Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202005385)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005385

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

26 January 2022

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:
1. Response to leaks and damp as well as a silverfish infestation in the property.
2. Handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord that started in early 2014. The resident left the property in late 2020. The property is a two-bedroom flat where the resident lived with her two children. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises. The resident was responsible for keeping the interior of the premises in good and clean condition.
The landlord’s repairs guide for tenants says residents should contact the local authority for help dealing with infestations of pigeons, rats, insects etc. However, if the infestation is affecting multiple flats in a block, then this is the landlord’s responsibility.
The repairs guide says that the landlord aims to carry out repairs quickly and efficiently, and to provide residents with a quality repairs service at all times. Routine (non-emergency) repairs should be carried out within 28 calendar days and by appointment.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System is concerned with avoiding or, at the very least, minimizing potential hazards. Under this rating system the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including pest infestation where there is access into and harbourage within the dwelling for pests. The landlord has a responsibility to ensure properties are free of category one hazards and this duty extends to pest infestation.
Silverfish are small, wingless insects that can reach up to 30mm in length. They feed on books, paper, photos, cosmetics and starches. They are attracted by damp areas and clothing. They are nocturnal and rarely wander during the daytime (source: www.fantasticpestcontrol.co.uk/silverfish/).
The landlord’s decant policy says that circumstances in which it might be necessary to require residents to vacate their permanent home include major structural repairs refurbishments or improvements; the property has been damaged or made structurally unsound owing to fire or flood; or major works are required as a result of an Environmental Health Order having been served which would be impossible to carry out if the residents remained in occupation.
The landlord’s has a two–stage complaints procedure. The landlord aims to respond within 28 days at stage one and, at stage two, complaints will be closed once the customer is satisfied that a plan of action is in place to resolve matters and this has been communicated to them.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures policy gives a tariff for discretionary and goodwill payments. This takes into account the following factors when considering the impact: the severity; the length of time; the number of people affected; whether the person affected is vulnerable; and any distress and inconvenience caused. The compensation policy included the following:

Service failure: £10 a week.

Distress and inconvenience: most awards should be for less than £500 and only in a small number of cases should awards exceed £1,000.

The time and trouble to pursue the complaint this is more than would routinely be required: between £25 and £150.

On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020. This Service understands that, during lockdown, the landlord operated an essential repair service only inside properties.

