Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202203674)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203674

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited

30 July 2024

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:
1. The resident’s reports of a rat infestation in the property.
2. The resident’s concerns about scaffolding erected around the property.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, her tenancy started in February 1995. The property is a 2 bedroom ground flat. The landlord is a housing trust.
The landlord confirmed that it has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident describes herself as disabled and her GP has provided a letter to the landlord about her health conditions. The resident said the GP suggested some reasonable adjustments for the landlord to consider when planning repairs at her property such as moving her to alternative accommodation.
The landlord noted in December 2020 that there were no internal doors in the property, it said this was because those were never replaced. The resident made further reports to the landlord about the internal doors in April 2021 and May 2021. The resident informed this Service that the issue with the internal doors remained unresolved.
On 27 May 2021, the council pest control service attended the property at the resident’s request because of a rat infestation and provided feedback to the landlord on the same day. It said that the resident reported seeing a rat in her hallway and she put baits in her home, which disappeared within 24 hours. Pest control informed the landlord that while it did not find evidence of rat droppings, it was unable to inspect behind the kitchen kickboards and the bath panel. It asked the landlord to remove those so that it could inspect the areas during its follow up visit on 16 June 2021. It said it applied racumin foam to the holes in the kitchen and bathroom and left 5 trays with bait around the property. It identified several possible points of ingress and sent photos to the landlord. It also advised to remove any items close to the external walls and tidy the garden. The landlord noted that it removed the kitchen kickboards and the bath panel on 16 June 2021.
Between 5 July 2021 and 7 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord several times and consistently reported that she had a rat infestation at her property. She asked the landlord to complete pest proofing repairs to prevent the rats getting into her home. On 12 July 2021, the landlord made a note to ask the council pest control team to provide a report on its findings and asked its relevant team to book the required repairs.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 28 October 2021. The complaint was about the delays in completing the repairs to stop the rats entering her property. The resident mentioned repairs to brickworks, cupboards and internal doors. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 16 November 2021. The resident asked the landlord for a response to her complaint several times in November 2021. In January 2022, the resident contacted this Service for support in resolving her complaint.
The resident said she made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 3 March 2022 about scaffolding it erected around her property on that day. She said the landlord erected scaffolding on the side of her property without giving her prior notice. She explained that the scaffolding blocked her access to her back door and garden. Neither party has provided a copy of the complaint.
Between March 2022 and May 2022, the resident continued to contact the landlord for a response to her complaint about the rat infestation and her request for pest proofing repairs. On 26 April 2022, she also requested the landlord respond to her complaint about the scaffolding. The landlord acknowledged receipt of her requests in April 2022. This Service contacted the landlord in April 2022 and May 2022 to clarify the status of the resident’s complaints. On 24 May 2022, we instructed the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaints about the rat infestation and the scaffolding by 9 June 2022.
The resident informed the landlord on 9 May 2022 that the council pest control team had attended 9 times to address the rat problem at her property. She said they told her that the issue would remain until the landlord completed pest proofing repairs. The resident provided a copy of an email, in which the pest control team confirmed that in May 2022, they resent the report relating to their visit in May 2021, to the landlord.
On 10 May 2022, the landlord and the resident discussed erecting scaffolding around her property to carry out repairs to the roof. It said it would erect the scaffolding on 16 May 2022, and remove on completion of the work on 18 May 2022. The landlord also agreed to provide a hotel and a meal allowance to the resident for the duration of the work.
On 3 August 2022, this Service reiterated our request for the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaints about its handling of the rat infestation and the scaffolding. We asked the landlord to respond within 5 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 10 August 2022. It was as follows:
1. Following a report of a rat in the hallway, the council attended but found no evidence of rat droppings. The council was unable to access behind the bath panel and the kitchen kickboards but found possible ingress points on the external wall and under the kitchen and bathroom sinks. It applied racumin foam to the holes in the kitchen and bathroom, left 5 ray of bait around the house and booked a follow up visit for 16 June 2021.
2. In relation to the erected scaffolding, it said that it ensured the following:
  1. It met the resident and agreed to erect the scaffolding on 16 May 2022 to carry out some repairs to the roof and remove it on 18 May 2022.
  2. It agreed to place the resident in a hotel for 2 days and provide a £20 meal allowance.
3. It did not uphold the complaint.
On 16 August 2022, the resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2. She stated the following:
1. The council pest control team visited the property several times and wrote to the landlord about the pest proof work required. She said holes required filling up and the internal doors needed fixing.
2. She said the landlord erected the scaffolding on 3 March 2022, and blocked her access to the side and back of her house for a month. She explained that she made a stage 1 complaint about it and did not receive a response from the landlord. She also mentioned that the landlord did not move her to another property whilst the work was on going. She said her complaint was about “the first work”.
3. She said her GP wrote to the landlord about her health needs. She explained that she suffers with allergies and the situations have caused her distress and affected her sleep.
Between 30 August 2022 and September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord several times asking for confirmation that it escalated her complaint to stage 2. On 30 September 2022, this Service contacted the landlord requesting it provide its stage 2 response to the resident by 28 October 2022. The landlord informed this Service that it had not received a request to escalate the resident’s complaint.
In November 2022 and February 2023, the resident continued to ask the landlord to provide the stage 2 response to her complaint.
In May 2023, the resident informed this Service that the stage 2 response to her complaint remained outstanding. On 8 June 2023, we provided the landlord with evidence of the resident’s requests to escalate her complaint to stage 2. We asked the landlord to provide its stage 2 response by 16 June 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 June 2023. It explained that on 28 August 2022, it informed the resident and this Service, that it had not escalated her complaint to stage 2. It said that without no new evidence, the conclusions it reached at stage 1 remained unchanged. Its stage 2 response was as follows:
1. It reiterated the actions and conclusions from the council pest control team. It also asked the resident to remove items positioned close to the external walls and tidy up her garden to prevent the harbouring of rats. It asked the resident to confirm whether she still had an issue with a rat infestation and said that, if she had, it would urgently attend.
2. The landlord asked the contractor to erect scaffolding in the front and rear of the property. It was only able to erect it in the front as the resident refused access to the rear elevation and refused to let them through the gate.
3. It erected scaffolding to the front of the property on 21 March 2022 to access the roof and carry out some repairs. The landlord removed the scaffolding a week later once it completed the repairs.
4. Following the resident granting access, the landlord erected scaffolding to the rear of the property on 16 May 2022, and removed it 2 days later on completion of the work.
5. It did not uphold the complaint.
On 19 June 2023, the resident informed the landlord and this Service that she remained dissatisfied with its response to her complaint. She said it had used incorrect information in its responses. She reiterated the landlord’s failings to complete the repairs recommended by the council pest control team. She also reiterated that the landlord erected scaffolding without informing her and it was there for a month.
This Service accepted the resident’s complaint about her landlord on 29 June 2023. The resident said that the rat infestation was dealt with but the recommended repairs remained outstanding. She said that as a resolution to her complaint, she wished the landlord to:
1. Complete the outstanding repairs to prevent further rat infestation.
2. Acknowledge and discuss the length of time the scaffolding was in place and the issues it caused.
3. Apologise for the issues with the scaffolding and provide her with advance notice for any works requiring scaffolding in the future.

