Your Housing Limited (202300653)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300653

Your Housing Limited

30 July 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 the landlord’s handling of a rat infestation in the resident’s home and her subsequent request for compensation.

Background

The resident had an assured tenancy of the property, where she lived with her young child. The resident has a medical condition that affects her immune system.
After returning from holiday on 28 August 2022, the resident found that her property was infested with rats. She reported the infestation to her landlord. As it was a bank holiday, the landlord’s attempts to contact its pest control supplier were unsuccessful. It provided an emergency decant (temporary move) to the resident for 9 days.
On 1 September 2022, the resident’s representative made a complaint on her behalf, saying:
1. The resident had an auto-immune condition and anxiety.
2. The resident had made numerous improvements to her home since she had moved in. Due to cosmetic improvements made to the kitchen, the landlord had recently refused to upgrade it. The rats were entering the property from behind the kitchen units. If the landlord had replaced the units, the infestation could have been avoided.
3. The resident had made numerous complaints to the landlord about antisocial behaviour, the condition of the communal area outside the block, including exposed drains.
4. When she identified rats in her home, the resident made numerous calls to the landlord but it did not answer.
5. Although the resident had been decanted as an emergency to a hotel, she had been told the hotel was full that weekend. She did not know where she would be staying.
6. When the resident went to the property to collect belongings, she found there was poison throughout the property. The landlord did not tell her about this.
The landlord’s pest control contractor inspected the property on 31 August 2022. It found evidence of rats entering the property under the kitchen units, and a hole in the kitchen wall. It identified fly-tipping and several uncovered drains in the surrounding area and recorded that these needed to be resolved. On 5 September 2022, the landlord’s pest control contractor carried out a follow up rat treatment to the resident’s home and several other properties in the building. The landlord repaired the open drains near the property on 10 September 2022.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 20 September 2022. It said:
1. The resident’s property met its lettable standards when it was let.
2. Its records showed that she had made 1 report of anti-social behaviour from a neighbouring property in 2020. Her concerns were passed to the police, which investigated them as the lead agency.
3. It had identified an alternative property for the resident to move to permanently. She had accepted the landlord’s offer of rehousing and would move on 29 September 2022.
The resident moved to her new property on or around 29 September 2022.
On 28 October 2022, the landlord paid her £270 in compensation.
The resident contacted her local councillor on 2 November 2022 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. In addition to the information in the initial complaint, she said:
1. The landlord had not adequately maintained her former property. There were open drains and large holes in internal and external walls. She acknowledged that the landlord had quickly repaired these when she complained. However, she said it had not repaired a large hole in one of her cupboards.
2. After the rat treatment was done, the landlord told the resident the rats had been eradicated. As a result, she left her belongings in the property for an additional week. When she went to the property, she found it was still infested.
3. The landlord had refused to compensate her for her damaged belongings. These included a sofa, bedding, food, small appliances, and clothes.
4. The landlord had placed her in a hotel but had only provided meal vouchers for the first 3 nights. As she had no cooking facilities, this had increased her meal costs.
5. The landlord asked her to stay with a friend for 1 week as there was no alternative accommodation available. She was still charged rent for this week.
The resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The landlord responded to the resident’s councillor on 3 November 2022, saying that the rat infestation was caused by criminal damage and fly tipping, which it had resolved. It said it had paid the resident £270 in compensation and would not increase its compensation offer. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 March 2023 saying:
1. She was not aware of any criminal damage and had not caused any. She had reported fly–tipping from a neighbour’s property.
2. The landlord had not told her it would pay her £270 in compensation. As a result, she had asked her bank if the payment was a mistake.
As the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with its complaint response, the landlord escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. It wrote to the resident on 14 September 2023. It said it acted in line with its service standards. It said:
1. It had offered the resident temporary accommodation and then rehoused her permanently. It also paid her £270 for the period she was living with family and friends. It felt this was appropriate.
2. The resident had confirmed by email that the landlord had repaired the uncovered drain and holes between the cement pathway the day after she reported them.
3. After rat baiting was carried out, it received confirmation that no further baits were touched by rats.
4. The local authority was responsible for pest control treatment, but it accepted as a landlord it was responsible for reasonable pest proofing works. It paid for pest control treatment, which it felt was reasonable.
