The Riverside Group Limited (202330781)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330781

The Riverside Group Limited

24 September 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. Reports of rats in the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom house with a basement. She lives with her 2 adult children and has lived at the property since 2011. She is partially sighted and has several vulnerabilities including her mental and physical health which the landlord was aware of.
In April 2021 the resident called the landlord to report issues with rats in the property. She said that had been reporting the issues to the local council’s environmental health service for around 12 months. The rats kept returning despite the pest control treatments. She believed that they were under the flooring and there were several holes in and around the property.
The landlord discussed the reports with the resident in July 2021. Its notes show that it contacted environmental health for an update and it told the resident it was waiting for a response.
Through a solicitor, the resident made a disrepair claim to the landlord on 6 May 2022. The claim related to wider issues of disrepair and infestation of rats under the flooring and in the loft space. There were other repairs listed not associated with this complaint. She cancelled the claim in July 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 18 August 2022 to seek help to resolve the issue with rats in the property. She said:
1. She and environmental health had put down poison but the rats returned.
2. She was told that the infestation needed to be treated before the repairs could be conducted.
3. She was struggling with her mental health and her eyesight was fading, which meant she was unsteady on her feet.
4. She was desperate for assistance as there were many areas in the property that needed attention and she felt trapped and helpless.
On 12 October 2022 the landlord asked a pest control contractor to survey the property. It asked another pest control contractor to conduct a survey on 15 November 2022. It noted that there had been an Environmental Protection Act claim made by the council and it needed to complete the survey within 14 days.
On 30 November 2022 the contractor found evidence of rodents in the property. This included holes in many of the rooms and outside the property. Rat droppings and ingress points below the kitchen cupboards and the bedroom. It made recommendations to rodent proof and hygiene clean the property. The landlord approved the works and between 30 November 2022 and 10 January 2024, it emailed the contractor asking it for updates. It highlighted the urgency of the issue and the vulnerabilities of the resident.
The contractor inspected the property on 11 January 2023. It found no evidence of active pests. It removed droppings and sprayed biocide over the area in the loft. It sealed holes around the main bedroom, bath panel, front door, and hallway. It cleaned under the kitchen cupboards and glued a metal plate along the wall to cover several holes. It filled holes in the garden with cement and covered air bricks with vent covers. The contractor revisited on 16 February 2023 and found no issues such as rodent droppings or nest building.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 February 2023 to say that she was still hearing rodents in the loft. The landlord asked its contractor to check for further activity, remove the loft insulation, repair the ingress points, and provide insulation.
The contractor inspected the property on 23 February 2023. It noted that it was unable to access the basement area where there was a smell of rodents. It found that some external drain covers were missing. It recommended that the drains be repair and surveyed. There was also a damaged drain covering on the footpath which could have been a point of entry. It put poison trays in the loft space and agreed to return for further monitoring.
The resident complained on 24 February 2023. She said:
1. The issues had been ongoing for 6 years.
2. The landlord had not considered her vulnerabilities.
3. Rats were in the walls and under her floorboards. The noise was upsetting and put her at risk of fire and disease.
4. The treatments had been unsuccessful. She was told the loft would be looked at but she had no update regarding this for 3-4 weeks.
5. She wanted the landlord to inspect the drains.
6. She wanted help to move because of the impact the issues had on her health.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 February 2023. It arranged to meet with its contractor at the property on 2 March 2023.
The landlord surveyed the drains on 8 March 2023. It passed works to its contractor who conducted the repairs on 24 March 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 March 2023. She said she felt that the landlord had not acted on her reports. She felt unsafe in her home and had stayed the night in a hotel. She had started missing appointments or not taking her medication because she was unable to sleep.
The pest control contractor surveyed the property on 29 March 2023. It found no evidence of rats in the living quarters of the property or ingress points around the perimeter of the property. The resident said that she could hear rats in the walls in the bedroom and boiler cupboard. It inspected these areas and found no signs of rats. It inspected the loft space and found old rat droppings. The loft was heavily insulated but it found rat droppings, gnaw marks, and an old nest. It found some ingress points in the loft that led into the wall cavities. It highlighted the risks posed by rats being in the loft. It made recommendations to remove the insulation, rodent proof the area, hygiene clean the area, and relay the insulation. The contractor conducted the works in accordance with the recommendations between 31 March 2023 and 3 April 2023.
