the resident in a property with rats and mice over a considerable period of time. She also referred to the infestations in her complaint of 10 September 2023 that the landlord misplaced. However, the landlord failed to raise a works order in connection with pests until 3 October 2022. This was 59 working days after the resident’s email of 10 July 2022. This was unreasonable, causing the resident considerable distress and inconvenience, as well as the time and trouble of chasing up the landlord. It also evidenced a lack of good communication with the resident.
The landlord’s contractor failed visit of 4 October 2022, was arranged without giving the resident prior notice and as such there was no access. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is required to give at least 24 hours’ notice of any appointments. The Ombudsman has not seen a record that the landlord provided the necessary notice as would be expected.
The landlord clearly acknowledged that the pests were an ongoing issue in its stage 2 response of 30 November 2022. However, this did not provide assurance that the issue could be resolved. The landlord did agree to a further direct offer in recognition of the issues experienced which was appropriate under the circumstances. However, the landlord failed to provide any definitive response or action that it would take to resolve the issue in the meantime.
In summary, whilst the landlord carried out some works to block access points in response to pest control visits, it failed to act with any urgency to the resident’s continued reports. It failed to take account of the resident’s situation and vulnerability to infection that it was aware of. It took 59 working days from the resident’s report of rats and mice entering the property to raise a works order, which was unreasonable and outside of its repairs policy timescales. The resident experienced unnecessary distress as well as the time, trouble and inconvenience of chasing up the landlord. These issues combined amount to maladministration for which an order has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website).
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out our service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. The guidance suggests compensation from £100 to £600 is appropriate for instances of maladministration by the landlord. Maladministration can include a landlord’s failure to comply with its own policies and procedures, unreasonable delays in dealing with a matter, and behaving unfairly, unreasonably or incompetently. In this instance, an amount of £550 compensation is appropriate. This comprises £200 in respect of the landlord’s delayed actions and failure to address the resident’s reports in line with its repairs policy above, £250 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and £100 in respect of the time and trouble in the resident pursuing the matter with the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour involving fly tipping and incorrect rubbish disposal attracting pests.

According to the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy, the landlord needed to risk assess the resident’s report of incorrect rubbish disposal and fly tipping by other residents. It should have then contacted the resident within 3 to 5 working days, dependent on the risk. It should have then considered what actions it could take, due to the scale of the issue involving a number of different residents incorrectly disposing of rubbish and fly tipping. The Ombudsman has seen no records that the landlord did this in line with its antisocial behaviour policy. The landlord needed to take appropriate steps to highlight the issue with all residents and to remind them of their obligations under the terms of their lease and/or tenancy agreement. Whilst the landlord provided the Ombudsman with a letter that had been sent to all residents at an earlier point on 9 August 2021, the Ombudsman has seen no further letter or investigation into the issue. This was a failing of the landlord as the issue was persistent and ongoing. It was also a contributory factor in attracting pests who were gaining access into the property. The landlord therefore missed the opportunity to address this key factor that was contributing to the pest infestations.
It would be expected that the landlord would report the issues of fly tipping and other incorrect rubbish disposal to its environmental health services for further investigation in line with relevant legislation such as the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. This was particularly important, since this was a persistent issue. The fact that pests were entering the property, as well as the visual impact of rubbish accumulation outside the resident’s property was causing unnecessary distress to the resident. An accumulation of flammable material is also a fire risk as considered below. However, the Ombudsman has seen no records to indicate that this happened at an earlier point than on 26 September 2022, which was a failing by the landlord. It needed to take all reasonable steps to deter the nuisance behaviour and failed to do this. An issue such as this needed a joint approach to resolve the ongoing problems.
The evidence from the landlord’s internal emails of 2 and 5 July 2022 indicated that other residents were also complaining about the same issue. The resident reported this to the landlord on several occasions from 10 July 2022 up until her complaint submission of 23 September 2022 following the fire in the bin. Despite this, the landlord did not take any decisive action to deal with the issue in line with its antisocial behaviour policy, or to report the issue to relevant services as mentioned above. This was inappropriate causing unnecessary detriment to the resident, along with the time and trouble in chasing the landlord for a response. It also demonstrated that the landlord’s communication with the resident was not adequate.
