Clarion Housing Association Limited (202204974)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204974

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 March 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

The complaint is about:
1. The resident’s report about damage caused to the property and her possessions.
2. The resident’s concerns that she was not informed about a pest infestation in the property during the mutual exchange process.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.
4. The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerability.
5. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident informed this Service that the landlord had not returned to the property to repair the damage caused when it attended to investigate the pest issues she complained about. She also said the pests had damaged her personal goods. Based on the evidence provided to this Service, these matters had not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. The resident is advised to raise these matters with the landlord under its complaints process.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat. The landlord advised that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, the resident informed the landlord in several correspondences that she suffers from a mental health condition.

Landlord obligations and policies

The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. The landlord would be required to comply with the provisions for public bodies under the Act. Under the Act the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy states that it aims to:
1. Record any vulnerabilities on the resident’s contact record and keep this up to date.
2. Take account of known vulnerability factors in the provision of services.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires that landlords should ensure that their properties, including any common parts of the building, are fit for human habitation at the beginning of the tenancy and throughout.
The landlord’s management transfer policy recognises that in exceptional circumstances it is necessary to try and urgently rehouse a tenant outside of its allocations criteria due to a serious threat to their personal safety. It further states it should only be considered if the police or other specialist professional agency confirm in writing that there is a serious risk of harm or threat to the tenant or their family that means it is no longer safe for the tenant and their family to continue living at the property and there is a realistic chance of a suitable property becoming available quickly.
Where a tenant requests a management transfer but it has been refused it would inform the tenant of the reasons why a management transfer cannot be granted i.e. the case does not meet the criteria set out in this policy and that they have 10 working days to appeal in writing if they believe the decision is incorrect.
The landlord’s pest and wildlife policy states:
1. Its policy aims to ensure that pests do not impact negatively on the appearance of its neighbourhoods or the quality of life of its residents.
2. It recognises that pests can be distressing for its residents, and it will work with them to ensure that pests are eradicated in its properties and neighbourhoods.
3. It will identify and block any potential access points in the structure of its properties.
Its repairs and maintenance policy states that it aims to ensure repairs to properties are carried out in a timely and efficient manner, ensuring that the repairs service represents value for money and achieves high levels of customer satisfaction. It aims to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and attend non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The landlord’s interim complaints policy effective 17 June 2022 states that:
1. Complaints received will be acknowledged and logged within ten working days of receipt.
2. Stage 1 complaints received after 17 June 2022 will be answered within 20 working days of the complaint being logged and respond to stage 2 complaints within 40 working days.
3. It will try to progress complaints received before the 17 June 2022, or manage the resident’s expectations if it is unable to progress all or some aspects of their complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for payments of recompense, where a resident has incurred out of pocket expenses or unnecessary inconvenience, as a direct result of its actions or failure to act. It notes the important considering the cumulative impact of any failures in a case.

