Vivid Housing Limited (202015759)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015759

Vivid Housing Limited

1 February 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 handling of the resident’s:

a.     reports of a silverfish infestation in her home and investigations into the possible cause.

b.     formal complaint about this matter.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
3. On 14 February 2021 the resident asked to raise a complaint regarding a silverfish infestation in her property. She said she had to buy a new mattress, due to the severity of the infestation, and asked the landlord to reimburse her for this. The resident added that she was aware her neighbour had the same issue and pest control treatment had been unsuccessful. The landlord subsequently arranged for pest control to attend the resident’s property.
4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 February 2021 to advise that her neighbour had a leak from the roof inside their property, and since this leak, the resident and her neighbour had problems with silverfish. She also said there seemed to be leaks and mould “coming though everyone’s walls in the flats” and suggested that this was due to a problem with the building. The landlord replied, confirming it had arranged for pest control to attend, and advised that its maintenance supervisor would call the resident to discuss the issues. It also advised that the resident’s neighbour needed to report the leak in their home in order for the landlord to attend to resolve this.
5. On 23 February 2021, the resident sent the landlord photos of the silverfish and asked about making a claim on the landlord’s insurance for her belongings which she had to replace. The landlord asked the resident if she had home insurance of her own, but the resident said she should not have to claim off this because the issue was the result of a problem with the building. The landlord advised the resident to send the report from pest control with images attached of the damage to her belongings and why she felt the landlord was responsible to replace them (this Service has not been provided with a copy of the specific report from pest control).
6. The resident advised the landlord on 23 February 2021 that pest control attended to fumigate her flat but could not find the cause of the infestation. She said pest control advised the silverfish must be between the wall cavities from rising damp and moisture within the block and may be from her neighbour’s property due to the water leak affecting their property. The resident explained that because the infestation was not her fault, she believed the landlord should reimburse her for her belongings. The landlord asked the resident if pest control gave her a report of their findings and reiterated that it would normally advise that the resident needed to claim on her own contents insurance policy for damage to her belongings because the issue was not caused by a repair that had gone wrong and therefore it was not the landlord’s responsibility.
7. On 4 March 2021 the landlord arranged for its pest contractor to attend the resident’s property.
8. On 1 and 6 March 2021, the landlord confirmed with the resident that it had asked its pest contractor to fumigate the silverfish. The landlord reported that pest control had not said the leak from the neighbouring property was the cause of the silverfish.
9. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication and handling of the roof repair and the silverfish and asked to raise a stage one complaint. She said that she had also been told to buy dehumidifiers due to damp and mould rising throughout the block, which cost her £950.00.
10. Furthermore, the resident said she overheard a man who attended to inspect the roof on 5 March 2021 say he could not complete the repairs because materials other than bricks and cement were used on the roof to cut costs and should not have been used in this way. The resident raised concerns about the safety of the building and the distress thew situation caused her.
11. The landlord replied and confirmed it was investigating the neighbour’s roof leak and any works required would be confirmed with the neighbour. It confirmed its pest control contractor would be in touch with the resident and apologised for what the resident said she heard the roofers say. The landlord confirmed it would chase the report from this contractor.
12. Between 11 and 19 March 2022, the landlord confirmed it was in the process of completing works for the roof leak above the neighbour’s property. The resident reported to the landlord that there was a wet patch in her home coming from the roof. She expressed her concern with the safety of the roof, considering what she had heard the roofer say, but said the landlord did not need to raise a repair and she just wanted to raise her concerns. The landlord provided the resident its insurers details to make a negligence claim and advised it would only be successful if negligence was proven and legal liability attached to the landlord.