It was not until the resident’s complaint of 23 September 2022 concerning the fire in the bin, that the landlord acted. It then set out actions that it had taken in its stage 1 complaint response of 19 October 2022, some 71 working days after the resident initially contacted the landlord about the issue. This was unreasonable. It was only at this point that the landlord advised the resident that it would request its cleaners to put the bins in the bin room to avoid the fly tipping following the fire in the bin. It had also asked for the area to be monitored and for any rubbish to be removed “instantly”. It then suggested that the resident had agreed that there was no “quick fix” to the issue. It is not clear from this whether the resident had said this, as the evidence does not show this response. Whilst it would be appropriate to remove rubbish straight away, the cleaners would not be able to do this at all times. It was therefore important to consider the other actions that could be taken as mentioned.
The landlord did however, refer to the issue in its estate newsletter in November 2022 which was an appropriate but delayed action. It needed to remind all of its residents of the obligations under the terms of their lease and/or tenancy agreement at a much earlier point. However, it failed to do so.
In summary, the landlord did not act in accordance with its antisocial behaviour policy to address the inappropriate disposal of rubbish and fly tipping that was a regular occurrence. It needed to work with other appropriate services to consider a wider response to the issue but failed to do so until after the resident’s complaint was made on 23 September 2022. It was only in its complaint response that the landlord advised the resident of the action that it had taken, and would take to deal with the issue, however, this was 71 working days later and the delayed response was unreasonable causing detriment to the resident. The landlord’s communication was inadequate and failed to response appropriately and in a timely manner to the resident’s emails about the issue. Not only was the accumulation of rubbish and fly tipping an eyesore, but it was clear a contributory factor to the ongoing issue of pests. These issues combined amount to maladministration for which an order has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as above. In this instance, compensation of £500 is appropriate comprising £200 in respect of the landlord’s failure to follow its antisocial behaviour policy and to take action on the reported issues, £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the poor communication and failure to respond to her reports.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a fire in the bin close to her property.

This investigation has considered the landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s report of a fire in the bin, its communication and actions taken as a result of this incident, along with its actions in respect of its approach to fire safety.
The resident was clearly and understandably concerned about the close proximity of the bins and the ongoing problem with rubbish being dumped outside of the bins, along with the issue of fly tipping. The landlord recognised the fire risk associated with the dumping of potentially flammable material in its investigation of the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 23 September 2022. However, as mentioned above, the landlord failed to take the necessary action to address the issue in its responsibilities as a landlord and in partnership with other services prior to the fire occurring, which may have prevented this happening in the first place.
This accumulation of rubbish had been reported by the resident and recognised by the landlord on several occasions. Photographs seen by this Service, show a large accumulation of fly tipped items, along with flammable material that would feed a fire leading to a risk of it spreading. The landlord failed to therefore address the issue at an earlier point, despite being advised in its fire risk assessment of 2020 to monitor the area around the bins. This was therefore a failing as the landlord did not take appropriate action to address what was an ongoing issue.
The actions that were taken following the fire were to request that the cleaners place the bins in the bin store and to pick up any dumped rubbish when this had been spotted. However, this would not provide sufficient assurance that the area would remain free of rubbish accumulation, for example, in the evening when the cleaning service was not present. The landlord therefore needed to consider what further action could be taken.
Given the circumstances surrounding the fire, it would be expected that the landlord would review its approach and carry out a further risk assessment, given the age of the previous assessment being from 2020. However, the Ombudsman has not seen a record that it updated this. This would have been an appropriate step to take to ensure that the landlord was aware of any risks and would take appropriate steps to prevent a reoccurrence. The landlord needed to consider its obligations under the relevant legislation above. It was concerning that the landlord must have recognised the fire risk after the event when it said “luckily the fire started on a rare day when the area was not congested or else there would have been more properties to feed the fire”. Fire safety needs to be prioritised and not left to luck. The landlord missed the opportunity to take preventative measures to prevent the fire occurring in the first place. It needed to also keep accurate records of any actions taken. The impact on the resident meant that she needed to attend accident and emergency services to be checked over and had to sit in another flat for a time.
In summary, the landlord failed to take action in connection with the reported incorrect disposal of rubbish and fly tipping referred to above. It failed to take steps that may have prevented the fire from occurring in partnership with other services. Following the fire, the landlord took some action to place the bins in the bin store and to request its cleaners to remove accumulations of rubbish when they were on site. However, this would not provide sufficient assurance that rubbish would not accumulate in the evening or when the cleaners were not on site. The landlord did not revisit its risk assessment from 2020 which would have been appropriate given the circumstances. It failed to recognise the potential fire risk until after the event. The lack of decisive action, heightened the risk of fire, causing distress and detriment to the resident who had to be checked at the accident and emergency services for any impact on her and her unborn child. These issues combined amount to maladministration for which an order has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as above. In this instance, compensation of £600 is appropriate, comprising £300 in respect of lack of action taken before and after the fire occurred, and £300 in respect of the detriment to the resident, and the time and trouble in pursuing the matter with the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a direct offer to be rehoused pending the redevelopment of the scheme.