Summary of events

On 2 May 2019 the residents reported an infestation of insects in the property to the landlord. She said that they had been there for “quite a long time” and she was “killing lots every night” and her daughters were “scared”.
On 23 May 2019 the landlord asked a pest control contractor to spray insecticide under the bath. It also asked it to check for leaks. On 3 June 2019 the pest control contractor did so; it also carried out an inspection of the property and took photos. This Service has not seen the conclusions of that inspection.
On 17 June 2019 the resident reported that the infestation was continuing. On 19 July 2019 the landlord noted the bath should be checked for leaks; there was no evidence in the repair log that this was carried out.
On 21 October 2019 the landlord told the resident it would not treat the silverfish infestation.
The resident paid for a maintenance company to survey the property on 29 October 2019. This company found silverfish in the bedrooms and the living room and bathroom. It also identified a leak under the bath, a historical leak from the boiler and a leak from the washing machine. The maintenance company gave the resident a report dated 30 October 2019; the resident contacted the landlord about these matters the same day. It is not clear when this report was shared with the landlord.
By 8 November 2019 the landlord had noted the leaks under the bath and from the washing machine and asked its contractor to rectify them. The repair log evidences that these were resolved on 25 November 2019.
On 12 December 2019 the resident contacted the landlord online. She said that the boiler engineer did not see the constant leak coming from the boiler and no‑one had checked under the bath for leaks. She said, in the meantime, the silverfish had been breeding and were in clothing; she said she had had to “throw away all my girls keepsake items from when they were babies”. She said they had had to move out of the property because her children were scared of the pests.
On the same day, the landlord noted that the local authority’s environmental health team had reported a silverfish infestation in the property following numerous leaks. It requested that the pest control contractor treat the property.
On 23 December 2019 the pest control contractor carried out an inspection of the property. They noted that they had hoovered the old powder pesticide and treated crevices around the whole property; they had found a few dead silverfish in the living room by the kitchen.
On the following day the landlord noted that, as silverfish thrived in damp conditions, it needed the property to be thoroughly checked to identify and repair any leaks that might be present. The repairs log noted that this job was due by 24 January 2020 and was completed on 17 February 2020.
On 18th February 2020 the contractor inspected the property and confirmed there was no visible evidence of a leak but said that it was possible that excess water, was under the flooring following a previous leak and this could be a source of moisture allowing the silverfish to survive.
On 24 February 2020 the landlord received a letter from Citizens Advice. They gave the background to the pest infestation and said that they understood the silverfish had got “into clothing, children’s toys and book and in the beds. Every day there were 20/30 silverfish in each room and [the resident] and her daughters had to check clothing and shoes before putting them on. They have to inspect food packets before eating. The girls are terrified of insects. They are frightened to go to the toilet at night to the extent that the nine-year-old was wetting the bed at night and had to go back into pull up [nappies]. The fourteen-year-old can’t sleep properly.” They concluded by saying that the resident and her family were too “traumatised” to return to the flat and asked the landlord to move them to a suitable property.
Citizens Advice attached various letters including:
1. Letter from a GP dated 13 January 2020 who said that the resident’s home situation was “having an impact on her mental health and had arranged anti‑depressants and counselling”.
2. Letter from the local authority’s Children and Family Health Services confirming receipt of a referral to them.
3. Letter from a GP dated 11 February 2020 which said that the resident’s eldest daughter had recently developed symptoms directly related to insect infestations in the property and had had to move out. He said that she had had panic attacks and had been unable to sleep. He asked that the landlord consider rehousing the family.
4. Letter from the resident’s daughter’s school dated 5 February 2020 which said that, living in a property with an insect infestation, was having a negative effect on the eldest daughter including lack of sleep, inability to revise and living in temporary accommodation was exacerbating her anxiety. The school asked the landlord to rehouse the family.
On 26 February 2020 the pest control contractor reported back to the landlord following a visit to the property the previous day. The main points were:
1. They had not seen any live silverfish but had found plenty of dead ones and it seemed clear from talking to the resident that the infestation was still very present. These insects were strongly associated with damp environments and/or localised damp conditions – they needed minimum levels of 50% relative humidity to survive.
2. The property had had recent water leaks (mains connector to the washing machine; boiler overflow pipe; and bath U-bend) but they appeared to have all been resolved.
3. Such leaks would give rise to localised damp areas which in turn would support the silverfish infestation. If damp conditions persist, then relative humidity would be sufficient to support the insect and the problem would therefore persist no matter how many insecticidal treatments were applied.
4. The key to resolving the matter was therefore to reduce humidity levels within the property by (1) ensuring no leaks or other moisture sources are present and any existing moisture is fully dried; and (2) increasing ventilation to the property.
