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

Incommunities Limited (202209486)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209486

Incommunities Limited

16 December 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 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 reports regarding a rat infestation in her property and the associated repairs.
    2. The associated complaint and communications.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord on 31 December 2021 that she had seen a rat in her kitchen. When it re–opened its offices in the New Year, it organised a visit by its pest control team to her property on 7 January 2022. The pest control team conducted four more visits to the property in the next two months, to lay poison and to follow up to see how much of this had been eaten, before repeating this process until they determined that the property was free of pests.
  3. During the pest control team’s initial visit to the property on 7 January 2022, a hole in the wall was found, which was the suspected entry point of the rat. This hole was described by the resident as having been filled by the team as far as possible using wool wire as an interim solution because the hole was too large to fill with this effectively. The landlord then attempted to schedule a repair appointment for a bricklayer and a joiner to block the hole permanently on 11 January 2022, however this could not go ahead as she was not available.
  4. The repair by the bricklayer and joiner was subsequently scheduled by the landlord for 14 January 2022, when the pest control team also re-attended, but when the repair contractors arrived at the resident’s property, they discovered that a plumber was also required. The repair was then rescheduled by it with a plumber for 20 January 2022, when the hole was sealed, and final work to restore the area to its previous condition by replacing a kitchen base unit panel was undertaken on 26 January 2022.
  5. While the resident was waiting for the repairs to be completed on 26 January 2022, she reported that she had paid to perform interim repairs herself to block the hole over safety concerns, as the missing panel in her kitchen had left the rat poison exposed to her young child and dog. The pest control team subsequently re-attended her property on 28 January, 11 February and 11 March 2022, determining that this was free of pests on the latter date.
  6. The resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 19 April 2022 and expressed her dissatisfaction at its handling of events in her case. She requested compensation for the distress and inconvenience that she had experienced, as she reported that the events had had a negative effect on her mental health and wellbeing. The resident explained that this was due to her phobia of rats and the length of time that the landlord had taken to address the infestation, including by waiting for a subsequently unused bricklayer and plumber to attend. She outlined that this had caused her to stay and eat in either her bedroom or away from her property, affecting her mood, sleep, ill-health for which her GP prescribed her medication, and her finances from paying for repair materials, prescriptions and to eat out.
  7. In its stage one complaint response of 22 April 2022, the landlord agreed that its pest control team leader would perform a final visit to the resident’s property in the following week to ensure that this remained pest-free. She then escalated the complaint on 26 April 2022, after it failed to comment on her request for compensation, address her concerns regarding the standard and duration of the repair work, communicate between its different teams, and show her compassion.
  8. After the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord rearranged its pest control team leader’s final visit at her request. Its subsequent final stage complaint response of 24 May 2022 apologised that its stage one response did not address all of her concerns due to a lack of communication between its different teams. The landlord also explained that its pest control team had met their timescales to initially visit within three to five working days, lay poison and return for a follow up visit usually two weeks later, and repeat this process until the infestation was resolved, for which they instead followed up their initial visit after one week.
  9. The landlord additionally described offering the resident an urgent bricklayer’s appointment on 11 January 2022, but that this was not convenient for her and they attended with a joiner at her request on 14 January 2022, with their further attendance with a plumber on 20 January 2022 also being within its timescales. It therefore maintained that it would not offer her compensation in the absence of failings on its part in her case, although it confirmed that its pest control team leader’s final visit would take place on 25 May 2022.
  10. The resident then complained to this Service that the landlord did not address the impact that the events in her case had had on her life. She did not feel that the complaint had been properly addressed, and felt that the repair work that had been carried out had focussed on only one hole without searching for others that were later found, or checking her loft as she had requested.
  11. The resident added that not all of the contractors who she had taken time off work to wait for were necessary, and that the missing kitchen panel had given her young child access to poison in the meantime, so that she had to pay to block this hole herself. She therefore sought compensation for the effect of the case on her health and to be reimbursed for the repairs that she undertook herself.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is of concern that the resident has reported experiencing ill–health and financial costs as a result of the property’s rat infestation, and of the landlord’s handling of this. While we do not doubt her comments about the effect of the case on her health or her finances, this Service is unable to determine liability or award damages for ill-health or finances because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so, and so this is outside the scope of this investigation to consider. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation caused the resident, and we have recommended below that she receive the landlord’s public liability insurance details to enable her to make a claim for her health and finances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in her property and the associated repairs

