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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202200377)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200377

The Guinness Partnership Limited

17 August 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 report of a pest infestation in her property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
  2. In March 2022 the resident reported a pest infestation. She said that her neighbour below fed pigeons on their balcony which caused them to defecate, and attracted pests (flies) which entered her home. The resident said she had been unable to open her windows due to the pests that entered and the odour from the pigeon faeces. The resident further reported that her home had become invaded with pests (drain flies), and nothing she had done including blocking the holes and vents helped to rid them. The landlord’s pest control contractor inspected the resident’s property on 7 April 2022, it reported that there were no flies in the property during the inspection, but that the resident had shown images of the flies captured. It noted that the resident advised the main activity was coming from her bathroom, and that she had sealed all the gaps but pests still entered through her vents. 
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 13 April 2022. She alleged that her neighbour was a hoarder and that their lifestyle had affected her health. The resident explained that pests from the neighbour’s property had entered hers and she had difficulty trying to get rid of them. She said the preventative measures she tried had costed her a lot and was still occurring. The resident advised that she was disappointed in the service provided, as the operatives who attended her home on 7 April 2022 had no knowledge of the specific pests, had not cleaned the areas of infestation, and had only suggested asking all residents if they had experienced the same issue. The resident asked that her drains be searched, gaps between her toilet blocked (as she said it was the pest’s entry point) and her neighbour’s balcony cleaned. The landlord’s records showed that it phoned the neighbour in mid-April 2022, and arranged to visit her property in May 2022 as she was currently unavailable, it advised the neighbour to strive to keep her property tidy.
  4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 25 April 2022. She said that she believed the pests entered from her neighbour’s kitchen into hers, despite sealing all the gaps. The resident stated that she wanted a professional to remove her kitchen cupboards and find the entry point. She said that pest had entered her fridge and noted she had to seal everything including water to deter the pests. The resident asked that the landlord attend the neighbour’s flat and have her clean it or evict her as the issue was affecting her health. She later wrote to the landlord in late April 2022, stating that she believed her reports of hoarding were not treated with the same importance as listed on its webpage about coming forward. In response, the landlord raised a work order for a joiner to fill the holes in the resident’s property on 30 May 2022.
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord concluded it had acted appropriately in attempting to resolve the pest issue. It said that the arrangement of pest control was an enhancement on its normal service provided, as pests within the home was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord said it had arranged pest control to attend her home as a gesture of good will as it had not received any reports of issues from other residents, and had covered all the communal areas. It explained that any further pest related issues would need to be arranged by the resident, due to that same reason. The landlord recalled that its contractor found no flies during the inspection in April 2022. The landlord said its contractor had recommended sealing all the gaps in her bathroom as the resident said it was the area most affected. It advised that it had failed to fill the holes in her bathroom and apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused, it offered a £25 gesture of good will (GOGW). The landlord said that feedback had been given to its staff to prevent delays raising repairs. It noted that it had arranged to visit the neighbour’s property on 26 May 2022 as she was currently unavailable. The landlord provided contact details for the Environmental Health, and reiterated that it would attend in late May 2022 to fill the gaps to help improve the issue.
  6. The resident passed her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports. She said the landlord had not done anything to stop the infestation.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has said that she considered the issues affecting her property to have impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her medical conditions.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the pest issues and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a pest infestation in her property

  1. The landlord’s pest procedure states that the landlord will handle infestations in; communal areas, where there is clear evidence of pest entering via a defect to the building and where there is evidence it is a direct result of disrepair. The landlord’s pest procedure further states that infestations in the home is the residents’ responsibility. The policy further states that where an infestation may be from a neighbouring property or the origin is unclear, it should raise an order with a specialist pest control contractor within two working days and treated within five working days of the initial report.
  2. The landlord’s estate management policy explains that it will remove infestations where there is evidence that it has arisen due to its failure to do something or due to disrepair.
  3. The resident reported a pest infestation in her property in March 2022. According to the landlord’s records, its contractor attended and inspected the resident’s property on 7 April 2022. While the landlord’s policies and procedure do not set specific timescales to address the pest issues, the landlord attended within a reasonable timeframe of 28 days which is the standard procedure for its repairs policy. The landlord explained that the arrangement of pest control was an enhancement on its normal service provided, as pests within the home were the resident’s responsibility. In this case, although the pest issue was the resident’s responsibility, it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate the issue to establish the source of the pest infestation.
  4. The contractor reported no pests found during its inspection but noted the resident had shown images. It is not disputed that there were pests in the resident’s property, however, its contractor would be unable to determine the ingress point or cause of from pictures. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to survey the block of flats and communal areas for any pest related issues as this would aid in identifying the source and possibly aid in prevention of any pests. The landlord said that any further pest issues would need to be arranged by the resident, as there were no pest issues in the communal area, or reports by other residents. In this case, the landlord’s advice was reasonable, as in accordance with its estate management policy, there was no evidence the pests had arisen due to disrepair or its failure to do something.   
  5. The resident asked that the landlord instruct the neighbour to clean her property or evict her. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting and arranging to visit the neighbour in late May 2022 and advising her to keep her flat tidy (the landlord was to access the neighbour’s flat at an earlier date, due to reasons it was unable to disclose due to data protection regulations). The landlord would be limited in the actions it could take until it was able to gain access to the resident’s property. A landlord cannot reasonably be expected to take formal action against tenants for hoarding, as it can be considered discrimination against a disability. Best practice would be to aid in prevention of hoarding rather than eviction. Nonetheless, there was no supporting evidence of the allegations or that the pests had originated from the neighbour’s property. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not take further action against the neighbour.  
  6. The resident said nothing had been done by the landlord to deter the pests besides the inspection. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to fill the holes in the resident’s bathroom as suggested by its contractor. It appropriately apologised and offered a £25 GOGW for the stress and inconvenience caused. It was also appropriate for the landlord to provide feedback to its staff to avoid further delays, and by arranging to carry out the suggested works on 30 May 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to recognise its shortcoming in its service and to offer £25 GOGW in line with its compensation policy. Ultimately there was no evidence to suggest that the ingress point was the bathroom, and so filling the gaps may not have affected the overall complaint. The learnings, explanations, acknowledgements, apology, and compensation it set out in its complaint responses were all reasonable and appropriate remedies to the failings it had identified, when considered against the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
  7. Overall the landlord’s handling was appropriate and in line with its policies and procedures. It acted reasonably by investigating the issue, confirming its position and acting in line with contractor recommendations to fill the structural holes.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord commit to its advised appointments as set out in its final complaint response.