13. The landlord advised the resident that the silverfish treatment was reported to have been successful, and it was visiting fortnightly to check this. It noted that the resident was unhappy with the loss of her furniture, having time off work, the distress caused, and the landlord’s insurer asking for photo evidence of the damage when she could not provide this, because she was told the silverfish laid eggs. The landlord advised that it should have further information following inspections the next week. The landlord also carried out leak detection works in the building.
14. On 23 March 2021 the resident called the landlord and raised concerns that screws were now coming through her ceiling. The landlord responded that its contractor would attend to carry out leak detection in the building along with a member of the landlord’s staff, to see if any issues were considered a latent defect in the structure of the building. It also raised an emergency job for a plasterer to inspect and make safe the resident’s ceiling. On the same day the landlord attended an emergency job to inspect and repair the resident’s ceiling.
15. On 24 March 2021 the landlord informed the resident that its contractors would attend on 31 March and 1 April 2021 and asked her to co-operate to provide access to her home.
16. This Service asked the landlord, on 24 March 2021, to provide a written complaint response by 7 April 2021.
17. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, dated 31 March 2021, it confirmed it had spoken with the resident on 19 March 2021 and informed her that the silverfish treatment was reported as having been successful and the contractor would be working and visiting fortnightly to monitor this. It also confirmed that its contractors were attending on 31 March and 1 April 2021, and it should have more information after their visit. The landlord apologised for the delay, acknowledging the distress the resident had said she explained, and explained this was due to the process of investigating whether there were any latent defects in the building.
18. The landlord confirmed its pest control contractor attended on 30 March 2021 and it now considered the issue to be minor historic infestation because no live silverfish were detected within the property, and it believed that the treatment carried out had been effective. It confirmed the pest contractor placed monitors in all the flats in the building as an additional measure and would check these in two to three weeks. The landlord advised the resident that, should she find any silverfish in the future, she should not dispose of them and its pest contractor said the resident advised she had done this prior to their attendance.
19. In relation to the reports of roof leaks and wet patches, the landlord confirmed it was pursuing its option to register a claim for a latent defect regarding the roof. It advised that following reports from the inspection of 31 March 2021 it would have a clearer indication of how this affected the resident’s home. It would then complete any required repairs and inform residents of this.
20. The landlord also explained that the plasterer who attended to inspect and make safe the resident’s ceiling confirmed the nails coming through were ‘nail pops’ which were very common and not a risk to health and safety. It explained that no screws had fallen or come lose, and the contractor filled in the dents in the ceiling on 23 March 2021. The resident referred to having lost £2,000 and having to replace over £1,000 worth of furniture. The landlord directed the resident to make a legal claim and asked the resident to provide evidence of the damage to belongings, but the resident could not provide this.
21. The resident called the landlord on 1 April 2021 and expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord’s email did not address why she still had a silverfish infestation. She said pest control told her there were two species in her property: one attracted to damp, dark and mouldy areas, and another unknown species. The resident asked the landlord to instruct another pest control company for its opinion. Additionally, the resident said that she had an email stating that a full investigation would be carried out with every resident in the building on 23 March 2021 and expressed her concern that the plasterer who inspected her ceiling was not a qualified roofer.
22. The landlord instructed a damp and mould survey to be completed in the property on 1 April 2021. The surveyor’s report, said “based upon the observations made, recorded moisture readings, and thermal imagery, it is the opinion of the author there are no issues within this property including the area within the kitchen reported to suffer rainwater ingress.” It raised some lifestyle changes that the resident could take to manage the atmospheric conditions within the property and recommended the landlord: check the plumbing to the bathroom to ensure there were no leaks; discuss with the resident the importance of background ventilation via the use of installed trickle vents and the impact of drying clothes within the living area; and discuss with the tenant the importance of replacing the kitchen door.