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy sets out that it aims to keep its residents’ homes free from pests at all times, and that it is required to attend non-emergency works that do not pose an immediate risk or adversely affect a building’s structure within an average of nine days. Its pest control team visited the resident’s property a total of five times from her initial report of 31 December 2021, where poison was laid down and checked on the next visit for signs of activity, on 7, 14 and 28 January and 11 February 2022 before they determined on 11 March 2022 that there were no more signs of rodent activity.
  2. This was an appropriate response, and the landlord’s actions were in line with its policies, arranging the initial pest control attendance seven days after the resident’s initial report of a rat in her kitchen, and so within its responsive repairs and maintenance policy’s nine-day timescale for it to do so. This, and the pest control team’s subsequent attendances seven, 14, 28 and 56 days after their initial attendance, also accorded with the timescales in the landlord’s final stage complaint response for them to initially visit within three to five working days, follow up two weeks later, and repeat this until the infestation was resolved.
  3. With regard to the pest infestation’s associated repairs, the landlord additionally arranged these within its responsive repairs and maintenance policy’s nine-day timescale for it to do so. This is because appointments for its bricklayer and joiner to carry these out were offered to the resident and then attended by them on 11 and 14 January 2022, respectively, following its pest control team’s identification of these works on 7 January 2022. After the bricklayer and joiner subsequently identified on 14 January 2022 that a plumber was also needed to complete the repairs, the latter re-attended the resident’s property with them six days after that date on 20 January 2022 to seal the hole in the kitchen, before the condition of this was restored with a new base unit panel on 26 January 2022.
  4. While it is concerning that the resident reported that, during these visits, her concerns regarding other points of entry that were later found and rats in the property’s loft were not addressed, leading to further distress on her part, it was reasonable that the landlord relied on its specialist contractors’ expertise in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary. As they only informed it that a plumber was additionally required to carry out the associated pest control repairs at her property and this was then found to be free of the rat infestation by its pest control team on 11 March 2022, it was not obliged to complete further works for this at the time.
  5. It is nevertheless of concern, however, that the resident was distressed by her reports of other entry holes and rats in the property’s loft not being addressed by the landlord, and that other holes were later found, for which it has been recommended below to review its staff’s and contractors’ relevant training needs. This is to ensure that all of its residents’ concerns in similar cases are responded to by it in the future, in order to try and reassure them and minimise their distress.
  6. The above recommendation has also been made to the landlord in light of the resident’s concerns about having to take time off work to wait for its above repair contractors to attend her property, and the length of time that this added to their completion of the associated pest control works, when not all of them were necessary. This is additionally as a result of her reports that the missing panel in her kitchen had given her young child and dog access to poison while she was waiting for the repairs to be carried out, so that she had to pay to block this hole herself, which is concerning. It would have preferable if the landlord had responded to the resident’s reports at the time regarding its repair timescales and necessity, and health and safety, to try and address her concerns about these.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and communications

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it aims to resolve complaints at the first point of contact, and to respond to complaints within ten working days. Its stage one complaint response to the resident was issued within three working days of her stage one complaint of 19 April 2022, being issued on 22 April 2022, which was appropriate.
  2. However, the landlord’s stage one complaint response only commented on the resident’s pest control issue and moved to close the complaint, as it believed the issue to have been resolved by its previous attendances for this, and by its offer of a final visit to her property by its pest control team leader. This meant that it failed to acknowledge or respond to her reports of ill-health, distress and inconvenience, associated repair concerns, and request for compensation, which was unreasonable.
  3. This Service’s complaint handling code instead obliges the landlord to respond to stage one complaints by addressing all of the points raised in the complaint and providing clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. Although its subsequent final stage complaint response to the resident’s complaint escalation of 26 April 2022 was issued within our code’s 20-working-day timescale on 24 May 2022, and it apologised that its stage one response did not address all of her concerns due to a lack of communication between its different teams.
  4. The landlord’s final stage complaint response additionally acknowledged all of the aspects of the resident’s complaints and request for compensation, explained its actions and cited its policies when declining her request for compensation. This also acknowledged that the situation had been stressful for her, which was appropriate.
  5. While the landlord failed at the first opportunity in responding to the resident’s stage one complaint, at the second opportunity it provided a reasonable response to her final stage complaint and the failings in its stage one response. This would have delayed the resolution of several of the issues that she had raised, causing her further inconvenience, however it acted appropriately in acknowledging its initial shortcomings and putting them right, for which it has been recommended below to review its staff’s relevant training needs. This is to seek to prevent further unsatisfactory stage one complaint responses from being issued again in the future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports regarding a rat infestation in her property and the associated repairs.
    2. The associated complaint and communications.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs regarding pest control and associated repairs to ensure that they address all concerns raised by its residents about these in every case.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy, and this Service’s complaint handling code at https://hos.staging.civiccomputing.com/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/, to ensure that they fully address every aspect of its residents’ complaints in every case at both stages of its complaints procedure.
    3. Provide the resident with details to enable her to make a public liability insurance claim to its insurers for damages for the personal injury that she reported to her health, and for the expenses that she reported incurring, as a result of her case.