5. The resident had confirmed she did not have contents insurance. The landlord was not responsible for the resident’s personal belongings.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She told the Ombudsman that:
1. She still believed the landlord’s poor property maintenance caused the infestation.
2. The landlord did not thoroughly inspect the kitchen before it refused to upgrade it.
3. She disputes that the £270 compensation was awarded for the time she was living with friends. She said the landlord had told her it awarded her the £270 to cover the cost of meals when she was temporarily decanted to a hotel.
4. Her new property did not have floor covering so she had to buy it, as well as replacing damaged possessions. This had caused her financial stress.
5. The infestation, and her landlord’s handling of it, had a significant emotional impact on her and her child, and has continued to affect them in their new home.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, available on our website, says that landlord’s records should tell the full story of what happened, when and why. They should include all relevant information, and clearly state any decision made including the landlord’s reasoning. The records the landlord provided to this investigation did not always meet these standards. For example:
1. The landlord told us it could not provide some of the records around its decision to permanently rehouse the resident, as the person responsible for the decision had left the organisation.
2. Correspondence from both the resident and the landlord refer to conversations that are not reflected in the landlord’s records.
3. In addition, the landlord referred to correspondence from the resident that it did not provide copies of to the Ombudsman. For example, the list of items she had requested compensation for and their overall estimated costs.
4. There is information missing from the landlord’s records, for example the reason it asked the resident to stay with friends, and how long she needed to stay with them.
These were record keeping failures. The landlord should have kept accurate records of each interaction it had with the resident, and its decision making, in a central location where relevant staff could access them. Where landlords fail to keep accurate records, it impacts on their ability to fully address complaints.
To ensure its record keeping practices are robust, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord self-assesses against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report of knowledge and information management, unless it has already done so.

The landlord’s handling of the rat infestation

The resident’s occupancy agreement says that the landlord is not responsible for resolving property infestations unless they are due to its failure to meet its repair obligations. At the time of the resident’s report of a rat infestation, the landlord did not have a pest control policy. It is good practice for landlords to have a pest control policy, which should set out the steps the landlord will take to establish if an infestation is its responsibility to resolve. If it has not already done so, the landlord should consider implementing a pest control policy. This will help it to deliver a consistent service to residents with pest infestations.
The landlord received reports of a fly-tip outside the building on 22 August 2022. The resident reported further fly-tipping on 5 September 2022. On this date, the landlord recorded that the job should be prioritised due to the rat infestation. It removed the fly-tip on 6 September 2022, 12 working days after it was reported. While it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have prioritised the fly-tip when it first became aware of the rat infestation, overall, the fly-tip was removed within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s records indicate that it was not aware of an infestation in the resident’s building until she reported it. When the resident reported the rat infestation the landlord acted quickly to contact its pest control contractor and carry out proofing works in the resident’s home. This was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord took the report seriously. The landlord also identified other properties in the building that were infested and carried out treatment. This was appropriate, as pests can quickly spread from property to property. Treating them effectively requires a co-ordinated approach.
While the landlord’s records did not show that it was aware of the open drain outside the building previously, the resident made it aware of this on 1 September 2022. It took the landlord 4 days to log a repair to replace the cover. It replaced the missing drain cover 9 days after the resident reported it. While the landlord should have logged the issue as soon as it became aware of it, overall, the short delay in logging the issue was not excessive, and the landlord responded in a reasonable timescale.
After a follow-up visit to the resident’s home by its pest control contractor, the landlord told the resident that it had resolved the infestation. This reflected the information it received from its pest control contractor. The resident said that when she went to the property, the landlord had not fully resolved the infestation as there were fresh droppings in the property. She said there was a large hole that had either been made after the pest control proofing was done or the landlord did not repair the hole during the proofing works. She provided pictures of the hole she said the landlord had not repaired. The pest control contractor’s report shows that when it left the property on 5 September 2022, there were still holes that needed to be filled in a further follow-up visit. No evidence has been provided to show that a further visit was done, or if the hole was repaired. The landlord should investigated this when the resident raised her concern during the complaints process, but there is no evidence it did this. This may have led to the resident feeling her feeling her concerns were ignored.
