The Guinness Partnership Limited (202124118)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124118

The Guinness Partnership Limited

31 October 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of pests in the property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenant living above the resident’s property was found deceased in October 2019, but was estimated to have passed away in March or April 2019.
3. The resident reported a bug infestation in his property in August 2019 and raised an initial complaint about the infestation in December 2019. Contractors attended and completed treatments following the identification of bed bugs within the property as a gesture of goodwill. Following a final survey on 20 October 2020, no further evidence of an infestation was found and the case was closed.
4. In January 2021, the resident reported that the infestation had returned. The landlord offered to arrange an inspection, but the resident ended the call. In August 2021, the resident reported the infestation again and an inspection was arranged by the landlord in September 2021. The contractor contacted the resident to advise it was running late and the resident cancelled the appointment. On 04 October 2021, the resident contacted the contractor to advise it did not need to attend any further appointments. The case was then closed.
5. On 28 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that rats were living in the wall cavities. The landlord informed the resident that it would arrange an inspection for the communal areas. However, it said that for any further pest issues inside the resident’s property, he would need to arrange for pest control himself as previous appointments had been provided as a gesture of goodwill due to the circumstances involved, and as per his tenancy agreement, he would now be liable.
6. The resident raised a complaint on 05 November 2021 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord advising it would no longer offer pest control within his property. The resident was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his request to move properties. In the resident’s complaint escalation on 14 January 2022 he advised that pests were entering his property from the flat above. On 01 February 2022, this Service contacted the landlord to request the stage two response as the resident had advised it had not yet been sent.
7. In the landlord’s stage one response on 08 November 2021, it advised that the previous pest control inspections were a gesture of goodwill and it was unable to offer further treatments as it was not liable. It advised the resident that the inspections arranged in September 2021 were raised by a staff member in error as covering staff on the day were unaware that it was not liable. It advised that, due to this being a mistake, it honoured the appointments, but would raise no further inspections.
8. In the landlord’s stage two response on 23 February 2022, it reiterated its stance on further pest control appointments. It advised that the contractors had found no relation between the bug infestation and the deceased neighbour; but that if the resident arranged his own inspection, it would review the findings. Following the death of the neighbour living above the resident, it advised it had offered the resident several alternative properties as part of a Band A move application, but that the resident declined due to either the size of the property, the area it was situated in, or due to the lack of carpeting in the property. Therefore, it had removed his Band-A move request. It advised the resident that he still had a Band-B application live for a move request. It referred the resident to its contents insurance for any replacement furniture needed and apologised for the poor communication caused by staff sickness. It advised that, overall, it had found no failings and therefore had not upheld the complaint.
9. The resident was dissatisfied by the landlord’s response and escalated it to this Service on 28 April 2022. The resident was seeking for the landlord to remove the ceilings and cavity walls of the property and investigate the source of the infestation, and for the property to be re-plastered. The resident was also seeking treatment of the infestation so that he could return to the property. The resident has advised that the issues have impacted his mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

10. The resident has also referenced how the pest control issues at the property have impacted his health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. Therefore, the focus of this investigation will be to determine whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of pests within the property.

Policies and Procedures

11. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the upkeep of communal areas, and the resident is responsible for keeping the property free from any insect or vermin infestations.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of pests in the property

12. The landlord informed the resident that prior to September 2021, the pest control inspections and treatments that had been arranged were completed as a gesture of goodwill. Given the resident’s concerns that the infestation was related to his deceased neighbour who lived in the property above, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this. Following the resident’s initial reports in August 2019, the landlord’s contractors completed treatment in the property and on 20 October 2020 a final survey found no further evidence of an infestation. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the advice of its qualified contractors, and as a result, it closed the case.
13. Following this, the landlord had offered two further inspections after the resident reported that the infestation had returned. The first was not arranged due to the resident ending the call, and the landlord advised the second inspection was raised in error, but that it would nevertheless honour this. It was appropriate for the landlord to honour the appointment as it had set the resident’s expectations in relation to the appointment taking place. Following the resident cancelling the appointment in September 2021, after the contractor informed him he was running late, and contacting the contractor on 04 October 2021 to advise that he would not need it to attend the property anymore, it was therefore understandable that the landlord considered the issues to be resolved.
14. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange inspections and appointments throughout August 2019 until September 2021 to ensure that there was no relation between the deceased neighbour and the bedbug infestation in the resident’s property, it was ultimately not responsible for any pest infestations limited to the resident’s property, as stated in the tenancy agreement. Therefore the landlord had gone beyond its obligations to the resident by offering pest control services as a goodwill gesture previously.
15. The landlord did act appropriately by inspecting the communal areas following the resident’s reports of rats in the cavity walls, as it is responsible for the upkeep of communal areas, including any pest issues. In addition, the landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with the tenancy agreement by advising the resident it would review any findings from inspections he had arranged, to assess whether it needed to take further action.
16. The resident had informed the landlord that he was dissatisfied with the service provided to him by one of its staff members during the pest control process. The landlord investigated this and found that the inconsistent service was due to staff absence. Feedback was provided to the relevant staff members, and the landlord apologised. This was a reasonable response given the delay involved and the wider context, and demonstrated the landlord had used the complaint as feedback about its service.
17.  Whilst this Service understands the distressing situation prior to the resident’s reports of an infestation, the landlord complied with its policies and the tenancy agreement. Throughout the process, the landlord relied on the findings of its qualified staff who had stated the property was in a liveable condition during the treatment process, and, following this, found no signs of an infestation.
18. Despite this, the landlord also offered several alternative properties to the resident through internal transfers, but which the resident declined. Whilst it is understandable that the resident had preferences in regard to the properties he was offered, the landlord had acted appropriately by offering the properties that had become available. The landlord took the resident’s feedback about the properties it offered into account, and amended the areas it offered properties in. It also reoffered a property with carpet given the resident had previously declined it when it had no carpet. As the resident continued to refuse these properties, and given the advice it had received that the current property was habitable, the landlord handled the resident’s request to move appropriately.
19. Ultimately, the tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for any pest infections in the property and, therefore, whilst the landlord offered services as a goodwill gesture initially, the resident was responsible for resolving any further issues.
20.  Whilst this Service acknowledges the distressing circumstances of this case, the landlord acted in compliance with its policies and procedures, at times going its required actions. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the situation resolved based on the advice of its qualified staff, and the resident cancelling all further appointments. It investigated any potential link between the infestation and the deceased neighbour, and found the issues to be separate. Despite no relation between the two, and the infestation being treated, it continued to offer to move the resident on a priority basis.

Determination

21.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of bedbugs in the property.