In respect of the resident’s request for rehousing by way of a direct offer, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for rehousing made in July 2022. It has considered the landlord’s communication and its overall handling of the request.
The resident requested rehousing on 10 July 2022 due to the ongoing issues of pests and rubbish accumulation and fly tipping. At this time the landlord also received the letter from the midwife advising of the complications in the resident’s pregnancy due to type 2 diabetes. This would make her more prone to infection. The resident’s rehousing request was made around the time the landlord sent its newsletter to all the residents in early July 2022. In this it was apparent that a number of properties had been released for bidding. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider its response to the resident and whether it would be appropriate for one of those properties to be allocated to the resident on either a temporary or permanent basis as a direct let at this point. However, the Ombudsman has seen no records that the landlord considered this at the time. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the resident’s ongoing issues and the landlord should have considered the resident’s specific circumstances at this point. This was therefore a failing.
The resident had to then chase up the landlord on several occasions to ask it to consider rehousing her. The resident’s midwife also emailed the landlord again on 1 September 2022. Despite the ongoing contact by the resident and the resident’s midwife, the Ombudsman has seen no record that the landlord considered the resident’s request for rehousing through a direct offer at an earlier point. This was unreasonable given the explained risks that pests such as rats and mice would pose to the resident and her child. The landlord needed to give proper consideration to the resident’s request and provide its response in line with its appropriate policies within a reasonable timescale. It failed to do so.
Whilst the landlord would be making an offer to the resident as part of its redevelopment programme, this would not be until the block containing the resident’s property would be decanted which would be some time away. The landlord clearly recognised in its stage 2 response that it would be unreasonable for the resident to remain in the property. However, this was not communicated to the resident until 30 November 2022, which was 101 working days after the resident’s request for rehousing was made. This indicated that there was a lack of effective communication and a lack of empathy with the resident’s situation and the conditions that she was living in. This caused unnecessary detriment to the resident, along with the inconvenience, time and trouble of chasing the matter up.
Once the landlord had made the decision to make a direct offer to the resident, it would be expected that the landlord update the resident or communicate to advise on the availability of properties that would meet her needs. It would also be expected that further advice be given to the resident that could assist in widening her areas of choice if property availability was limited. The Ombudsman has seen no records that this happened. This lack of communication was a failing of the landlord.
The landlord made a direct offer on 21 March 2023 which was 177 working days after the resident made the request on 10 July 2022. It is accepted however, that the landlord would need to consider the areas of choice that the resident had submitted, and the availability of a suitable property to offer. It is understood that the resident has not responded to this offer. However, it would be expected that the landlord make reasonable efforts to contact the resident, taking into account that she had recently given birth at this point and that there could be extenuating circumstances as to why she had not responded.
In summary, the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident after her request for rehousing was made on 10 July 2022. Despite regular contact by the resident and her midwife, the landlord failed to give proper consideration of the request within a reasonable timeframe. It missed the opportunity to consider properties that had been completed already in line with its direct offer policy that may have met the resident’s needs at the time the request was made. It took the landlord 101 working days to provide a decision to the resident. The direct offer was made 177 working days after the request was made; however, it is accepted that the availability of suitable properties in the areas of choice would have an impact on the timescale. The failings identified amount to maladministration for which an order has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as above. In this instance, compensation of £450 is appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

This investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, the extent to which it followed its own policy and the issues it addressed in its responses.
The resident’s stage one complaint was submitted on 10 September 2022. In this she referred to the issues of the incorrect rubbish disposal, fly tipping, and pests entering the property due to disrepair. She reiterated her request for rehousing. An automatic acknowledgement was generated at the time the complaint was submitted but no further acknowledgement. The resident then submitted an online complaint on 23 September 2022 with the additional complaint issue due to a fire in the bin outside her property. In this, the resident also referred to the fact that she had been expecting another acknowledgement response but had heard nothing in relation to her earlier complaint submission of 10 September 2022.