Summary of events

The resident submitted a mutual exchange application form to the landlord in November 2021. On 1 December 2021, it informed the resident that it would inspect the property to highlight any repairs the previous tenant needed to carry out prior to exchange. It further advised her to visit the property more than once and ask questions, check every room and look behind furniture if possible.
The landlord’s mutual exchange home visit report dated 30 December 2021 noted there were no repairs to be completed by the outgoing resident before a move could proceed. It also noted that it was not required to carry out any repairs.
In a letter dated 25 January 2022, it advised the resident that the date for her mutual exchange had been agreed for 7 February 2022.
The following events occurred on 8 February 2022:
1. The resident raised concerns about pest issues within property. The resident was advised she would need to speak to the previous tenant or arrange pest control treatment herself.
2. The resident’s mother reported that the resident was extremely distressed and feeling suicidal due to a mice infestation in the property.
3. The landlord discussed a safeguarding process and also reported the matter to the police.
On 9 February 2022 the landlord noted that it would arrange for its contractor to attend and investigate the communal area and arrange for a housing officer to visit the property. The address provided to the contractors did not match the resident’s address.
The resident sent photographic evidence of mice droppings to the landlord on 10 February 2022. She said there were pest droppings on the floor and in the cupboards when she moved in. She was not happy that no one had contacted her even though the landlord was aware of her mental health issues. She said the neighbours informed her that the landlord was aware of the ongoing problem and had done nothing about it. She informed the landlord that the previous tenant did not advise her of the pest concerns in the property.
On 15 February 2022, the resident advised the landlord that she had a visit scheduled for 10:30am but no one attended. The landlord responded that someone would get back to her and it later arranged for a pest control visit. On the same day, an officer in its neighbourhood services team advised that the address booked for the visit was incorrect and they had attended the wrong property.
The landlord noted that an appointment had been booked for 21 February 2022.
On 23 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that no one attended the second appointment arranged. On the same day, the landlord arranged for the contractors to inspect the block for rodents and attend the resident’s property.
The landlord asked the relevant team to arrange a welfare visit to the resident on 23 February 2022.
The resident asked the landlord for an update about the pest issues on 28 February 2022 and 1 March 2022.
On 3 March 2022, the landlord chased its contractors for an update on the inspection. The contractors responded that it was still awaiting information on access. It said it would assign the inspection once it had received the information.
On 7 March & 16 March 2022, the landlord advised the resident that her query had been passed to its customer support team who would contact her directly.
The resident complained to the landlord on 10 March 2022. She said the unresolved pest issues in the property had not been addressed despite her reports. She said she had explained to the landlord that she had mental health issues and the pests were causing her a lot of distress. On the same day, the landlord inspected the communal area for mice or rats. It placed baits throughout the internal areas of the block to monitor and control any potential rodent activity.
On 23 March 2022, the landlord advised the resident that her query had been passed to its customer support team who would contact her directly.
The contractors carried out a follow on visit to the communal area of the property on 24 March 2022. It inspected all accessible bait stations internally and externally, and noted that there were no signs of pest activity during the visit. It further said all baits were left in a good order to continue monitoring potential rodent activity
The contractors visited on 5 April 2022 and inspected the communal area and noted that there were no signs of pest activity. The inspector further said they were unable to access internal areas as they did not have a key. It noted that there were no critical hygiene or structural issues found during the visit.
The resident re-submitted her complaint through the landlord’s website on 12 April 2022. She said no one had visited the property and this was having a severe impact on her mental health.
On 19 April 2022 the landlord advised the resident that her query had been passed to its customer support team.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 June 2022 and said the pest issue was becoming a serious infestation but her complaints were being ignored. The landlord responded that its customer support team had already contacted her on 9 June 2022. She responded on 14 June 2022 that no one contacted her on the date mentioned.
The resident complained to this Service on 13 June 2022 that the ongoing pest issues in the property had exacerbated her mental health condition, prevented her from having her daughter with her for occasional visits and made it difficult for her to stock food in the house. She said the landlord failed to disclose the property had a mice infestation issue prior to the mutual exchange. She said the landlord had ignored her and not resolved the problem.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 30 June 2022 and advised it to provide a written response that meets the criteria set out in the ombudsman’s complaint handling code no later than 14 July 2022.