Post internal complaint process (ICP)

In November 2023, the resident reported further issues with rats entering her property and requested for the landlord to complete pest proofing repairs to resolve the issue.
Between January 2024 and February 2024, the landlord assessed the issue of pests at the property and carried out some pest proofing repairs. The resident informed this Service on 11 July 2024 that although the landlord covered some external vents, it had failed to complete some of the repairs recommended to resolve the issues with the rats.
In 2024, the resident made a new stage 1 complaint to the landlord about the rat issues, delays to carry out repairs, poor communication and the temporary accommodation. The resident referred the complaint to this Service and we opened a separate complaint under reference 202342528.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman recognises that the presence of rats in her property has caused the resident some distress. The resident expressed concerns about the potential impact on her health. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and queries by adhering to its policies, procedures, legislation and any agreements with the resident. We will determine whether the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where the Ombudsman has identified failures on the landlord’s part, we can also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident reported further issues with a rat infestation. She raised a new complaint with the landlord and this Service about the problem. It might be useful to explain that this investigation will focus on events which occurred between May 2021 and June 2023. We may investigate the events which occurred after the resident exhausted the landlord’s ICP in June 2023 as part of the resident’s new complaint under the reference 202342528. At the time of this report, there is no evidence that the resident’s complaint under the reference 202342528 has exhausted the landlord’s ICP. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot determine on events which occurred after June 2023.