On 27 February 2020 the landlord told the resident that she would be expected to return to the property, so if that was not her intention, she would need to look for a mutual exchange or be successful on bidding on Homekey. The landlord noted that the resident had said her daughters were staying together with friends; however, she was sleeping in her car outside the house a few times a week.
On the same day the landlord wrote to the resident saying that the repairs team would be in contact with her shortly to discuss the recommendations by the contractor. It explained that, where there was an issue which related to an outstanding repair, its aim was to resolve this and not to transfer the tenant on a permanent basis. It said it might consider a temporary decant (if applicable) while the repair was carried out.
The landlord also explained that every household was eligible to move and all tenants were given the opportunity to register for a mutual exchange or transfer. It noted the resident was registered for both. It said that silverfish were a nuisance but no harm to humans. It added that it was sorry that the resident’s daughter had been affected by this and hoped that, once the repairs had been completed and the silverfish eliminated, they would be able to settle back into their home with no further concerns.
On 17 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord asking about the recommendations made by the pest control contractor and the timescale for carrying them out. She also asked about the temporary decant that the landlord had suggested and asked that they sort out alternative accommodation due to her family’s deteriorating mental health.
On 4 May 2020 a GP surgery wrote again to the landlord saying that the resident had reported being suicidal due to problems in the property and her daughters were staying with friends.
On 20 May 2020 the landlord noted in an internal email that it was trying to work out a plan so that when normal services were resumed post-lockdown, it could give the pest infestation high priority.
On 22 May 2020 the landlord told the resident that it had made a safeguarding referral to adult safeguarding as well as Children’s Services following receipt of the GP’s letter which said she had felt suicidal.
On 4 June 2020 the landlord explained to the resident the options for a move (mutual exchange or bidding system). It said she would be expected to move back into the property once the issues had been fully rectified.
On 5 June 2020 the surveyor told the landlord that he had inspected the property on 2 June 2020 and no live silverfish were seen; there were a few dead ones present on the floor but there did not appear to have been any activity recently. He noted that a suspected breeding ground for these silverfish was beneath the floorboards, especially in the bathroom as there were damp conditions there. The surveyor identified works that were required in the bathroom and kitchen and listed them. The surveyor added that the repairs contractor had agreed that these works would commence on 15 June 2020 and take approximately two days. He said that, in his opinion, the property was habitable as the dead creatures could be hoovered up every day if they were still active; he believed that now that leaks on the bath and boiler had been repaired and the silverfish would have died off as there was no food source or damp conditions in which to survive.
On 24 June 2020 the repairs contractor told the landlord that they had completed the works in the kitchen and bathroom and did not find any silverfish, dead or alive. They provided photos.
On 29 June 2020 the resident provided the landlord with photos of silverfish at the property. On the following day she said another flat in the block had reported seeing silverfish to them also.
On 1 July 2020 the landlord responded to contact from a social worker for the family who said the infestation had “emotionally affected [the family] especially the older daughter”. The landlord confirmed that all repair work had been completed on 24 June 2020 and there had been no silverfish (dead or alive) in the property. The landlord said that the resident had since been in the property and sent photos of dead silverfish and an order had been raised to fix a leak in the flat below and it had asked its repairs team to arrange for either a surveyor or pest control to attend one day this week to do a final inspection and report back.
On 6 July 2020, the resident chased the landlord for an update. She said it had been nine months since they had moved out of the property and they were “still no further forward”. On the same day the landlord spoke to two other neighbours in the block one of whom reported seeing silverfish in their kitchen for a number of months; the other neighbour said that a problem with silverfish had been ongoing for “a few years”.
On 23 July 2020 the pest control contractor told the landlord that they had found dead silverfish in the lounge and adjacent bedroom but, as the resident was not currently living here, the current infestation level was unknown. The contractor said that, as they were mainly a nocturnal species, it was difficult to determine actual infestation levels from a day visit. They suggested leaving monitoring traps in the property as that would give more conclusive information on the level of infestation.
On 29 July 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord in which she acknowledged the property could be habitable and that the insects were not harmful; however, she stressed the effect it had had on her children and said, “their life has been turned upside-down thanks to these insects”. She said the silverfish were having a “massive impact on my children”. She added that she believed five out of the nine flats in the block were affected. In response the same day the landlord told the resident it had no empty properties that she could move into. It asked her to complete a medical assessment and said, once this had been returned, it would consider prioritising her banding.
On 10 August 2020 the resident told the landlord that she had had a letter from CAHMS (the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service) which stated the needs for her daughter. She added that her daughters had been without a home for nearly a year and she would be grateful for a settled move by the end of the month as her older daughter was starting her GCSEs in September.