The landlord responded to this Service on 1 July 2022. It apologised that it was unable to deal with the complaint as it was experiencing issues with its system due to a cyber security incident. It said it would provide a further update once its systems were back on line.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 5 August 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint and said this was due to a disruption caused by a cyber-security incident. It further said:
1. Reports of pests were raised and had been attended to.
2. The dates of attendance and work completed are detailed as follows:
3. Visits were carried out on 21 December 2021 5 January 2022 and 18 January 2022.
4. Further visits were completed on 10 March 2022, 24 March 2022 and 5 April 2022. There were no signs of any pest activity on all the visits.
5. Due to the delay in responding to her complaint, it would like to offer £50 in compensation.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 8 August 2022. She said:
1. She was previously told the property had not been inspected for mice but the stage 1 response contradicted this advice.
2. The issue continued to affect her mental health.
3. Her rent account was in arrears because she had incurred out of pocket expenses in trying to resolve the pest problem herself.
4. The landlord had ignored her correspondence before the cyber security incident it referred to.
5. She would like to be considered for a transfer as she had unknowingly moved into an unsuitable property. It failed to address this in its response.
6. The landlord should review its compensation offer in recognition of the impact of the situation on her mental health.
Its contractors visited the property on 23 August 2022 for an inspection of mice. It noted there were mice droppings and smear marks found in the kitchen. It installed 3 bait points to gain control of the infestation but also noted that proofing works were required in the kitchen.
The contractors carried out a follow visit on 6 September 2022. It found mice droppings under the kitchen units, particularly under kitchen sink unit. It inspected all accessible bait boxes throughout, and noted that no bait was consumed at the time. It changed the bait to see if paste bait was more palatable for mice. It noted a follow up visit would carried out accordingly and ingress points under kitchen units required proofing to prevent future ingress.
The contractors visited on 13 September 2022 and carried out the following actions:
1. Removed plinths and cleaned underneath units.
2. Removed kitchen unit to gain better access to point of ingress.
3. Used mesh to block opening around pipe to stop ingress.
4. Used mortar to block gaps between wall and floor to stop ingress.
5. Used wire wool and sealant to block gaps around pipes going through trunking to stop ingress.
6. Used mortar to block gaps around pipe going through wall to stop ingress.
7. Reinstated kitchen unit.
The landlord completed a follow up visit on 21 September 2022. It inspected all accessible bait boxes and noted there were no signs of mice activity during the visit.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 11 October 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding and said this was due to disruption caused by a cyber security incident. It said:
1. The resident had made contact through this Service on 30 June 2022 about a pest infestation.
2. There had been reports of rodents in a neighbouring property and the communal areas but no reports of rodents in her property prior to the time she moved in.
3. A total of 6 visits were made between December 2021 and April 2022 to the communal areas and bait was laid with no activity detected.
4. This was not clearly explained in the stage 1 response as it gave the impression that its pest control contractors, entered the property.
5. An officer from its neighbourhood services team attended the property in February 2022 and they recommended an inspection, proofing works or baiting that needed to be carried out. It was sorry the works were not followed up or attended.
6. It would like to offer £200 for the service failure and the impact it had on her well-being and the ability to enjoy her new home.
7. This matter would be provided as feedback to its contractor in its next meeting so that it is able to construct an action plan to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
8. As she had not yet responded to a request for information about additional costs incurred in pest control treatments. It would like to offer £50 in relation to the costs.
9. Its contractor attended the property and completed all of the recommended proofing works on 13 September 2022. It also attended on 21 September 2022 to carry out a further inspection and found no signs of activity. It removed the bait boxes and confirmed that no further proofing works were required.
10. In regards to her request for a management transfer, it was sorry that this was not addressed in the stage one response and it would like to offer £100 for the inconvenience. However, it would not be able to grant a management move for pest issues as this is not something that is covered by its policy. The expectation with pest control issues is that they should be dealt with. It had arranged a payment of £400 compensation broken down as:
  1. Failure to follow its process, inconvenience, time taken to resolve – £200
  2. Costs incurred for own pest control methods – £50
  3. Missed issue at stage 1 – £100
  4. Delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint – £50