The rat infestation

The resident said she had an issue with rats coming into her property for several years. Whilst it is unclear when the problem started, it is understandable that the resident would be concerned about rats coming into her home. She also reports being unwell, vulnerable and concerned about the impact on her health. The Ombudsman recognises that the issue has caused her some distress which was clear in her communications with the landlord and this Service.
Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, landlords have a duty to ensure their properties are fit for habitation on the first day of the tenancy and remain fit throughout the tenancy. This means the property must be free of serious hazards. Pests are a category of prescribed hazards included in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS says that poor design or maintenance can allow access to pests, including rats, into a property. This can create a risk of cross-contamination and infection, carry disease and can infect food and surfaces. This may also cause significant distress and nuisance to residents.
The landlord does not have a pest control policy or procedure. Its repairs and maintenance policy does not outline its responsibilities in relation to pest infestations. Nor does the landlord’s website or its “tenant handbook” provide any information relating to pest control.
The resident reported an issue with rats in May 2021. The council pest control team inspected the property, applied treatment and provided feedback to the landlord. It explained that due to restricted access, it was unable to inspect some areas of the property. It asked the landlord to remove a kickboard and a bath panel to allow a more thorough inspection. The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately complied with the council’s requests within the agreed timeframe. The landlord demonstrated that it was working in partnership with the experts to resolve the matter.
The Ombudsman understands that it can be difficult for landlords to fully stop pests entering a property. However, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to take reasonable actions to keep access to a minimum and carry out pest proofing repairs when required. The HHSRS says that landlords can prevent rat ingress into a property by blocking holes, fixing cracks in walls and covering any necessary holes with grilles. Therefore, it is appropriate to expect that the landlord would consider such repairs to pest proof its properties and this is in keeping with its repair policy to keep the external structure and walls in good repair.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that pest control informed the landlord they had visited the property following reports of a rat infestation and applied some treatment. The evidence did not show that they confirmed there was a rat infestation or recommended any pest proofing repairs. Pest control did however share with the landlord some photos of the possible ingress points.
The evidence shows that although the landlord knew that pest control was involved, it did not demonstrate that it contacted them after they visited the property in June 2021. The landlord should have been proactive and taken reasonable steps to understand whether there was a problem. It should have asked pest control whether they found any evidence of rats entering the property after their inspections. It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to clarify whether it should complete any pest proofing repairs. This would have shown that it was aware of its obligations to ensure that the property was fit for habitation, free of serious hazard and considered taking reasonable actions to prevent rats ingress into the property. Its failings to do this caused the resident distress as she felt the landlord was not taking action to address the problem.
Additionally, the landlord noted in July 2021 that it needed to ask pest control to provide a report on their findings and asked the relevant team to book any required repairs. However, while this shows the landlord was aware of the issue and the actions it needed to take, it did not demonstrate that it acted or explained the reason for any delays to the resident. It is unclear why the landlord failed to act, but its lack of actions and communication resulted in the resident feeling ignored. She did not know what to do about the situation and felt that the landlord left her without a plan or support to resolve the matter. This caused her significant frustration, distress and inconvenience. It impacted on the resident and landlord relationship as she lost confidence in the landlord’s ability to help her.
Furthermore, the resident contacted the landlord several times between July 2021 and September 2021, asking the landlord to complete pest proofing repairs. The landlord did not show that it acted on her requests. It would have been reasonable and in keeping with its repairs policy, for the landlord to take steps to understand the nature and severity of the problem. It also should have inspected the property and assessed whether any pest proofing repairs were required. In this case, the landlord did not show that it took reasonable steps to understand or address the issue. This was not in keeping with its policy which states that it would inspect a property within 10 working days of receiving a report and complete the repairs within a maximum of 30 working days. Its failings caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue several times.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident informed the landlord several times during the course of the ICP that internal doors needed fixing. Her communications with this Service and the landlord indicated that she believed it should do so as part of the pest proofing repairs. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether repairing the internal doors would impact on the rat infestation. There is also no evidence that pest control had recommended those repairs as part of some pest proofing repairs.