The landlord surveyed the property on 3 April 2023. It found no outstanding repairs. The resident said that she could still hear rats in the property.
The contractor visited the property on 19 April 2023. It found no signs of rodent droppings or nest building.
The landlord’s records show that between 20 April and 27 June 2023 it corresponded with the resident’s solicitor. It arranged a joint survey for 27 June 2023 for this issue and other outstanding repairs. Both surveyors recorded that there was no valid claim at the time for pest issues as the landlord had arranged for pest control measures in and around the property. It recorded that no further action was required.
The contractor inspected the property on 3 July 2023 and 17 August 2023. It found no evidence of rodent activity on each visit. It placed bait by the boiler and in the loft on 17 August 2023.
The contractor returned to inspect the property on 24 August 2024. It noted that all bait and traps were clear. The resident said she heard noises under the floor at night. The contractor recorded that it had previously asked for an access hatch to the basement.
The landlord’s emails in October 2023 show that the pest contractor reported that the infestation was still active. It had taken measures to treat the cause. The contractor recommended further inspection.
The landlord closed its pest case on 27 November 2023 as there were no signs of pests during its last visits.
The resident complained on 18 March 2024. She said:
1. The issues with rats were ongoing for 8 years.
2. She believed that the rats were entering through the drains.
3. She was unhappy and felt that the landlord had dismissed the issues.
4. She was not sleeping and the issues had impacted her physical health.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 March 2024. It summarised the actions taken and the visits conducted by pest control services. It suggested that the resident arrange her own pest control service and share the report with the landlord. If the third party found evidence of rodents then it would arrange any necessary repairs. It shared details of the council’s pest control and said that this was a free service.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 March 2024. It did not uphold the complaint. It said:
1. Its contractor had attended on several occasions and found no rodent activity in the property.
2. It scheduled repairs to the holes in the back door for 27 March 2024 and to the brickwork on 8 April 2024.
3. Its contractor would not return. If the issues continued then it would appoint a single point of contact to arrange pest control services.
4. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience the issues caused.
The resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response on 22 March 2024. She said that she still heard noises in the property and found rat droppings on the floor. She felt that the landlord was not listening to her concerns. The landlord replied to the resident the same day and reiterated that its contractor had visited multiple times and found no evidence of infestation. It directed her to the council for free pest control services and said that it would compare any third party reports.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 April 2024. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that it had conducted rodent proofing. There was no evidence to suggest rats were in the living quarters of the property. It had replaced the insulation in the loft space and blocked off all ingress points in and around the property. It had treated the matter seriously and undertaken all works to eradicate vermin.
The resident continued to report rats in the property in May and June 2024. The landlord arranged for its pest control contractor to conduct further inspections. On 21 June 2024 the contractor was able to access the basement where it found a “very well established” burrow. It determined that the basement had a “severe issue for a very long time”. The burrow was directly next to a drain which contributed to the infestation. There were holes throughout the basement that required proofing. The resident told the contractor that none of the previous inspections had included the basement area. It believed that the burrows in the basement were the root cause of the issue. It laid bait and fit a temporary plate over the trap door.
On 22 August 2024 the landlord’s surveyor sent a report to the landlord. The surveyor’s report says that:
1. There was a history of rats in the property.
2. There were many gaps and holes found throughout the property. The resident had used expanding foam to close gaps, which was unsuitable as rats will gnaw through these areas. Inspections conducted in the kitchen found rats have gnawed through wood under the skirting boards in the kitchen. The area was littered with rat droppings and nesting material.
3. The living room, hallway, bathroom, and spare room had no evidence of rats. The main bedroom had a cupboard that had large holes that rats use to enter the property. It recommended sealing this area.
4. It found fresh rat droppings in the roof void.
5. It was unable to conduct full inspection of the loft due to the amount of insulation in the area. It saw daylight through the roof from a distance.
6. External inspections found there were holes and cracks along the proximity of the property. It was unable to inspect the full external to the property as some areas were inaccessible in a neighbour’s land.
7. Although droppings were found in the property, it was not infested with rats.
8. It found many cracks and holes throughout the property. It recommended rodent proofing around the property. It would use metal plating, mesh, rodent sealant, and concrete where appropriate.
9. It found rat droppings in the kitchen and loft space. A hygiene clean and biocide spray was necessary to ensure the areas were safe.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