Summary of actions following the landlord’s internal complaints process

The resident informed this Service, on 27 January 2023, that the treatment carried out by the landlord had failed as the mice had returned to the property.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 13 February 2023 and reported that proofing works had failed (completed in September 2022) and mice had returned to the property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 February 2023. It advised her that a senior manager would review her concerns and respond to her within 10 working days.
The contractors carried out further visits to the property in March 2023.
The landlord sent a follow up response on 16 March 2023. It advised that:
1. Following her reports, its contractors had carried out their first visit of a new 3 part treatment on 6 March 2023 where they reported that rodenticide had been consumed within a bait box. They have removed this and replaced with a new set of bait boxes.
2. A second visit had been scheduled to take place on 22 March 2022 to apply further treatment and following this, it would remain in contact with her to communicate any further dates of attendance to the property.
3. It was noted that there was rodent activity elsewhere within the block, during the visit, so it would be arranging a block treatment to resolve the problem in the building.
4. Having reviewed its system, it could see that she made contact on 27 January 2023 and 13 February 2023 following the stage 2 response issued on 11 October 2022, but it did not attend until 6 March 2023.
5. It apologised for the delay and offered £150 discretionary payment for the inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident.
The contractors carried out further visits on 3 April 2023 for mice or rats and noted there was evidence of mice in the kitchen. It recommended that the back of the kitchen units should be inspected further for any ingress points and ensure they were sealed to deny pest ingress.
On 12 April 2023 the landlord advised the resident that the £150 compensation would be retained onto her rent account due to the rent arrears on the account.
The resident contacted this Service on 23 May 2023 and 31 May 2023 and said:
1. Proofing works to stop the pests from re-entering the property had still not been done and the damage to her kitchen units and tiles during the first attempt at proofing the property had still not been repaired.
2. The contractors made 3 visits to the property to check for new activity but there was evidence of ongoing pest infestation in the property.
3. She was made aware that only 2 out of 5 properties allowed the landlord access which would have hampered the landlord’s attempts to ascertain the extent of the infestation in the block.
4. The pests had caused damage to the property and her personal items.
5. The ongoing issues had severely impacted her mental health and she had been placed on a higher dose of her medication.
6. She wished to be re-housed to another property.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The resident’s concerns that she was not informed about a pest infestation in the property during the mutual exchange process.

It is noted from the resident’s submissions that she had gone through a distressing experience concerning the pest issues reported to the landlord. This Service asked the landlord to provide records of any inspections or works raised in relation to pest problems in the property within the 2 years prior to the mutual exchange. The landlord advised that there were no records matching this description. While its stage 1 response indicated that it had visited the property on 3 occasions to check for mice activity before the resident moved in, it explained in its stage 2 response that the information was incorrect and it apologised for the misleading advice. Furthermore, the evidence provided by the landlord shows that its contractors inspected the communal areas of the resident’s block in December and January 2021, not the property itself. The landlord’s actions here are appropriate as it recognised its error and sought to put things right by apologising to the resident.
This Service recognises that the resident would have been disappointed to discover that the property had a mice infestation when she moved in. The Ombudsman has also noted that she continually expressed that this had severely affected her mental health. However, we have found no evidence that the landlord was aware of this issue prior to the time she moved in. The landlord inspected the property on 30 December 2021, in line with its mutual exchange policy, but the report noted there were no pest issues identified. It also advised the resident to visit the property prior to the exchange, ask the previous tenant questions and inspect the property to ensure she was satisfied before agreeing to the mutual exchange. While this Service sympathises with the resident’s situation, the evidence shows that the landlord was not aware of any pest concerns in the property. This Service has therefore found no evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that she was not informed about a pest infestation in the property during the mutual exchange process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.

