Waltham Forest Council (202007871)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007871

Waltham Forest Council

6 May 2021

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 complaints are about the landlord’s response to:
1. Concerns raised by the resident about a historic bed bug infestation.
2. The resident’s request for compensation.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a flat located on the first floor of a block.

Tenancy conditions

The tenancy terms and conditions state:

“1.17 You mut keep your home free from rats, mice and other pests. If your home becomes infested, you must take immediate action to deal with the problem. You must also tell the Council’s Environmental Health Department as soon as possible. If you require assistance from the Council’s Environmental Health Department, you may be charged for their services”.

Summary of events

On 16 June 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and said that she wished to complain about the landlord’s failure to address a bed bug infestation in the property beneath hers (Flat A). In her correspondence, she said:
1. During conversation with a housing officer back in May about an unrelated matter, the topic of bed bugs came up. She said that the housing officer informed her that she was “surprised” that the Void Team had not picked up on a bed bug infestation within the resident’s property during February/March 2020 – and that the previous occupant of Flat A (Mr H) had reported issues with bed bugs in 2019 to another of the landlord’s housing officers.
2. She had since tried to make further enquiries about the infestation in Flat A, but had yet to receive a response.
3. She had contacted the landlord in March 2019 after she noticed that she was getting bites on her body. She said that she asked at the time if Mr H’s cat had fleas, as there had previously been an issue with his dog having fleas and the landlord had to spray both properties as a result. The landlord did contact Mr H and he advised that there was not an issue with fleas; however, the resident said that no mention was made of bed bugs.
4. It was later in May 2019 that she spotted two bed bugs on the side of her bed spread. However, at the time she was experiencing ASB issues with Mr H, and they were not on speaking terms, so she did not wish to raise the issue directly with him.
5. She therefore decided to try to treat the problem herself and purchased:
  1. A natural enzyme product recommended for use with bed bugs, at a cost of £29.96.
  2. A steam cleaner which cost £69.99 – although this was subsequently returned, without refund.
  3. A new mattress at a cost of £114.99, and a new sofa.
6. In March 2020, a new resident moved into Flat A, and he became aware of a bed bug infestation. The resident said that he informed her that the flat had been sprayed, but that he did not have to pay for the treatment.
7. She subsequently asked housing if her property could also be sprayed, and it duly arranged for this to take place.
8. She had been informed that the infestation at Flat A was so bad that the landlord had advised that it would continue to spray the flat until the problem had been resolved.
9. She wished to claim compensation for what she considered to be service failure on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 16 July 2020. It said:
1. There had been no previous reports of bed bugs in either the resident’s or Flat A.
2. If it had been made aware of the problem, its pest control team would have attended to diagnose the problem and treat it. This would have been free of charge, and such service does continue to be free.
3. When Mr H passed away, Flat A was voided and the Void Team did not identify that there was an issue with bed bugs. If they had identified such an issue, or been made aware of a report, they would have addressed the matter accordingly.
4. It had contacted its pest control team to enquire whether it had any knowledge of bed bugs being treated previously at any time at the resident’s property or Flat A. However, it advised that this was the only time any bed bug issue had been reported.
5. It understood that an order had been raised with its pest control team and the matter was being addressed.
6. It apologised for the lack of response from the housing officer; and said that the complaint was partially upheld given the failure to respond. due to the landlord’s failure to reply to emails.
7. It did treat pests such as fleas, bed bugs and rodents free of charge. If the matter had been reported, it would have taken appropriate steps to address the issue.
8. If it had been given the opportunity to eradicate the problem, there would not have been any need for the resident to purchase pest control paraphernalia – or new furniture.
9. It was not in a position to provide the resident with reimbursement for the items that she had purchased.
Further communication took place between the landlord and the resident during July; and the resident subsequently asked for her complaint to be escalated as she was unhappy with the responses she had received. The resident raised a number of concerns, including:
1. The Voids team may not have picked up on the infestation as they had been sent to the property to do a specific job – and would not be assessing the property for any types of infestation.
2. The housing officer’s lack of response to her emails suggested that the concerns she had raised were not based on incorrect information.
3. The landlord had failed to act on the bed bug issue, and was now “trying to cover” it up.
4. In the stage one response, the landlord had advised that spraying for fleas and bed bugs was a free service – and continues to be free. However, this was not correct, and she had found information that a fee was payable for such services.
A stage two complaint response was issued on 26 August 2020, in which the landlord said:
1. It acknowledged the resident’s comments that the housing officer had told her that another officer was aware of pests, specifically bed bugs, in Flat A; and that the resident had concluded that it was either the previous housing officer or the housing manager.
2. Given the resident’s comments and concerns, a Senior Housing Officer, discussed the matter with the housing officer during the stage one investigation of the complaint – and she denied advising the resident as such. The housing officer had since left employment with the landlord, and so it was unable to discuss the case with her.
3. However, the housing officer had never met with the previous housing officer; and the housing manager had confirmed that he was not aware of any bed bug infestation in Flat A.
4. The landlord did not doubt the resident’s version of events, but had no reason to doubt the housing officer’s comments when the stage one investigation took place; and for that reason it was unable to uphold this element of the complaint.
5. The resident had been informed at stage one that the landlord treats infestations free of charge – and if the matter had been reported, it would have taken appropriate steps to address the issue. However, the resident was correct and a free service was not ordinarily offered for the treatment of bed bugs. On this occasion, management had agreed to a discretionary free service.
6. It recognised that there had been some failings; however, there was no evidence to support the resident’s comments that the landlord was aware of a bed bug infestation in Flat A in 2019. Furthermore, it did not consider that compensation was warranted. While it acknowledged that the resident had been caused some “personal injustice”, it did not consider that this was to such a degree that would require addressing through a financial remedy.
The resident referred her concerns to the Ombudsman service as she remained dissatisfied with the response she had received.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to concerns raised by the resident about a historic bed bug infestation

