Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Southwark Council (202102649)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102649

Southwark Council

2 September 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:
    1. The resident’s housing application.
    2. A pest infestation in the resident’s property.
    3. The resident’s reports of unacceptable staff conduct demonstrated by the Housing Officer.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated. 
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

a. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application. 

  1. This is as complaints which concern applications for re-housing made to a local authority fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). As per paragraph (m) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”. As such, this element of the complaint has not been commented on within this report. Should the resident wish to pursue her complaint about the management of her application, and the advice given at this time, she will need to take this up with the LGSCO.

Background

  1. The resident is a Secure Tenant, occupying a house owned by the landlord.
  2. In February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to raise a formal complaint relating to the management of a pest issue at her property. The resident reported that the landlord’s pest control service had previously attended between 2017 to 2019 as she had concerns that mice were in her property. During these visits, the resident said little–to–no effort had been made to rectify the situation or to pest-proof the property aside from one visit in 2020 when the landlord sent pest control to attend and inspect the property. The contractors attended and filled a small hole they had found in the living room and, during the visit, removed a plinth from under the sink kitchen cabinet to treat the area. The resident said the contractor did not re-fit the plinth correctly, providing an access point for mice.
  3. As the landlord advised that it was only undertaking emergency repairs (due to the pandemic), the resident advised that she instructed a private pest control contractor, paying £336 for an inspection and subsequent treatment. In total the resident said she had spent £700 trying to rid the property of mice and, on several occasions, she had had to vacate the property with her two children due to the unhygienic conditions.
  4. In a further complaint, the resident also advised that upon meeting with her Housing Officer (HO) about the handling of her housing application, he appeared disinterested in her situation, despite highlighting her circumstance. She believed that this resulted in a delay in her application being processed.
  5. Following the landlord’s investigations, it concluded that there had been some delay in attending to the pest issue. It explained that this was due to its service seizing for approximately three months due to the first lockdown. The landlord advised that since November 2020, however, it had not had any contact from the resident to book a further visit nor to notify it of her concerns about pests in her property. Where the plinths were concerned, the landlord disputed that its operative had removed and incorrectly fitted this. It noted that this had not been brought to its attention despite more than 12 months passing and that no evidence had been provided to indicate that mice had used this alleged gap as an entry point.
  6. With regards to the conduct of the HO, it advised that upon speaking with him, he could not recall any time in which the resident’s contact was ignored, or he appeared disinterested. These aspects of the resident’s complaint were therefore not upheld.
  7. The resident has advised this Service that she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She has asserted that there was a failure to rid her property of mice and is unhappy with the landlord’s investigation of her complaint. She would like to be reimbursed for the monies spent on pest services and believes that staff training is required, particularly for her HO.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. In her complaint, the resident has raised concerns about mice droppings in the property when she viewed it before moving in, in 2017. She has also suggested that the landlord made several efforts to address the pest issue between 2017-2019, which were unsatisfactory.
  2. Under Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider issues that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst it may be the case that the issue existed at this time, and that the landlord’s efforts were insufficient, this Service would have expected the resident to have raised this as a complaint at an earlier time. Although this has been noted to provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from August 2020 onward, which is six months prior to the formal complaint being made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestation.