We have seen from the evidence that the resident reported concerns about pests in the property since the start of her tenancy. Her first report to the landlord was submitted on 8 February 2022, a day after she signed the mutual exchange agreement, followed by weekly and monthly requests for updates from the landlord. The landlord’s contractors arranged their first visit on 10 March 2022 and followed this up with other visits in April 2022 but this was to inspect the communal areas of the resident’s block. It did not inspect the resident’s property until 23 August 2022, which was after she had submitted 3 complaints and contacted this Service for assistance. The resident contacted the landlord consistently for a period of 8 months, during which she stressed the adverse effect of the issue on her mental health. The landlord should have resolved the resident’s concerns within 28 days as stated in its policy but it failed to do so or provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
This Service notes that the landlord acted accordingly in arranging a welfare visit and in contacting the police, when it received concerns about her mental health. However, it failed to take any action to investigate the root cause of the resident’s concern or take steps to resolve it. From the evidence seen, the resident was clearly distressed as this matter unnecessarily carried on for an extended period. During this period she expressed that she was being denied the right to the peaceful enjoyment of her home and unable to have occasional visits from her daughter or stock food in the property due to the rodent activity. Therefore, the delay in investigating and resolving the pest issues was a significant failing on the landlord’s part. Its policy states that it aims to ensure that pests do not impact negatively on the appearance of its neighbourhoods or the quality of life of its residents. Its late response to the resident’s reports does not show that it took the matter seriously.
There is evidence of some learning in the landlord’s handling of the matter as it recognised its errors and sought to put things right. It arranged visits to the property on 23 August 2022 and followed up with treatment and other works on 6 September and 13 September 2022. It carried out another visit on 21 September 2022 to check for evidence of mice. It closed the case and concluded that the issue had been resolved as no further evidence of mice activity was noted. It apologised to the resident and offered £200 for the inconvenience, time and trouble and loss of enjoyment of the property. It also offered £50 to the resident to cover any out of pocket expenses incurred in her attempts to resolve the pest issues in the property.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for payments of recompense up to the amount of £700 in cases where there is evidence of failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy. From the history of the case, it is evident that the resident experienced distress, frustration, inconvenience and the loss of enjoyment of her home for over 8 months which she said exacerbated her mental health condition. Whilst the Ombudsman welcomes the landlords attempts at redress, the amount offered does not fully reflect the detriment to the resident. An order will be made to address this.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has provided a follow on response to the resident due to further concerns raised in January 2023, that the treatment and proofing works had failed. It is further noted from the evidence that the landlord has arranged further visits since the stage 2 response and awarded additional compensation for the delay in responding to new concerns. The landlord informed this Service that there were no outstanding treatments or proofing works needed to the property since its last visit on 9 May 2023. However, the resident disputed this so an order will be made for the landlord to follow up on any outstanding concerns about mice in the property. Overall, there is evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.

Landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerability

The resident’s mother contacted the landlord on 8 February 2022 and raised concerns about her mental health due to rodent activity detected in the property shortly after she moved in. It is noted from its internal emails that it raised a safeguarding concern, but this Service has not seen any records on the outcome of the referral. This Service would expect the landlord to have updated the resident’s records and flagged up any concerns about any vulnerabilities that other members of staff should be aware of. In response to our request for information about the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord responded that it had no vulnerabilities recorded. This is not appropriate. When in receipt of information informing the landlord of a mental health crisis, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to take action in line with its vulnerable resident policy. It failed to do so in this case despite its policy recognising that vulnerable residents may find it more difficult to cope if something goes wrong in their home and they need a repair. This is a significant failing on the landlord’s part.
The resident informed the landlord on 10 February 2022 that no one had contacted her regarding her reports of mice. She informed the landlord that she suffers from mental health issues and was finding it difficult to stay in the property. The landlord attempted a visit on 15 February 2022, but it noted an incorrect address to the visiting officer which resulted in a failed visit. The evidence further shows that the landlord asked its contractors to inspect the communal areas for mice but the resident was very clear that she needed someone to attend the property. This shows that the landlord did not actively listen to the resident or record her concerns accurately especially since it had been made aware of her mental health issues. This is a concern to this Service.
On 18 February 2022, the landlord instructed a member of staff to visit the resident’s property and take pictures to determine the extent of the mice infestation. It also incorrectly stated that the resident’s daughter was feeling suicidal when it was actually the resident’s mother who had reported a concern about her daughter’s mental health. It should have taken a proactive approach given the resident’s repeated concerns about the impact of the pest issues on her wellbeing and ensured that information received was recorded accurately.
In response to the resident’s request for a management move, the landlord responded that its policy does not allow such moves on the grounds of a pest infestation. However, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord provided any information or support to the resident in respect of her rehousing options or that it worked with any specialists involved in her case to determine if a management move was necessary in light of her mental health condition. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and consequently should have varied its service delivery as set out in its vulnerable residents policy. This would have made the resident feel unheard and caused her further distress.
The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy states that when a resident makes contact it will confirm if there are any disabilities or support needs which should be taken into account. It said this would be recorded on the resident’s record so that services can be delivered appropriately and aligned to the needs of the household. It is evident that the landlord did not follow its policy or consider the resident’s vulnerability in its handling of her case. Failing to take her vulnerability into account would have contributed to the 8 month delay in resolving the pest infestation in the property. In light of this, there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerability.