Nevertheless, the evidence shows that while the resident made several reports about the doors since 2020, the landlord did not show that it acted on these. The landlord’s tenant handbook states that it will keep the doors and door frames in good repair. We would expect landlords to clarify their position and explain their reasons for deciding not to complete repairs. In this case, the landlord did not explain to the resident why it would not complete the repairs or the reasons for any delays in doing the work, which was unreasonable. The landlord’s lack of clarity and poor communication on the issue caused uncertainty for the resident about how to resolve the problem. She said the lack of internal doors in her property compounded the impact of the rat infestation and the enjoyment of her home.
In October 2021, the resident raised a complaint about the rat infestation and the delays in completing the pest proofing repairs. On completion of its investigation into the resident’s complaint, the landlord concluded that no service failure had occurred. It did not uphold her complaint at either stage of its complaint process. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it explained its reasons for not upholding the complaint, which was not in accordance with its complaint policy to provide clear reasons for its decisions.
In addition, the resident’s complaint was about the delay in completing pest proofing repairs. She also informed the landlord in May 2022 that pest control had attended 9 times to address the problem, wrote to the landlord and could not resolve the issue until it completed the pest proofing repairs. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there is no evidence the council pest control team instructed the landlord to complete the repairs. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained its reasons for not completing pest proofing repairs.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that in its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would complete the repairs if the resident still had an issue with rats coming into her property. While it was appropriate for the landlord to make this offer, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate the problem and liaise with pest control early on. There is no set period of time for a landlord to deal with pest issues, however, a delay of approximately 22 months to take action is an unreasonable timeframe. This contributed to the resident feeling ignored by the landlord.
Furthermore, in its complaint response, the landlord described the actions taken by the council pest control team and provided some advice to the resident on managing the issue. However, it failed to assess its actions against its policies, legislation and what landlords are expected to do in such cases. As a result, it did not identify the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation. Those were missed opportunities to learn from mistakes, put measures in place to prevent the failings from reoccurring, put things right and rebuild trust with the resident.
The landlord did not show that it carried out a risk assessment to assess the hazards posed by the rats and used the results to inform its action in dealing with the problem. The absence of a risk assessment was particularly inappropriate because of the resident’s vulnerabilities and disabilities. The resident informed the landlord several times about her vulnerabilities, her health issues and the impact the situation had on her. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord took this into account when dealing with the reports of rats. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment of the hazards, as expected under the HHSRS, once it knew of a potential rat infestation in the property. The landlord should have also considered implementing reasonable adjustments to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities. Its failings to do so was unreasonable as it shows that it had not fully taken into account the impact of its actions and decisions on the resident.
Overall, the Ombudsman determines that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation in the property. The landlord did not respond to the problem in accordance with its policies. Once it became aware of pest control’s involvement, it failed to follow up to understand the severity of the issue. It failed to consider what it should do in line with its responsibilities as a landlord, such as completing some pest proofing repairs. It also consistently failed to communicate with the resident on the issue and did not identify its failings when investigating her complaint into the matters. The landlord also neglected to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, reasonable adjustments and assess the risk presented to her.
The landlord’s failings caused the resident significant distress, frustration and inconvenience over 22 months. The issues remained unresolved at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response into her complaint. This was an unreasonable timeframe to address the problem. After considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £750 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings.