During the complaint journey, the resident repeatedly told the landlord that there was a severe impact on her health. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether the landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Policy and procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy set out timescales in which it will conduct repairs. It says that it will respond to reports of a pest infestation inside the property due to the fabric of the building within 24 hours.

Reports of rats in the property

Landlords are obliged to make sure that their properties are fit for human habitation, which includes eliminating household pests. Section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 imposes a duty on landlords to deal with disrepair. Legislation requires landlords to take action to deal with infestations and disrepair problems that are causing infestations. The resident reported rats in her home. Therefore, the landlord had a responsibility to conduct inspections and investigate any issues that would allow rats to enter the property.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. The presence of rats in the property is a potential category 1 hazard within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. The landlord is expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. If left untreated, the presence of rats in the property can present a significant risk to health. Rats can cause damage to the property and may carry diseases that can spread to humans.
There are many complications to this case that understandably frustrated the resident and the landlord. The landlord demonstrated a concerted effort to resolve the issues present for the resident. It appropriately appointed a specialist contractor and relied on the advice and guidance it provided. The records show that it arranged around 7 different surveys between 2022-2024. It conducted its own surveys during the period and attended with surveyors acting on the resident’s behalf. It provided treatments as recommended by the contractors. It filled holes both inside and outside the property, it surveyed the drains, it baited areas highlighted by its contractor, and it replaced the loft insulation at the property. There was no evidence of rats in the living areas in most inspection reports.
However, the records show the resident told the landlord that there was a recurring issue with rats in the property from April 2021. The landlord discussed the reports with the resident, but there was no evidence that any action was taken. It should have conducted its own inspections earlier in the timeline. The delay to begin any of its own investigation into the cause of rats in the property contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
The resident took considerable time and trouble early in the timeline to get the landlord to inspect the property for rats. She involved environmental health in 2021 and instructed a solicitor in May 2022 before the landlord took any action. Despite the involvement of these third parties the landlord did not inspect the property. It was only after she made a further report on 13 August 2022 and described feeling desperate, trapped, and helpless that the landlord arranged an inspection.
The records show that there were combined delays of around 17 months to inspect the property following the initial report in April 2021. There were significant delays before the landlord instructed a contractor to investigate in October 2022. There were further delays to inspect the property, despite its instructions until 30 November 2022. The landlord failed to treat the resident’s reports seriously early in the timeline. Its failures caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
The inspection on 30 November 2022 established that there was clear evidence of rats entering the property. The contractor made several recommendations to the landlord, including the cleaning of the insulation. The landlord promptly approved most works, however, there were issues with the contractor which caused the delay to start any works until 11 January 2023. The works on 11 January 2023 did not include cleaning out the insulation in the loft. The landlord’s records show that it was acting to resolve these issues and maintained regular contact with the contractor between November 2022 and January 2023. Despite its frequent communication with the contractor, there was a failure to provide clear and regular updates to the resident. It should have maintained better communication with the resident at the time. It failed to treat the resident fairly or recognise the impact the issues had on her as a result.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 February 2023 to say that she was still hearing rodents in the loft. Its failure to instruct the contractor to remove the loft insulation, repair the ingress points, and provide insulation sooner caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience. However, it did act on the reports appropriately. It was reasonable to arrange a further inspection of the property and approve the additional works.