  1. The Ombudsman appreciates that this would have been a distressing situation for the resident, particularly with young children in the property. The resident reported that despite the treatment, she continued to discover mice in her property which she alleges was due to the landlord not re-fitting the plinth in the kitchen correctly. She has said the mice caused damage to her belongings, including her children’s toys and she did not feel that her home was a safe environment for her children.
  2. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony but notes that the landlord has given a different account, contesting that its contractor had left a gap when the plinth was reinstalled. The resident has said that the private pest control company she hired identified the gap, but she has not provided evidence of this to the landlord or the Ombudsman. Where there are conflicting accounts of what happened with no evidence to support either account, it is not possible for the Ombudsman, as an impartial party, to comment on what happened with any certainty.
  3. The resident has maintained that this evidence is available, and has suggested that that the landlord could have pro-actively asked her for this. It is worth noting, however, that whilst this would have been helpful, it is ultimately the resident’s responsibility to provide evidence to support her claim. This Service has been unable to see that the resident shared the report from the private pest control company. What’s more, the Ombudsman has also not had sight of this evidence. 
  4. This Service also notes the resident suggestion that she was unable to bring this to the landlord’s attention at an earlier time. While the reasons she put forward appear fair, the landlord would not have had the opportunity to put things right until it was advised of this issue. The Ombudsman is aware that even its own inspection did not identify the alleged entry point.
  5. Moreover, the resident advised that she paid for her own private pest control services and therefore wanted to be reimbursed for this. Given that this formed part of the outcome sort by the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this within its complaint responses.
  6. This Service has not considered the absence of reimbursement to be a failure, however. This is as the landlord had been responding to the resident’s requests for pest control services (without cost to her). While the Ombudsman agrees that the landlord could have offered a more prompt service (noting that there were some delays in response), this did not permit the resident to privately acquire pest control services, which the landlord would become responsible for. As such, this Service cannot see that the landlord was obligated to reimburse her. The Ombudsman appreciates that this may have been done in desperation, however notes that if the resident sought to take matters into her own hands, and to seek reimbursement, this should have been agreed with the landlord.
  7. While the resident additionally advised that she had to stay elsewhere on several occasions because of the pests, this Service has not been provided with evidence that the resident informed the landlord of this prior to her complaint. The landlord subsequently would have been unaware of the resident’s desire to be relocated, and would not have had the opportunity to assess whether alternative accommodation was required. This Service has also seen no evidence to suggest that the property was uninhabitable. The landlord therefore would not have offered a reimbursement for any additional costs that may have arisen from the resident temporarily leaving the property.
  8. In its complaint response, the landlord explained it was running a reduced repairs service due to the pandemic. The Ombudsman accepts that there would have been several pressures on its service at this time. As the landlord was obligated to address the issues once it became aware of them however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it could have taken more responsibility to confirm for itself that this was eradicated.
  9. While the landlord highlighted in its complaint response that it had attended to apply treatment in February 2020, it is unclear why no further inspection was undertaken to ensure that the issue had been resolved until November 2020. The Ombudsman appreciates that landlords were impacted by COVID-19 during this period, but is also aware that government guidance encouraged landlords to resume their services (albeit in line with public health guidance) from late July/early August 2020. The landlord subsequently would have had the opportunity to do so at an earlier time.
  10. Furthermore, the landlord itself acknowledged that following its inspection in November 2020, there had been a delay in taking further action. It explained that this resulted from the national lockdown on or around this time, which was fair given the circumstance. It is also recognised that the landlord would not have considered this matter to be an emergency under its repair policy.
  11. It would have been reasonable, however, for the landlord to have explained to the resident during this time why its service had been temporarily postponed. Despite identifying pest activity during its inspection in November 2020, however, it does not appear that the landlord did this until its complaint response five months later. This was inappropriate. As such, the Ombudsman has determined that the landlord could have done more to support the resident with the pest control issue. It has therefore been concluded that there was a service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of unacceptable staff conduct demonstrated by the Housing Officer.

  1. As issues become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult for both the landlord and this Service to conduct effective investigations. This is as recollections become unreliable, records may not be retained, and allegations may be time-sensitive. This can hinder the ability to establish what did or did not take place.
  2. In this case, it is clear that the resident’s delay in raising her issue with the HO’s conduct meant that the landlord could not investigate the alleged visit that took place. It was therefore reasonable, that the landlord approached the HO to obtain his account, in the absence of any other notes on the matter.
  3. It was appropriate that the landlord shared this account with the resident in the stage one response. Given that it could only rely on two conflicting opinions, and noting the length of time that had passed, the Ombudsman cannot see that it would have arrived at an alternative conclusion. In the absence of any further evidence, this Service is satisfied that this matter was handled fairly.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has determined that the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application falls outside of this Service’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in her property.
    2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of unacceptable staff conduct demonstrated by the Housing Officer.

Orders

  1. In recognition of the landlord’s service failure, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £150.
  2. The landlord should make the above award within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to establish whether she is still experiencing pest control issues and if so, that it set out a plan to fully eradicate the issue.