In her complaint to the landlord, the resident raised concerns that landlord staff had been aware of an infestation of bed bugs in Flat A in 2019, but failed to deal with it appropriately. This was based on a conversation that she had with a housing officer who she says alluded to the fact that other staff had been aware that there was an infestation. In response, the landlord advised that it had not received any prior reports of bed bugs – and that no such infestation was apparent whilst the property was void.
While the resident’s comments about conversations she had with the housing officer are not disputed, the Ombudsman has seen no contemporaneous evidence which corroborates the resident’s comments. Given the absence of evidence, the Ombudsman cannot reach a conclusion about what was discussed, and what information the resident was provided with. As such, the Ombudsman has assessed how the landlord investigated the concerns that the resident raised and how it reached its conclusions.
To investigate the resident’s concerns about housing officers being aware of the problem in 2019, the landlord appropriately discussed the matter with the relevant staff members to obtain their comments and checked its records to see whether any previous reports had been made. The landlord found no evidence to support the resident’s allegation; and advised as such when it responded to the complaint. This was a proportionate and appropriate.
When responding to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that the housing officer in question should have responded to the resident’s emails. This could have helped to allay some of the concerns that the resident had in relation to whether the landlord had existing or previous knowledge of the infestation at Flat A. The landlord apologised for this failing, and that was appropriate in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation

In her complaint to the landlord, the resident explained that she had spent money on treatments and had incurred costs in replacing furniture. She said that if the landlord had dealt with the infestation at Flat A appropriately in 2019, she would not have incurred such costs; and therefore wished to be compensated. In response to the complaint, the landlord advised that it was not previously aware of a problem with bed bugs and that it did not consider that compensation was payable in the circumstances.
The tenancy terms and conditions, as detailed above, state that there is an obligation on the resident to ensure that the property is free from pests. Where a resident discovers that there is an infestation within the property, they should take immediate action and notify the landlord’s environmental health department. The resident may seek assistance from environmental health in treating the problem if necessary.
In her complaint to the landlord, the resident detailed that in May 2019 she saw what she believed to be bed bugs walking along the side of her bed spread. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident notified the landlord – or the landlord’s environmental health department – of the infestation once she became aware of it. It follows that the landlord was not put on notice, and did not have the opportunity to assist the resident until the formal complaint was raised.
The resident’s comments that she had ongoing ASB issues with Mr H in 2020 have been noted. However, this should not have precluded the resident from reporting a potential infestation within her own property to the landlord so that it could be investigated and treated appropriately – especially given the tenancy conditions detailed above. If the matter had been reported to the landlord, it could have arranged for treatment at the time – and it may not have been necessary for the resident to replace her mattress and sofa.
The evidence shows that once the landlord was in receipt of the resident’s complaint, it took steps to treat the infestation. The treatment was provided free of charge, on a discretionary basis. It is noted that the resident was provided with conflicting information about the treatments, and was incorrectly advised that all treatments would have been free of charge. However, the landlord appropriately acknowledged this within the stage 2 complaint response.
Therefore, while the resident’s comments that she incurred costs in purchasing treatments and new furniture have been noted, there is no evidence of a failing by the landlord. It follows that there are no grounds for the landlord to pay the resident compensation or to offer reimbursement.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns raised by the resident about a historic bed bug infestation.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.

Reasons

The landlord undertook an appropriate and proportionate investigation into the resident’s allegation that landlord staff had been aware of a bed bug infestation at a neighbouring property, but took no action.
While the resident did incur some costs, there is no evidence to suggest that this was as a result of a failing by the landlord. It follows that the landlord’s decision to decline compensation was appropriate in the circumstances.