London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202307719)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307719

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

11 October 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an infestation of rats and mice.

Background

2. The resident has occupied a third floor, 1 bed flat, under an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. The landlord was made aware during the complaint process, that the resident had vulnerabilities, she had mental health issues.
3. The block had an infestation of mice and rats, which had accessed the resident’s property. The landlord said that following pest control treatment, on 29 March 2023 it had raised an order for proofing work to the kitchen and hallway in her property. It said further proofing had been necessary in May 2023, but when it tried to arrange an appointment on 19 May 2023, for a carpenter to attend, the resident was unavailable. Following this, it said the resident requested that her issues be escalated. In response it said it offered the resident a £100 goodwill gesture for 5 months of delay in dealing with the infestation.
4. On 18 July 2023, the resident made a formal complaint. She said that she had tried to arrange an appointment for pest control after finding a rat in her property, and was told pest control did not work at weekends and could not attend until 31 July 2023. She had asked for an earlier appointment, but was told this could not be arranged, and that this appointment was within its service level agreement timescale of 40 days. The resident did not think this was acceptable.
5. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 19 July 2023It said it had checked with the pest control company and could not arrange an earlier appointment because they were fully booked. It accepted that was not what the resident wanted to hear, but that it was within the service level agreement of 40 days. It had fed back her dissatisfaction with the policy.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 July 2024. When she received no response she contacted this Service, who had to instruct the landlord, on 27 November 2023, to provide a stage 2 response by 5 December 2023, which it did. It acknowledged delays in the time taken to resolve the issues, and that the customer service received had not met the standards expected. It offered her £700 compensation.
7. The resident referred the matter to this Service, because she disputed the landlord’s claim in its final stage response that all works to address the pest control issue had been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. When the resident approached this Service, she had 2 additional outstanding complaints with the landlord. These were in relation to the landlord’s handling of a blocked sink and a potential data breach by the landlord, when it arranged a repairs appointment for another resident through the resident’s account.
9. Following receipt of the landlord’s final stage response on 7 December 2023, the resident confirmed by email that she had accepted the landlord’s offers of redress to both complaints in final resolution. As a result these 2 complaints have not formed part of this investigation

Reports of an infestation of rats and mice.

10. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service because the landlord’s final stage response stated that all works to address the pest control issue had been resolved. She said this was incorrect, the proofing works recommended had not been completed, the block was still infested and to date she can still hear rats and mice in the walls and ceilings of her property. She told this Service she was in fear they will re-enter her property, with the proofing works outstanding.
11. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the start of the tenancy and throughout its duration. The existence of a hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness.
12. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause occupants harm, and that can make a property unsafe to live in. An infestation of pests such as mice or rats, is a hazard under the HHSRS.
13. The landlord has set out its responsibilities and response to pest control issues in its repairs policy. The policy commits to dealing with “all pests” in its managed communal and external areas, all rat infestations within its tenanted homes, and mice where the tenant has been unsuccessful in treating it themselves or there is evidence of a wider infestation in the block.
14. We have relied on the landlord’s stage 2 response to provide an indication of when the resident first raised the issue with the landlord, as the landlord has not provided any detailed records for this time period.
15. The landlord’s stage 2 response said a goodwill payment was offered to the resident of £100 in acknowledgement of its delay in addressing the pest control problems from February to July 2023. It also said that it was evident, that it had ordered proofing works to the kitchen and hallway back on 29 March 2023. There was no evidence however, to determine if or when any of this work was completed.
16. The stage 2 response went on to say that “further proofing work was necessary in May 2023”. This implied the proofing works raised in March 2023 were completed, but additional proofing work was identified. It said this was arranged for 19 May 2023, but the resident was not able to make that date. If a resident cannot make the next available appointment, it is unfortunate, but is outside of the landlord’s control.
17. A confirmation of a further order raised on 2 June 2023, regarding “a large gap around pipe right side of sink under units” was sent to the resident. This stated that “contractor will arrange appointment”. However, on the same day the landlord also sent a letter stating that it had been unable to gain access to carry out the same works and the job had been cancelled.
18. It did not make sense, that the landlord’s pest control contractor, (contractor A) would have received a non-urgent order, made an appointment with the resident, attended, and could not gain access all in the same day.
19. There was evidence the resident had complained on more than 1 occasion to the landlord about it booking appointments without her consent, or not being aware of appointments the landlord has said the contractor arranged and she had not provided access. This documentation was evident of how this confusion with appointments might arise.
20. On 7 June 2023, pest control contractor A, attended the resident’s property. It was not clear exactly what date this order was raised, but it was evident that it was chased by the resident on 2 June 2023.
21. The resident told contractor A, on arrival, that she had seen a rat in the hallway which had run through to the kitchen. Contractor ‘A’ noted in its report to the landlord, that it removed plinths, there was no evidence of a rat in the property at that time, but it had found what appeared to be chew marks on the kitchen plinths. It baited as necessary and reported a large gap around the pipe to the right side of the sink which it said was the likely access point for the rat. Which was reasonable.
22. Contractor A, returned for a follow-up inspection on 22 June 2023, which was appropriate and timely. It noted no bait had been taken and there were no droppings found. It re-iterated to the landlord the need for proofing work.
23. On 26 June 2023, the resident reported further sitings of mice or rats. She also reported that other neighbours had seen them and could hear them inside the walls and underneath the floorboards. This indicated that there was a wider infestation problem in the block for the landlord to attend to.
24. The landlord’s only response to this was an email on 29 June 2023, which said an update from the maintenance manager confirmed pest control had attended “the properties” (plural). They have noted proofing works are needed to “the property” (singular), and “this will mitigate any access to the rats into the block”.
25. This was a confusing and unclear response to the issue; it did not explain how proofing work to the resident’s property would mitigate against the rats’ access to the block. When an infestation in a block is identified, the landlord should inform all residents of the fact, provide details of how it intends to address the issue and the timescales for doing so.
26. The landlord’s response in this instance was not appropriate and would not have instilled any confidence in the resident that the wider issue of the infestation would be resolved.
27. Contractor A, completed a further follow up inspection on 7 July 2023, which was appropriate, no bait had been taken and no droppings found. They advised the landlord that no further visits were required at this time. If there had been no evidence of the vermin being in the property on 3 separate occasions, it was reasonable to stop baiting the property.
28. Contractor A, stressed again to the landlord, that proofing works were needed in the kitchen and the hallway cupboard. These were the same areas (kitchen and hallway) that had been identified for proofing works, as raised in the orders in March 2023. This suggests that the previous proofing works orders raised, were either not done properly or not completed at all, which was not reasonable.
29. When the resident saw a rat again in her property on the weekend of 17 July 2023, she called the emergency repairs team. She was advised that there was no pest control service outside of normal business hours.
30. The landlord’s repairs policy defines an out of hours emergency, as works, required where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public. In these instances, it would attend within 4 hours to ‘make safe’ and lower the immediate risk.
31. The siting of a rat in the resident’s property, while very distressing for her, would not constitute an immediate danger to the resident or the public. As such it was not unreasonable that the landlord did not provide an emergency response.
32. On 18 July 2023, the resident re-reported the pest problem to the landlord’s day-to-day repairs team. Bearing in mind the pest problem had been ongoing since February, it would be reasonable to expect that the landlord would respond with some level of urgency.
33. The landlord raised an order for a pest control company to attend. The resident was given an appointment for 31 July 2023, which was 14 days’ time, which did not demonstrate any level of urgency.
34. The Ombudsman’s guidance to landlords is clear that landlords should not repeat the same actions that are not working, and “must join the dots between pests and disrepair as well as multiple reports of pests in the same block or locality”.
35. The priority at this point was for the landlord to repair the access points from which mice and rats could enter the property. Further investigation and baiting of the resident’s flat, when the proofing works were still outstanding, and the landlord had been alerted to a wider infestation issue in the block, was not appropriate. This had not resolved the issue on 2 previous occasions and was unlikely to resolve the issue this time.
36. An email was sent to the landlord by contractor A on 25 July 2023, advising it that technicians had recommended proofing work takes place. It provided the landlord with an estimate of £250 plus an additional £35 per unit, for unit removal and replacement.
37. The landlord raised an order for the works the same day, this could have been considered reasonable had contractor A not already advised the landlord on 3 previous occasions that this work needed doing. There was no reasonable explanation for why the landlord had not acted on the previous reports which dated back to 7 June 2023.
38. The resident was not happy with the time she had been given to wait for an appointment on 18 July 2023, and made a formal complaint to the landlord requesting an earlier appointment be arranged. This was understandable as the resident had been living with this problem for 6 months.