23. On 6 April 2021 the landlord reiterated to the resident that no live silverfish had been found in the block and pest control installed monitors throughout and would report back on these. It confirmed that the pest control company was certified and qualified and had raised concerns following their visits that information had been misunderstood. The landlord advised that pest control would continue to provide detailed reports and information to it to ensure that it could verify and confirm the outcomes of any visits to the resident’s property. The landlord confirmed that filling the ceiling was an appropriate repair. The landlord advised the resident to report any change to the ceiling and asked her to provide further details on her complaint.
24. The resident disputed, on 8 April 2021, that there were no live silverfish and confirmed there were silverfish found in new traps. She also expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the roof leak, and the pest control company. The resident asked for the pest control reports and asked why the landlord’s insurance company had not responded. The landlord subsequently escalated the resident’s complaint.
25. The landlord and resident continued to correspond regarding the matters, and on 13 April 2021 the landlord updated the resident that a complaint review had been scheduled for 21 April 2021 and it expected to send its final complaint response by 11 May 2021.
26. Pest control attended on 13 April 2021 and reported that they inspected the traps and noted some silverfish on them, but no live silverfish were witnessed. The landlord subsequently spoke with the resident, who confirmed that silverfish were found in the traps, and only one was alive due to her putting pesticide powder down.
27. The landlord completed a complaint review on 21 April 2021, during which it spoke with the resident. It subsequently wrote to the resident and confirmed it would instruct a different independent pest control company to review and deal with any infestation they came across, instruct a building surveying specialist company to carry out an in–depth survey to the block, and leave the complaint open while it did so.
28. On 29 April and 4 May 2021, the resident pursued an update and, on 4 May 2021 the landlord attended to inspect for leaks to the block.
29. The landlord raised for scaffolding and roof repairs on 6 May 2021.
30. The landlord raised works on 11 May 2021 for the original pest control company to survey all flats and treat as required. It updated the resident on the same day that the second pest control company gave minimal information surrounding what activity was going on, but it shared this with original pest control contractor who would attend. The landlord also updated residents in the block and confirmed that the surveying company proposed to attend the week of 31 May 2021, depending on residents’ availability, and had also identified the roof cause of leaks to the roof and raised a repair starting 31 May 2021. It also said that the second pest control company who attended recently were unable to carry out any treatment or services; however, it would take the information they provided to the previous pest control contractor, to re-attend and carry out any treatment necessary.
31. On 2 June 2021 the landlord’ surveyor completed an initial site inspection to the resident’s property.
32. According to the landlord’s records of 3 June 2021, the resident was aware that it was awaiting the results of the surveys to confirm if there were outstanding issues, before it concluded its complaints procedure. It confirmed that roof repairs, which may have been an initial cause, and visits from pest control were being carried out that week.
33. On 3 June 2021 the resident pursued a structural survey, advising that the person who visited her home on 3 June 2021 was a damp specialist. The landlord responded that it had various specialists attending the property and the building to investigate, and it instructed a damp and mould specialist because damp and mould could cause silverfish. It explained that it was reviewing documentation on the building.
34. According to the landlord’s records, on 9 June 2021 its pest control contractor attended the property to check silverfish traps, and pest control treatment was offered but refused by the resident.
35. On 11 June 2021 the pest control contractor attended and confirmed it had carried out an insecticide treatment and monitors remained in place, showing no additional silverfish activity on this visit.
36. The landlord sent the resident the findings of its structural surveyor’s report, dated 11 June 2021, on 18 June 2021. It confirmed no issues were raised in the report, but minor recommendations were made for the resident and landlord. The landlord said a further, none–urgent, assurance check of the block would be carried out and it would update the resident once this was completed. The landlord noted that an extraction fan upgrade was in progress, and it discussed the report with the resident to confirm no concerns, or hazards had been raised. Finally, the landlord “also confirmed again that she wanted this left open until we’ve finished the investigations”.
37. The landlord raised the following repairs:

a.     On 18 June 2021 to replace a downpipe and ‘hopper’ to the building.

b.     On 22 June 2021 to repair the downpipe.

c.      On 22 June 2021 to replace extractor fans in the resident’s kitchen.

d.     On 1 July 2021 for pest control to attend the resident’s property in response to her reports that silverfish were appearing again.

38. The landlord marked the works to survey and treat all flats for silverfish as complete on 1 July 2021.
39. The landlord’s contractors replaced the resident’s kitchen extractor fans on 7 July 2021.
40. Pest control attempted to attend the resident’s property on 8 July 2021 but reported that they were unable to gain access to the property. The landlord contacted the resident to rearrange the visit and updated the resident that its contractors were moving forward with the more intrusive part of their investigation to try and identify the underlying cause of the silverfish, and to find out if there were any other issues with the building the landlord needed to address. It confirmed the contractors would write to residents to arrange access, and it would share and complete any recommendations thereafter.
41. The landlord repaired the building’s downpipe on 13 July 2021.
42. On 13 July 2021 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the time taken for the landlord to investigate the issues. She asked if the building would be fumigated and said this was recommended by one of the pest contractors, and said that her neighbour’s roof started leaking again shortly after being fixed.
43. The landlord attended the property in relation to a roof leak on 15 July 2021.
44. On 18 and 19 July 2021 the landlord noted that the resident sent photos of a pipe leaking. The landlord noted that it believed that this was the area causing the issues in the block, and it being wet in dry weather suggested this was the case. The landlord confirmed a repair to the downpipe had been completed but did not appear to have not resolved the issue, and it would re–attend. It subsequently raised a repair for investigative works.
45. Pest control attended the resident’s property on 20 July 2021 and reported that they found no silverfish on monitoring pads previously placed; however, the resident provided eight silverfish which she had found. The pest control contractor installed further silverfish lures to monitor activity.
46. On 23 July 2021 the landlord updated the resident that it found a tennis ball in the area at the top of the pipe that she reported to be leaking. The landlord confirmed this could have been causing issues, and it would know in the coming weeks.
47. On 6 August 2021 the landlord’s surveyor completed an intrusive inspection of the building.
48. According to the landlord’s records, investigative and roofing works were complete on 10 and 11 August 2021.
49. The landlord noted that it spoke with the resident on 11 August 2021. It confirmed that the surveyor found no structural issues to the building causing any dampness and believed there were lifestyle issues contributing to the issues in the flats. The surveyor said there was no evidence of any silverfish infestation when they visited and confirmed there was no problems with the flooring in the resident’s property.
50. The landlord updated the resident that the water and damp around the wall where the pipe was blocked could be the root cause of the silverfish. The resident said she did not believe ball stuck in the pipe was the cause for the silverfish and asked why the landlord had not acted on the previous pest control company’s advice.
51. On 25 August 2021 the resident asked for updates on pest control, her insurance claim and the surveyor’s reports. The landlord replied that it would speak to the pest contractor and the surveyor’s reports were due back. The landlord advised the resident to contact its insurer directly for an update on her claim.
52. The surveyor’s defects diagnosis report, dated 25 August 2021, advised that, at the time of the inspection, the structure of the property was dry with no water leak or condensation present. The surveyor considered the mechanical ventilation was unable to service the required air changes per hour of the resident’s home “due to improper use and failure to maintain” therefore, contributing to increasing humidity throughout the flat. However, the report said the surveyor considered this a contributing factor and not the sole cause. It noted that the issues were prolonged and made worse by living conditions. The surveyor recommended replacing the cladding and introducing a breathable membrane below the timber battens. The surveyor observed staining to the exterior of the building from damp because of a defect to the downpipe and hopper, where the tennis ball was stuck and recommended that these items were replaced. The report confirmed silverfish were noted in the resident’s home, and that they were not known to be harmful.
53. On 26 August 2021 the resident asked the landlord why the silverfish problem persisted and why the landlord was not fumigating the building. The landlord replied that it was not an option due to the insulation panel. It said that, considering that the resident was the only person in the block suffering from silverfish at that time, it was working on establishing the root cause of the problem. The landlord confirmed the surveyor found no structural or defective issues and it would forward the findings from the reports to the resident as soon as possible. It confirmed it had repaired the roof and the hopper had been cleared. It understood this had not caused any internal damage and was isolated to the external wall, which would need to naturally dry out.
54. On 26 August 2021 the landlord raised jobs to review the silverfish infestation and check the “hopper and downpipe issue”. The landlord sent copies of the surveyor’s reports to residents of the building on 27 August 2021.
55. Between 1 and 10 September 2021, the resident asked to be moved to another property and for improvements made to the building. She reported finding more silverfish and said she believed the building was damp.
56. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and confirmed it asked its pest contractor to assess the communal areas; it would continue to monitor the silverfish and that no damp had been identified within the building.
57. On 10 September 2021 pest control reported dead silverfish in the resident’s living room and one in the monitor placed in the hallway. They confirmed they had laid bait and treatment was to be carried out.
58. The landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response on 14 September 2021. It confirmed that it completed the roof repair in June 2021, monitored the impact on the neighbour’s flat, and was satisfied the issue was resolved. The concerns the resident raised regarding her belongings and health and wellbeing was a matter for its insurers.
59. The landlord acknowledged that the investigation took an extended period and apologised for the length of time the stage two complaint investigation took. It offered the resident £150 compensation for the time taken and confirmed it would review the presence of silverfish to ensure the situation continued to be managed. The landlord confirmed it would review the frequency of the inspections and servicing of the gutters and hopper to ensure this issue did not happen again.
60. Later in September 2021 the landlord upgraded the resident’s extractor fans, and it continued to instruct pest control to visit the property. It also confirmed that “installing membrane behind the cladding is a recommendation rather than defining the cause and has gone onto a replacement programme to get done because this type of work is specialist and takes time to organise and manage.” The landlord also later replaced the downpipe and hopper.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

61. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property (including drains, gutters, and external pipes).
62. The landlord’s website confirms it prioritises repairs as either: emergency (to be completed within 24 hours); urgent (to be completed within seven calendar days); or routine (at a time convenient to the landlord and resident). For most other repairs, the landlord will agree an appointment date with resident when they report the repair. Residents can ask to be kept up to date on the progress of communal repairs.
63. The landlord’s website classifies a severe leak or burst pipe that cannot be contained, a leak affecting electrics, a leaking roof or unsafe structure as emergency repairs. It confirms it will attend emergencies within 24 hours but may only be able to do a temporary repair or “make safe”.
64. Urgent repairs are defined as repairs that could cause harm to health and safety if the repair gets worse or is not looked at promptly. Examples include a blocked drain outside of the property, and no hot water or/and heating if emergency criteria are not met.
65. The landlord’s website explains that there are some larger or more difficult repairs where it may have to plan the work in a different way. For example, if a repair requires specialist equipment or a lot of time, the landlord may plan to do these repairs at a date in the future. Where this happens, the landlord will keep residents updated with timescales.
66. In line with the landlord’s complaints policy, it does not consider initial requests for service as a complaint. The landlord will attempt to resolve complaints by the end of the next working day. Should the complaint not be resolved by the end of the next working day to the resident’s satisfaction, or if the resident ask for a formal investigation, the complaint will be progressed for investigation at stage one of the landlord’s complaints process.
67. The landlord will aim to carry out a full investigation and communicate its stage-one findings within ten working days. If this is not possible, it will inform the resident within these ten working days, to advise when we expect to deliver a full response. When the resident asks to escalate their complaint to stage two, the landlord will advise them if their case will be reviewed at stage two within five working days. Where the request is accepted, the complaint will be reviewed by a panel of managers and a response will be provided in writing within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. If this is not possible, the landlord will contact the resident within these 20 working days, to advise when it expects to deliver a full response.
68. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, it will consider discretionary payments where practical actions alone are not able to restore a resident to their position prior to a service failure by the landlord. The landlord will consider the impact that any service failure had on the resident and the number of times the resident had to get in touch about the issue. The landlord will make payments within the following bands, considering the amount of effort/impact to determine a value within the banding range:  £0 to £50 or a “gesture” such as flowers for low impact and low effort; £51 to £150 for high effort and low impact or low effort and high impact; and £151 to £400 for high effort and high impact.
69. For complaint handling failures, the landlord’s compensation policy gives the following compensation ranges and examples:

a.     £0 to £50 for not raising a complaint when the resident asks it to, minor delay in raising a complaint, and delay in responding to an issue without updating the resident.

b.     £51 to £100 for delays or difficulties raising a complaint, delays in giving a response or keeping a resident informed leading to increased contact from the resident.

c.      £101 to £150 for significant difficulties in raising a complaint, delayed response, and poor-quality correspondence.

70. In addition to this, where a resident has experienced financial loss because of a service failure, the landlord may also consider paying loss of earnings where it feels a resident has had to take unreasonable amounts of time off work or use excessive amounts of annual leave to be at home. It will also consider other losses (unless these should or are being considered as part of an insurance claim). Where a resident is specifically claiming for impact on diagnosed health conditions or personal injury or for damage to their personal possessions or floor coverings for which they are responsible these cases should be discussed with the landlord’s insurance team.