The pest control report the landlord’s contractor did note the location of poison in the resident’s home. However, the resident said that the landlord failed to tell her that there was rat poison throughout the property, although it was aware she would take her young child to the property with her to pack her belongings. As the landlord did not dispute this, the Ombudsman accepts the resident’s account. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have told the resident that poison was left in the property, as ingesting rat poison can have a serious impact on human health. Its failure to do so will have caused the resident significant worry about her child’s welfare.
The resident felt that the landlord failed to maintain the property and surrounding area, and its negligence in this respect caused the rat infestation. To investigate this, the landlord:
1. Checked its estate inspection records for any mention of previous issues with fly-tipping. It found 1 report of a fly-tip in the preceding months, which it had removed within its service standard timescale. It had not identified any other communal issues as part of its estate inspections.
2. It also checked its records to confirm the condition of the property when it was let to the resident, to ensure it met the landlord’s lettable standard. The landlord’s records indicate that the property met its lettable standard, and the landlord explained this to the resident.
These were reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. It is unclear whether the gap around the water pipe and the holes in the kitchen wall noted by the landlord’s pest control contractor occurred before or after the property was let to the resident. As the landlord’s lettable standard focusses on the functionality and specification of the kitchen, for example whether doors and doors open smoothly, it is not clear that the landlord’s void (empty property) inspection would have identified these defects. The landlord could consider incorporating checks for visible gaps and holes behind kitchen units in future voids inspections to take a preventative approach to pest control issues.
The landlord should have gone further to investigate the resident’s concerns. For example, the resident said that the landlord had recently come to her property to consider a kitchen upgrade. She did not feel the landlord’s inspection of her kitchen was thorough. The landlord did not respond to this concern in its complaints responses, and there is no evidence it investigated the report internally. This was not appropriate. Landlords should respond to all concerns raised by residents during the complaints process. The landlord’s failure to do so in this instance will have damaged the landlord-tenant relationship.
In an email to the resident’s local councillor, the landlord said that the infestation was caused by criminal damage and fly-tipping. The resident asked the landlord to explain what it meant by this, but there is no evidence it did so. It is not clear from its records why the landlord concluded that criminal damage was a cause of the infestation. The landlord should have been clearer about the nature of, and who it held to be responsible for, both the fly-tipping and the criminal damage. Its ambiguous wording led the resident to worry that it held her responsible and this caused her embarrassment.
The landlord’s decant policy says that it will provide residents with an emergency decant when it considers their house to be temporarily uninhabitable. In this case, the landlord offered the resident an emergency decant when she reported rats in her home. This was a reasonable decision as rats are known to carry disease, and the resident had an auto-immune condition and a young child living in the property, putting her at greater risk from the infestation.
The resident reported the rat infestation in her home on 28 August 2022. She said that she had nowhere to stay. The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord did not respond to her report until the following day. This is supported by the landlord’s records. This was not appropriate. The landlord’s failure to respond on the day the resident reported the infestation caused her to stay in an uninhabitable home for 1 night. This will have caused her inconvenience and worry.
The landlord paid the resident £270 in compensation, but it did not explain this in its stage 1 complaint response. This was a complaint handling failure. The landlord should have clearly explained that it was awarding her compensation, and what this was for. Its failure to do this caused the resident confusion, time, and trouble when the money appeared in her bank account. It also appears to have caused confusion amongst the landlord’s staff. The landlord told the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that it had paid her £270 in compensation for the time she stayed with friends. However, the landlord’s records indicate it was awarded to cover the cost of food when the resident was decanted to a hotel. In future the landlord should ensure that it explains any compensation offers as part of the complaints process. If it decides to offer a resident compensation or reimbursement outside of the complaints process it should ensure that this is discussed with the resident and recorded clearly.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord arranged for the resident and her daughter to be provided 2 meals a day while she stayed at the hotel. The resident did not receive this service. We have not seen any evidence that this was due to the actions of the landlord. It is unclear why the hotel did not provide the resident with the meals the landlord arranged. However, the landlord accepted that the resident had not been provided with food during her stay and paid her £270 in compensation to cover her additional food costs. This was appropriate, as it was in line with its decant policy, which says that where residents are decanted without cooking facilities, the landlord will pay a maximum subsistence payment of £15 per person, per day.