On the same day, the landlord noted that the resident and her family would not go back to the property until the silverfish issue had been eradicated and that her children were “very vulnerable” and they had been staying with friends for a number of months now so it needed to get this matter resolved “as a matter of urgency”. On the same day the landlord asked the pest control contractor to set traps for the silverfish; it noted in an email that the works order “should have been raised two weeks ago”.
Also on 10 August 2020, the landlord told the resident it would not be able to assist her with a move to an alternative property because the leaks had been resolved and the silverfish would not warrant her to be decanted and this was not a rehousing issue. It stressed that, while unpleasant, silverfish were not harmful to humans so this would not be a sufficient reason to vacate the property. It said the pest control contractor was hoping to install traps in the property that week and would monitor any activity for up to 14 days to establish the level of infestation. It suggested that she contact the council or look at private rented accommodation if she was unable to find a suitable exchange.
On 12 August 2020 the landlord responded to the resident saying it was doing everything it could to try and assist her. It explained that the letter from CAMHS did not confirm a diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) nor did it recommend that she needed to move; it said her daughter was currently awaiting an assessment of ASD so that might not actually help the application for re‑banding.
On 21 August 2020 the pest control contractor told the landlord they had caught two silverfish in the bathroom after leaving traps in the property for a week.
On 25 August 2020 the pest control contractor told the landlord that it might be difficult to permanently eradicate the silverfish whilst humidity levels were high. They said they could try and measure humidity levels and then work out how to reduce these by increased ventilation etc.
On 27 August 2020 the landlord took a call from the resident that it treated as a formal complaint.
On 1 September 2020 the landlord noted that someone had to make a final decision as to whether the resident would be expected to move back into the property. It noted that the silverfish matter had not been completely resolved as there had been recent sightings so it would not be “easy for the family”; however, it was not in a position to move them as it had advised numerous times.
On 10 September 2020, following contact from this Service, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage one of its formal complaints procedure.
On 19 October 2020 the resident told the landlord that the silverfish had “urinated on” clothing, bedding, paper and christening gowns. She added that the insects liked to “eat and hide in dried foods … that is no way to live”. She said she could not force her older daughter back into the property and her younger daughter was still wearing nappies as they had become a habit for her.
On 20 October 2020 a surveyor inspected the property and found dead silverfish and one alive in the kitchen; damp readings showed damp was present in the bathroom and the surveyor suggested the flooring be lifted, and the pipework exposed for further investigation. No further work was carried out until the property was void.
On 27 October 2020 the resident told the landlord she was ending her tenancy agreement.
On 4 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. It gave a chronology of events; its findings were:
1. It apologised that it was not able to resolve this matter within an acceptable timeframe and for the distress this caused the resident and her family. It said the investigation was still ongoing. It upheld this aspect of the complaint.
2. It had been advised that the property was habitable, as silverfish did not pose any risk to humans. It had encouraged the resident to move back to the property after she had left; however, the resident said that, due to the emotional impact on her and her daughters, she would not do so even if the issue was resolved and that she wanted a permanent move.
3. It had provided details of how the resident could apply to complete a mutual exchange and to register for Homekey to bid for an alternative property. It said it was unable to move the resident permanently as she did not meet the criteria.
4. It noted that the resident had felt she had had no choice but to rent privately.
5. It apologised that, due to the pandemic and communication stopping with the repairs team, the resident felt she had been left to try to resolve the issue with the silverfish herself. It apologised that she was made to feel that way. It explained that, due to the lockdown, it had had to put all non-emergency repairs on hold.
It offered compensation of £450 made up of £250 for the delay in resolving the presence of silverfish in the property; and £200 for the time and trouble this matter had caused.
On 1 February 2021 the landlord issued its final complaint response under its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
1. Having reviewed stage one response, it did not believe there was anything further it could provide. It had provided a detailed explanation and apologised for the distress caused to her.
2. It was satisfied that there was no leak causing any moisture within the property.
3. It would not normally provide a service to treat silverfish; however, due to her concerns treatments were carried out due to its delays. This part of the complaint had been upheld and compensation awarded in line with its policy.
4. It could see that the resident had already made the decision to terminate her tenancy which had ended on the 24 November 2020. It could not therefore consider the request made for rehousing in her complaint escalation request.
5. It confirmed the offer of compensation of £450.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she described how “traumatic” the situation had been for her and her daughters. She said she had just wanted to be “treated right” by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to leaks and damp as well as a silverfish infestation in the property