It was clear from the resident’s online complaint submission of 23 September 2022, that she wished for this further information to be considered as part of her stage 1 complaint submitted on 10 September 2022. The landlord should have therefore contacted the resident at this point to clarify the complaint issues before issuing its response. However, it failed to do this or attempt to locate the earlier complaint which was a failing by the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s later complaint submission of 23 September 2022 on 28 September 2022. It then its stage 1 complaint response on 19 October 2022. This was 26 working days and therefore outside of its complaints policy timescale. Not only was the response delayed, it also only dealt with the issue concerning the fire in the bin store. It did not answer the earlier complaint issues from the complaint submitted on 10 September 2022, nor did it answer the reiterated request for rehousing that the resident had made. A complaint gives a landlord the opportunity to consider an appropriate remedy to the issues raised, and to consider all of the issues raised. In this case, the landlord failed to do this.
It was unsurprising therefore that the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had ignored her complaint of 10 September 2022. She emailed the landlord on 19 October 2022 to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s records indicate that it could not find the resident’s earlier complaint indicating issues with the landlord’s internal communication and its record keeping. Good and accurate records ensure that a landlord is able to provide effective services. It enables a landlord to provide accurate and appropriate responses to its residents. This Service’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) available on our website provides a number of recommendations concerning record keeping that the landlord should review and self-assess against.
It was appropriate for the landlord to offer a call to the resident to discuss the complaint at stage 2 . However, the resident refused this preferring a written response which was her choice so that she had a record of any response to her complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 30 November 2022 which was 30 working days after the resident made her escalation request and this was outside of the landlord’s complaint’s policy timescales. The stage 2 response, whilst answering the majority of the resident’s complaint issues, did not address the fire in the bin store. It advised in its response that this was due to the fact that it had already answered this complaint issue in stage 1. However, it is considered inappropriate to not provide any further update to its approach to fire safety. The landlord could have used it stage 2 response to advise the resident on measures taken to prevent any further fire in the bin given the ongoing issues of inappropriate rubbish disposal and fly tipping. It could have also advised any further actions, such as a renewed fire risk assessment. This is therefore considered to be a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord’s complaints policy was non-compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Code at the time of the resident’s complaint. However, it has recently updated its policy in April 2023 to comply with the code. It has used its self-assessment to inform the policy update, which was a positive action by the landlord.
These issues combined amount to maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord did not award any compensation in line with its compensation policy above and this would have been an appropriate step to take given the failings identified. As such, an appropriate level of compensation has been ordered for the failings identified in respect of the complaint issues identified in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as above. In this case, compensation of £300 is considered appropriate comprising £150 for the failure to communicate effectively and to keep accurate records, and £150 in respect of the time and trouble caused to the resident in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair issues causing pest infestations including rats, mice and tropical ants.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour involving fly tipping and incorrect rubbish disposal attracting pests.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a fire in the bin close to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports for a direct offer to be rehoused pending the redevelopment of the scheme.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written letter of apology to the resident from a director level or above for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Pay the resident directly £550 compensation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair issues causing pest infestations.
3. Pay the resident directly £500 compensation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour involving fly tipping and incorrect rubbish disposal attracting pests.
4. Pay the resident directly £600 compensation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a fire in the bin close to her property.
5. Pay the resident directly £450 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports for a direct offer to be rehoused pending the redevelopment of the scheme.
6. Pay the resident directly £300 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a full inspection of the property. It must produce a schedule of works to close any access points throughout the property that would allow pests to gain access. The works should be undertaken within a further 4 weeks. The landlord must provide satisfactory confirmation to this Service of the completion date of the works.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review the resident’s housing circumstances and to consider the resident’s request for a direct offer of rehousing in line with its direct offer policy. It should confirm its decision in writing to the resident within a further two weeks and provide a copy of its response to this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to write to residents on the estate reminding them of the obligations under the tenancy agreement and/or lease concerning inappropriate rubbish disposal and fly tipping. It should provide a copy of this letter to this Service.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to refresh its fire risk assessment for the building containing the resident’s property. It should send a copy of the completed fire risk assessment to this Service.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete a director level review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan, with actions assigned to named postholders, that must be shared with this Service and the landlord’s governing body and residents’ panel. It should outline as a minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention and a timescale to complete a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) available on our website.
2. Its approach to tackling inappropriate rubbish disposal and fly tipping on the estate, considering options available for joint working with other services, including the location of the bins in line with the relevant legislation above. It should consider and provide a timescale to update its antisocial behaviour policy.
3. Its approach and response timescales to tackling pest infestations where works are required to prevent access into properties.