39. The landlord’s stage 1 response advised that the appointment could not be brought forward, as the pest control contractor was fully booked until that date. It apologised it could not attend sooner but pointed out that this was within its service level agreement response time for pest control of 40 days, which was its current policy. It did agree to pass her views on the policy, to the policy team for consideration when it was next up for review, which was reasonable.
40. There is no set time period in the UK for landlords to deal with an infestation. As there is no statutory timescale for a landlord to respond to an infestation, the landlord can reasonably set its response time within 40 days. This should however be set out in its policy on pest control. Despite the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, stating this was the current policy, this timeframe was not set out in the repairs policy document.
41. Although the resident was not required to wait the full 40 days for an appointment, this response time seems extensive. Rodents are a hazard, and many infestations are as a result of disrepair. The general standard amongst social landlords for routine day to day repairs is around 20 working days. This is half of the time the landlord has allowed itself for pest control responses, and is in effect significantly delaying repair response times in some cases.
42. How serious an infestation cannot be determined until a pest contractor attends. Aside from their ability to spread disease, a serious rodent infestation can inflict significant damage to the fabric of the landlords building should there be any delay in addressing the issue. This could cause further unnecessary detriment to residents if electric cables, insulation, and woodwork in their homes become damaged.
43. The resident escalated her complaint the same day because she thought the policy was unreasonable for residents and should be changed.
44. The landlord’s pest contractor, contractor B, attended on 31 July 2023. They reported low evidence of mice activity, droppings were found in the kitchen and the bedroom cupboard. It recommended proofing under the kitchen units, as “gaps identified all the way along the floor/wall junction and soil stack area”. No proofing works were identified for the bedroom cupboard. It noted tracking dust and bait were applied.
45. This was no different an outcome to what the resident had received 6 months earlier. The result of the same action and the same outcome resulted in damage to the landlord/tenant relationship. The resident from this point on refused to deal with the landlord any further, over the issue. On 3 August 2023, the residents Solicitor advised it had commenced the pre-action protocol for disrepair. This was however, later abandoned by the resident.
46. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 July 2023, but when the landlord had failed to escalate the complaint by November 2023, this Service had to intervene. The landlord eventually issued its stage 2 complaint response on 7 December 2023. This was 102 working days, even with an agreed extension, this significantly exceeded its target response time of 20 days. However, it had acknowledged this immediately in its stage 2 response, it apologised and explained the delay, which was appropriate.
47. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for its handling of the infestation at her property. It appropriately accepted there had been unnecessary delays in resolving the problem, as well as stress and inconvenience for the resident who had constantly had to chase repairs.
48. It also acknowledged the resident’s declaration of her vulnerabilities, and the impact that she had said the situation had on her mental health. It recognised that there had been a lack of empathy on occasion by staff and communication had been poor, for which it apologised.
49. In response, it offered to put support indicators onto the resident’s repairs account, to increase priority on some repairs. This was reasonable, it aligned with the landlord’s policies for vulnerable people and demonstrated that it had considered whether it had duties under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010. It was not clear however, if the resident had responded to this offer. If she has not and still wishes to do so, she is advised to contact the landlord to discuss this.
50. The landlord also committed to sharing the resident’s feedback on customer care and the pest control element of the repairs policy, for review and as part of its drive to continually improve service delivery. This was appropriate, and supports a key aim of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code to learn from complaints and improve service delivery.
51. The landlord noted that all the problems were “now resolved”, which meant there were no outstanding actions. In addition, it offered the financial redress of £700 this was broken down as follows:
    1. £240.00 – Distress for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
    2. £240.00 – Inconvenience for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
    3. £120.00 – Time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
    4. £50.00 – Complaint handling.
    5. £50.00 – Service failure.
52. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this figure is in a range that is considered proportionate where there have been failures which had a significant impact, including an emotional impact, and the redress required to put things right is important.
53. The landlord’s combined efforts to put the matter right, might have been considered reasonable redress, if it were not for the fact that key elements of its final stage response were unsubstantiated, and the substantive complaint remained unresolved, causing further distress and detriment to the resident.
54. In a recap of actions taken, the landlord said that on 29 March 2023 it had actioned an appointment for proofing the resident’s kitchen and hallway and in May, “further proofing work was necessary”. This Service could not find evidence that this work had been completed and further pest control investigations in June and July 2023, confirmed this work was still outstanding and recommended it be done.
55. Moreover, the response also acknowledged rats were still present in mid-July 2023 but said it had undertaken “further sealing of key access points” in response, quoting the job reference number. However this was incorrect, the job reference quoted was for the investigatory work and baiting undertaken by pest control contractor B, on 31 July 2023, and not proofing work as suggested.
56. Furthermore, it went on to say that it understood from the case handler that the problems were now resolved. It said proofing was approved for inside the resident’s home, and further works were completed on 30 November 2023.
57. The resident has disputed that any proofing work has been undertaken in her property since she reported the issue and has told this Service that none has been completed to date. A repairs record supplied by the landlord dated 30 November 2023 confirmed that only 1 visit was completed, “and not the proofing works”.
58. This Service questioned the note on the repairs order and asked the landlord for further clarification on when the proofing work had actually been completed. It provided us with its final stage response letter again. It was unable to provide any other evidence to support that proofing work had been completed at the resident’s property. This means that it also had no evidence on which it had based its decisions, when dealing with the resident’s complaint.
59. Post–complaint information provided by the landlord has confirmed that orders have been raised for pest control treatment with contractor A, 4 times this year between February and April 2024, which further confirms the landlord had not resolved all the issues as it said it had.

Determination

60. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of an infestation of rats and mice.

Orders

61. The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
    1. Apologises to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Completes a full inspection of the resident’s property, to identify any and every point of access that vermin may enter the resident’s property, and the works required to proof them.
    3. Provide a copy of the inspection report, the resulting proofing works, and repairs policy compliant timeline for completion, to the resident and this Service.
    4. Draft a plan of action to tackle the wider infestation in the block (copy to this Service).
    5. Pays the resident the sum of £400 in addition to the £700 previously offered (Total £1100) for the ongoing stress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to complete proofing works to the property.