The erected scaffolding

The Ombudsman is an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. Where there are conflicting accounts, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to take action to put right this failure. However, in some circumstances, the Ombudsman may draw an adverse inference due to the lack of documentary evidence.
The resident said that the landlord erected scaffolding on the side of her property on 3 March 2022, without giving her notice and left it there for several weeks. She also said it blocked access to her back door and garden. The landlord said that it erected the scaffolding on 21 March 2022, to the front of the property and removed it a week later. It explained that on 21 March 2022, the resident refused access to put scaffolding at the back of the property.
The Ombudsman did not see evidence to support either account. The landlord’s repair log has no record of its contractor erecting scaffolding in March 2022, whether it provided notice to the resident or how long the scaffolding remained at the property. Whilst the resident said the scaffolding went up on 3 March 2022,without prior notice, and stayed up for several weeks, she provided no evidence to support her claim. Both parties agreed that the scaffolding was up by 21 March 2022. In this case, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord provided notice to the resident prior to erecting the scaffolding in March 2022, when it put it up and when it took it down. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to determine what happened and cannot conclude there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the scaffolding in March 2022.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident provided video evidence that the landlord erected scaffolding on 21 March 2022. We also recognise that the resident said the landlord failed to move her to alternative accommodation during the continuation of the work. However, the evidence did not show how long the scaffolding was up for, that the resident requested to move or that the landlord refused to offer alternative accommodation. There is also no evidence that there was an agreement in place to offer alternative accommodation when repairs took place at the property. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot determine there was a service failure by the landlord.
The evidence shows that in May 2022, the landlord visited the resident to discuss its plan to erect scaffolding at the back of the property. It appropriately agreed with the resident what would happen and when, which was in keeping with its policy to provide residents with details of the time and date of any appointments. The evidence also shows that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and agreed to move her to alternative accommodation until the completion of the works. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, showing that it was sensitive to the resident’s needs and its obligations to consider reasonable adjustments in such cases.
The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report says that good records are essential. It assists landlords to deliver efficient and effective services and provide an audit trail of what happened. Landlords are expected to keep accurate and up to date records of their activities. In this case, and from its own admission, the landlord said that it erected scaffolding at the property in March 2022. However, it failed to make note of this in its records and as a result its logs do not show a complete record of the property repair history. This was not in accordance with the requirement for the landlord to keep accurate records of its activities. The evidence does not show this impacted on the overall outcome for the resident.
In conclusion, the Ombudsman could not determine that a service failure happened in March 2022, this is because the lack of evidence and the different recollections of the events by the parties involved. However, the Ombudsman determined there was a service failure by the landlord in its record keeping of the events. After considering the Ombudsman remedies guidance, which is published on our website, the ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation to reflect its failings to keep accurate records of her property repair history.