The associated complaint

The resident initially submitted a formal complaint to the landlord through its website on 10 March 2022, before the cyber security incident it reported, which she followed up with 2 other submissions. However, despite intervention from this Service, the response was severely delayed. Although the landlord was asked to contact the resident, there is no evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint or advised her of the expected timescales for answering it. This would have caused the resident further distress and uncertainty.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 5 August 2022, 100 working days after the complaint was received. Although the complaint was received before it introduced its interim complaints policy (17 June 2022), it also exceeded the 20 working days timescales stated in the policy for responding to stage 1 complaints. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing the response, but it gave factually incorrect and misleading information to the resident. It said it had conducted 3 visits to the property before the resident moved in. The response also failed to address the concerns the resident had been raising, since the start of the tenancy, about the treatment of mice in the property. Whist it is evident from the pest control treatment forms that the inspections made in March and April 2022 were to the communal areas, the response stated that it had visited the resident’s property. This would have further reduced the resident’s trust in the landlord causing confusion.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 8 August 2022, but the landlord did not respond until on 11 October 2022. It took 65 working days to respond which fell far outside the 40 working days stated in its interim complaints policy. This said, the landlord had conducted visits to the property in August and September 2022 and addressed the pest issues in the property. This shows that it had learned from its previous mistakes. It also apologised for the incorrect information given in the stage 1 response and clarified that it had not actually attempted any pest control treatments in the property before she moved in. It recognised that the stage 1 response failed to address all the points raised and offered £200 for the overall failures identified in the handling of both complaints.
It also said it had increased its review of audits in regards to complaint responses to ensure that staff are addressing all points and that responses are clear. Some of the steps taken by the landlord align with the requirements of this Service’s complaint handling code (The Code). However there were severe delays in responding to the complaint at both stages. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the £200 offered to the resident does not reflect the extent of distress, time and trouble to the resident and the inconvenience experienced. Overall, there is evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s report about damage caused to the property and her possessions are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that she was not informed about a pest infestation in the property during the mutual exchange process.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerability.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord followed its policy when it agreed the mutual exchange application. It inspected the property and noted that there were outstanding issues to be resolved. The evidence shows it did not receive any reports about pests in the property prior to the time the resident moved in. It also advised the resident to visit the property and ensure she was happy with its condition before completing the mutual exchange with the previous tenant.
The landlord did not adhere to its pest and wildlife policy in dealing with the resident’s reports about mice. It delayed treatment in the property for approximately 8 months which caused the resident distress and frustration.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities but failed to fully acknowledge them in the context of the issues she was experiencing and failed to vary its services accordingly. It also failed to record the vulnerability on the resident’s records in adherence with its policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses to the resident’s complaint were delayed. It apologised for the error, acknowledged the misleading information in the stage 1 response and assured her that it would increase its audits of responses in the future. However, the compensation offered did not take full consideration of the delays experienced by the resident.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total sum of £1150 broken down as:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident for the delay in carrying out the pest control treatment in the property.
  2. £500 for the distress, frustration and inconvenience to the resident for the failures identified in the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerability.
  3. £100 for time and trouble to the resident for the delay in responding to the complaints.
  4. £450 previously offered to the resident if it has not yet been paid to her.
  5. Ensure that the compensation awarded by this Service is paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any arrears.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Contact the resident to follow up on any further concerns about mice in the property. It should agree an action plan with the resident to resolve any outstanding issues identified and provide a copy to this Service.
2. Carry out further investigations to determine if there are other properties within the block infested with mice. It should, in accordance with its policy, seek to eradicate them in the identified properties.
3. Contact the resident and explore her options of rehousing with her if she still wishes to move from the property.
The Ombudsman has recently ordered this landlord to share learning with staff, from our previous investigation, regarding complaint handling and in adhering to its vulnerable residents policy. It has informed this Service that it has completed training on positive complaint handling with its staff.
The landlord advised that its staff have completed reasonable adjustment and vulnerability training. It has also informed this Service that it will be reverting its complaint handling policy in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code on 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall handling of similar cases in the future.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.