During the inspection on 23 February 2023 the pest control contractor said that it needed to access the basement but was unable to. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord arranged any access to the basement following this request. The contractor made a further record that it needed to access the basement during its inspection on 24 August 2023. Additionally, the resident continued to hear noises under the floor at night. The landlord failed to conduct any inspection of the basement until 21 June 2024. This was around 15 months later. During this inspection the contractor found a nest, which was the probable cause of the noise under the floor repeated by the resident throughout the timeline. Had it conducted the inspection of the basement sooner it could have prevented the resident’s prolonged distress and inconvenience.
There was a missed opportunity to review the requests made by the contractor when the landlord issued its complaint responses. It could have used its complaint handling as an effective tool to review its response to the resident’s reports. However, its decision to appoint a single point of contact for the resident in its stage 1 response on 21 March 2024 was reasonable. It demonstrated an intention to improve its communication with the resident.
Throughout the timeline the resident highlighted her vulnerabilities and the impact these issues had on her. Despite stating that the presence of rats impacted her health and mental wellbeing, the landlord did not address her vulnerabilities in its responses to her. She said the presence of rats in her home was distressing and impacted her mental health. The landlord did not demonstrate that it considered if any reasonable adjustments were necessary. It missed an opportunity to reflect on these issues in its complaint handling. It should have been sympathetic to her vulnerabilities in its responses to her.
It was not appropriate for the landlord to direct the resident to seek her own third party to conduct pest control treatment in March 2024. It should have arranged for its own third party to conduct an inspection or arrange for its own survey of the property. It did not treat the resident fairly in the circumstances.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of rats in the property. There were significant failings to inspect the property earlier in the timeline. The landlord left the resident for more than 18 months before any works began. Once treatment began the landlord acted on the reports it received but failed to inspect the basement area until June 2024. This was a further 15 months after the issue was raised by its contractor. The landlord did not use its complaint handling as an effective tool to resolve the substantive issues. It did not recognise the substantial delays in its handling of the resident’s reports. It did not put things right for the resident in the circumstances.
While considering reasonable redress we have reflected on the landlord’s compensation procedure and our own guidance on remedies. We have considered the landlord’s actions over the past 18 months as a mitigating factor. However, the resident would have suffered significant distress and inconvenience over a period of around 3 years. The landlord should pay compensation of £2,100, which is comprised of £700 for each year that the issues were ongoing.

The associated complaint

The landlord’s policy states that an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord will be recorded as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint from 24 February 2023 but did not issue any response. Because it did not respond to the complaint it failed to address the resident’s request for rehousing. Had it recognised the original complaint it would have been able to address the resident’s request for rehousing later in the timeline. The failure to consider this initial complaint meant the landlord did not treat the resident fairly or effectively use its complaint handling.
The landlord should have considered this failure when reviewing its handling of the resident’s reports in its later responses in March and April 2024. Its failure to respond to the complaint caused the resident additional time and trouble later in the timeline.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to provide a response to the complaint in February 2023. It did not use its complaint handling to consider the earlier reports made by the resident. It should pay the resident £150 for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of rats in the property.
2. Maladministration in 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 apology to the resident from a member of the executive leadership team for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £2,250. It is comprised of:
  1. £2,100 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of reports of rats in the property.
  2. £150 for its complaint handling failure.
3. Comply with the recommendations set out within the survey provided on 22 August 2024. Conduct a post inspection of the works within 4 weeks of completion and confirm its efficacy with the resident and the Ombudsman.
4. Provide evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide the resident with details of its liability insurance for personal injury claims.