The associated complaint

The Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. The Code states that a landlord must acknowledge and log a complaint within 5 days of receipt. In this case, the resident made a stage 1 complaint on 28 October 2021 about the landlord’s handling of her reports of a rat infestation and pest proofing repairs. It acknowledged receipt of her complaint 13 days later. The landlord provided no explanation for failing to acknowledge the resident’s complaint within the Code’s published timeframe. This caused some inconvenience to the resident who had to contact the landlord about it.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident said she made a stage 1 complaint about the erected scaffolding on 3 March 2022. Neither party provided a copy of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. While the Ombudsman cannot determine when the resident made the complaint or the details of its content, there is evidence that the resident contacted the landlord for a response on 16 April 2022. There is also evidence that on 25 April 2022, the landlord acknowledged her request for a response to her complaint. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that by April 2022, the resident had made a stage 1 complaint about the erected scaffolding to the landlord. It was also reasonable for the resident to expect a response to her complaint within 10 working days as stated in the landlord’s complaint policy.
The evidence shows that at both stages of the ICP, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints within its published time frame. Its complaint policy states that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 within 20 working days. In this case, the evidence shows that although the resident contacted the landlord several times for a response to her complaints, it consistently failed to respond within its set timeframes.
The landlord responded to both of the resident’s complaints within the stage 1 response it issued in August 2022. Its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint about the rat infestation was 187 days outside its published timeframe. This was inappropriate from the landlord. This element of the resident’s complaint remained unanswered for over 9 months, which caused her frustration and inconvenience. The evidence also shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint about the erected scaffolding at least 69 days outside its published timeframe. Additionally, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint 190 days outside its published timeframe.
The resident raised the delays in completing pest proofing and internal doors repairs several times during the ICP. Whilst the landlord’s complaint policy states that it will address all points raised in a complaint, in this case the landlord failed to address those elements of the resident’s complaint in its responses. As a result, the resident did not have an outcome to this element of her complaint and the issue remained unresolved. The landlord’s failings to thoroughly respond to her complaint caused frustration to the resident.
Overall, it took over 19 months for the resident to complete the landlord’s ICP, which was inappropriate and caused her inconvenience, time and effort. The landlord’s failings to respond to the resident’s complaints in accordance with its complaint policy were unreasonable. This impacted the resident and landlord relationship as she likely lost confidence in its ability to respond to her complaints.
In addition, at both stages of the ICP, the resident had to contact this Service for support. It should not take the involvement of this Service for landlords to respond to complaints. The resident also had to spend time and effort to involve this Service.
Furthermore, the landlord’s complaint policy states that if it needs more time to respond to a complaint, it will contact the resident, explain why and agree a date by which it will respond. In this case, the landlord did not demonstrate that it explained or discussed the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint with her. This was unreasonable from the landlord and caused the resident some frustration, time and effort. She had to contact the landlord several times for a response to her complaints.
Following the landlord response to her stage 1 complaints, the resident remained dissatisfied and requested her complaint to escalate to stage 2. While she asked the landlord several times to acknowledge her request, the landlord failed to respond. This was inappropriate and a repeat of its failings at the previous stage of the ICP to acknowledge receipt of a complaint within the Code’s published timeframe. This further impacted on the resident and landlord relationship with the resident spending time and effort seeking a response.
The Ombudsman recognised that the resident had made several concurring complaints and, at times, this likely caused confusion for the resident and the landlord. However, it is the landlord’s responsibility to have systems suitable to log and identify complaints easily. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord did not allocate reference numbers to the resident’s complaints. If it had, it would been easier to identify which complaint the resident was enquiring about. It would have also provided more clarity to the resident on which complaint the landlord was investigating.
As previously mentioned in this report, the landlord has failed to respond to all the elements raised by the resident in her stage 1 complaint about the rat infestation. It did not provide clear explanations for the decisions it made, identify its failings or learn from its mistakes.
After considering the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It consistently failed to handle the resident’s complaints in accordance with its policy and the Code. It repeated the same failings at both stages of the ICP and did not demonstrate that it identified or learned from its complaint handling failings. As a result of the landlord’s failings, the resident spent time and effort seeking an answer to her complaint. This caused her inconvenience and frustration throughout the process.
After considering the Ombudsman remedies guidance, which is published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £700 compensation to reflect the impact of its failings in the handling of the resident’s complaint. It is equivalent to:
1. £500 to reflect its failings in handling the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaint policy and the Code.
2. £200 to reflect the inconvenience, time and effort experienced by the resident in seeking an answer to her complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about scaffolding erected around the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Provide a written and detailed apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay £1,500 in compensation directly to the resident and this is equivalent to:
  1. £750 to reflect the impacts of its failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation.
  2. £50 to reflect its failings to keep accurate records of the property’s repair history.
  3. £700 to reflects its complaint handling failings.
3. Contact the resident and establish whether the rat infestation remains an issue and whether there are outstanding pest proofing repairs. Depending on its findings:
  1. If the rat infestation issue is current, the landlord is to carry out a risk assessment to assess the risk to the resident. The assessment must consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  2. Inspect the property to assess whether any pest proofing repairs are outstanding. If it identifies repairs, the landlord is to agree a reasonable timeframe with the resident to complete the repairs.
4. Provide the resident with its position in relation to repairing the property’s internal doors. If the landlord concludes that it is responsible for the repairs, it is to agree a reasonable timeframe with the resident to complete the works in accordance with its repairs policy.
5. The landlord is to provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord self-assess against the spotlight report on KIM. https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf. As part of its self-assessment, the landlord should consider how it will keep records of all repairs relating to a property.