The resident’s reports of a silverfish infestation in her home and investigations into the possible cause.

71. Residents are generally responsible for pest control within their own properties. However, in line with industry best practice, landlords may be responsible for dealing with pest problems if the pests are thought to be entering the property through defects in the structure of the building, if multiple properties are affected or if an infestation makes the property unsafe to live in.
72. It is evident that a complex investigation was required for the landlord to determine the cause of the silverfish in the resident’s property. Since the resident’s initial report of silverfish, the landlord has instructed pest control to attend on several occasions while it sought to determine the cause, in line with its obligations. Pest control completed treatment and monitoring activities in the resident’s home and because the resident was dissatisfied with their service, the landlord instructed a second pest control contractor to carry out an inspection.
73. While the landlord has not provided this Service with a report of the second pest contractor’s findings, the landlord and resident both confirm that it recommended that the landlord fumigate the cavities in the building, but the second pest control company did not want the contract to carry out this work. However, the landlord reviewed its recommendation with the first pest contractor, who were familiar with the block and the issue and the first pest control company said it would not be possible to fumigate the cavities. The landlord’s surveyor also confirmed it would not be possible as the cavities had blocks of insulation in them. Given that the first pest contractor was more familiar with the building, and the structural surveyor inspected the cavities, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of these qualified contractors and it was not expected to fumigate the building against this professional advice.
74. The landlord investigated whether there were any leaks or damp affecting the resident’s property. Its records show that it completed works to the neighbour’s leaking roof, and there is no evidence to suggest that this was the cause of the silverfish in the resident’s property, or that this leak had an impact on the resident’s property. The landlord attended on the same day that the resident reported concerns about nails coming through her roof to ensure the resident’s safety, in line with its published repair timescales, and completed repairs to cover the nails.  The landlord also took steps in line with its obligations to address a hopper/downpipe leak, once this was identified, and undertook repairs, in line with the surveyor’s findings, which was a reasonable response under the circumstances.
75. The resident referred to having lost nearly £2,000 and having to replace over £1,000 worth of furniture. In line with its compensation policy, it was reasonable for the landlord direct the resident to make a claim to its insurer and provide evidence of the damages. It is common practice for landlords to have insurance to assist with managing the cost of liability claims and the landlord would not be expected to consider a claim outside the insurance process.
76. Additionally, the resident has referred to the effect that the silverfish had on her health and wellbeing. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer, and the landlord has appropriately referred the resident to make a personal injury claim to its insurer. The insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord and the Ombudsman cannot investigate the insurer’s actions as our investigation is focused on the actions of the landlord. Therefore, we cannot address the resident’s concerns about delays in the insurance claim, the evidence requested by the insurer or a lack of updates from the insurer.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

77. The landlord did not raise the resident’s initial request to raise a complaint, dated 14 February 2021, as a complaint. According to the landlord’s records, this was the first time the resident reported the silverfish, and as such it was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy (and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code) for it to consider this as a service request rather than a formal complaint.
78. However, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one complaint response on 1 April 2021. The landlord completed a complaint review on 21 April 2021 and confirmed with the resident that it would take several actions and leave the complaint open while it did so. While the landlord did update the resident, it took five months for the landlord to send its stage two complaint response, dated 14 September 2021, which was significantly outside of the 20–day timescale in its complaints policy.
79. The landlord has acknowledged the delays in its stage-two complaint investigation and offered the resident £150 in recognition of this. This amount of compensation was adequate redress for the service failures identified and is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) as well as the landlord’s own compensation policy (which says it will offer £101 to £150 for significant delays in complaint responses). The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards of between £50 and £250 where there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. In this case, the delays did not affect the outcome of the complaint but did have an impact on the resident and compensation is due in view of this.

Determination (decision)

80. 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 reports of a silverfish infestation in her home and investigations into the possible cause.
81. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to our investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

82. The landlord has arranged for pest control to treat the silverfish and monitor the situation, and sought to identify and remedy any possible causes, in line with its obligations. While there were delays in the landlord’s stage-two complaint investigation, it has offered reasonable redress, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and its own compensation policy.