While the landlord is responsible for leaks within the property (paragraph 4), it is not responsible for silverfish infestations unless there is more than one property affected (paragraph 3). When the resident first reported the silverfish in May 2019, the landlord did not have an obligation to take action but used its discretion in asking the pest control contractor to spray insecticide in the property at that time and asked them to take further action in December 2019 after contact from the environmental health team.
In May 2019 the landlord also asked the pest control contractor to check for leaks while at the property. This was appropriate action so that it could take subsequent action to remedy in line with its responsibilities. This Service has not seen the report from the pest control company from this visit so has not seen evidence of what, if any, leaks it had identified at that time. In July 2019 the landlord noted that the bath should be checked for leaks but there is no evidence that this was done at the time.
After the maintenance company’s report in October 2019 (which the resident herself had commissioned) identified three leaks, there is conflicting evidence about when these were resolved – the repair log evidences that they were resolved at the end of November 2019; however, the resident continued to report leaks under the bath and said no-one had checked there.
In February 2020 it was established that there were no visible leaks; however, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acted on the advice of its contractor at that time by lifting the floorboards to check for excess water that might have remained from the previous leaks. By October 2020 this action remained outstanding and high damp levels were recorded at that time. The landlord’s failure to investigate the issue fully meant it missed an opportunity to try to eliminate the damp conditions in which silverfish thrive. It also meant that dampness caused by leaks that were brought to the attention of the landlord by October 2019 at the latest was still affecting the property a year later although it is recognised that the lockdown affected the repairs that the landlord was able to carry out in the first half of 2020 (paragraph 10). However, the lack of action by the landlord after June 2020 was not appropriate; the failure to repair – in line with its obligations – is maladministration.
The landlord had no obligation to treat the silverfish until it was aware that more than one property was affected. Following the resident telling the landlord that other flats were affected at the end of June 2020, it contacted other residents and became aware that this appeared to be a long-standing problem in the block.
From this point on, the landlord was aware of multiple reports of silverfish and it therefore had a responsibility to treat the infestation; by this time it was also able to carry out repairs again post-lockdown. While it asked the pest control contractor to take some action to try to establish the size of the infestation, they warned that it would be difficult to permanently eradicate the silverfish whilst humidity levels were high. The landlord should have been aware of its surveyor and contractor’s previous suggestions to lift the flooring in the property to check for damp levels, which it had not acted upon.
It would have been reasonable at this time given the potential on going damp, the infestation as well as the pandemic, for the landlord to have given consideration to the family itself. The Ombudsman acknowledges that, usually, relatively minor damp issues and a silverfish infestation would not be grounds for a decant. However, in this case the landlord by that time had lots of evidence as to the “traumatic” effect the infestation had had on the family by external agencies and the resident herself. While the decant policy gives examples of when it might consider a decant; the list is not finite (paragraph 7) and therefore suggests the landlord has discretion in such matters.
The focus of the landlord was to persuade the resident to return to her home. While the dampness existed, the silverfish infestation was likely to continue as the pest control contractor had made clear in August 2020. In these circumstances, the resident had said she did not consider she was in a position to return with her family. A decant would have given the landlord time to have fully addressed the issues affecting the property and, in turn, might have persuaded the resident to return to it. It would also have meant that the family had secure accommodation together during a pandemic and would likely reduced the distress caused to them as various professional organisations had suggested. While the landlord recognised a temporary decant might be required in February 2020, it took no further action even when six months later when the situation was more severe. Given all the circumstances, it would have been it would have been resolution and customer-focused for the landlord to have used the discretion available to it and considered a decant for the family; there is no evidence that this happened.
Taken together, these failures by the landlord – its delay in investigating, completing effective repairs and putting right the ongoing dampness at the property and its failure to use its discretion to consider a decant amount to severe maladministration.
In its complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged that it had not resolved these matters “within an acceptable timeframe” and offered compensation.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The compensation offered by the landlord does not reflect the significant impact on the family by its failure to carry out adequate repairs at the property to address the damp caused by the leaks which led to the continuing silverfish infestation. An order has been made for additional redress to be paid to the resident to reflect the considerable inconvenience caused as well as by the landlord’s failure to consider a decant. This sum reflects that three people were affected by this failing.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused

Following Citizens Advice’s request that the landlord rehouse the family, it explained to the resident the options for a move a few days later. It repeated these options in June 2020 and in agreed to reconsider her banding for a move once it had received a medical assessment for her daughter. While the landlord received information that the daughter was awaiting an assessment for ASD, without confirmation of any diagnosis it was reasonable that it did not reconsider re‑banding at that stage.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused was appropriate. It was reasonable that the landlord did not consider a permanent move for the family, but as set out above, it would have been fair for it to have considered a temporary decant in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to a silverfish infestation at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Reasons

While the landlord acknowledged it had not resolved the issue of the silverfish within an acceptable timeframe, the compensation offered did not reflect the significant impact the situation had on the resident and her family or the length of time this continued for.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a permanent move was reasonable by giving appropriate information quickly.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report:

Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
Pay the resident additional compensation of £1,800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by these failings.
Carry out a review of its response to the recommendations made by contractors that damp levels in the property should be investigated to establish why action was not taken sooner.
Review its response to the infestation that affected the other properties in the block under its wider obligations.
Following this review, write to the resident and the Ombudsman with details of those reviews and its learning from this case as well as any further action it has identified to ensure similar failures are not repeated in the future.