On 29 August 2022, the landlord arranged for the resident to stay in a hotel for 9 days. After this, the landlord accepts that she stayed with friends before it rehoused her. There is no evidence that the landlord told the resident her property was habitable following pest control visits, so it would not have been reasonable to expect her to return to the property. From the landlord’s records it is unclear how long the resident stayed with friends. The resident told the landlord she stayed with friends for 1 week. The landlord did not dispute this, so the Ombudsman accepts that the resident’s timescale was correct.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that, if a resident’s whole home is uninhabitable and it is unable to provide temporary accommodation, it will refund the resident’s rent for each day they were unable to live in their home. The landlord failed to consider this when it assessed the resident’s complaint, which was inappropriate. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £112.42 in compensation. This equates to 8 days’ rent, of which 7 days has been awarded for the week the resident had to stay with friends, and 1 day has been awarded because the landlord did not provide the resident with suitable accommodation on the day she reported the infestation in her home.
The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord had agreed verbally to reimburse her for items that had been damaged in her home but retracted its offer once it had offered her permanent rehousing. While the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of an offer by the landlord to replace any of the resident’s belongings, we have seen evidence that it agreed to pay the cost of laundering the resident’s clothes. However, there is no evidence it did so. The landlord’s failure to do as it had agreed will have damaged the resident’s trust in it. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 in compensation for the cost of laundering her clothes.
The resident requested compensation from the landlord for items that she said she had to dispose of as rats had damaged them. The resident told the Ombudsman that she threw away many items, some sentimental, and this caused her significant financial stress after she had moved. In internal correspondence, the landlord discussed telling the resident she could contact its liability insurer if she wanted to make a claim against its liability insurance. This would have been appropriate as landlords are entitled to use their liability insurance to determine claims for damages made by residents. However, the landlord failed to give the resident its liability insurer’s details. This was not appropriate. As a result, the resident has been denied the opportunity to make a claim on the landlord’s liability insurance. Due to the time that has passed since the damage to the resident’s possessions, it is unlikely that she will be able to make a claim on the landlord’s liability insurance now. This is because the insurer would have difficulty gathering evidence to assess the claim.
It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims and therefore we could not comment on the actions of the landlord’s liability insurer if a claim were made to it. No order has been made to compensate the resident for her damaged possessions. It has not been conclusively proven that the damage to the resident’s items was solely and directly due to negligence by the landlord. However, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the avoidable inconvenience and distress caused by failure to refer a claim to its liability insurer as it said it would.
The landlord used its management discretion to offer the resident permanent rehousing. This was a positive action taken by the landlord, which demonstrated that it appreciated the impact of the infestation on the family. However, the resident told us that the landlord told her that she needed to move within around 3 days, or she would incur a rent charge on both properties the following week. As a result, she said she did not have time to make considered choices, either about accepting the offer of accommodation, which has higher rent charges than her previous home, or about whether some of her possessions could be salvaged or should be thrown away. Although we accept that it is not standard practice, in the circumstances of the case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to waive the rent charge on the former property for 1 week to allow the resident to move her belongings from the property. This has been taken into account as part of the overall award of compensation for distress and inconvenience.
In addition, the resident said that her new home did not have floor coverings and purchasing these had caused her financial hardship. She feels that as she would not have incurred this cost if she did not need to move, the landlord should cover the cost of the floor covering. It is unclear from the records seen as part of this investigation if the resident raised this with the landlord during the complaints process. While landlords are not required to provide floor coverings like carpeting or laminate flooring when they let properties, the landlord should write to the resident to tell her whether it will consider meeting the cost of flooring in her new home, considering the circumstances of the case. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to this, she can raise a new complaint to the landlord about the floor coverings.
Overall, the failures discussed in this report amount to maladministration by the landlord. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures discussed in the report, considering its communication and record keeping failures. The landlord should explain to the resident any learning it has taken from her complaint to improve its services going forward.
2. In addition to the orders for compensation already mentioned in this report, the landlord must pay the resident £350 directly for avoidable time, trouble, and inconvenience its handling of the case caused her. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our webpage, which says that awards in this range are appropriate where there have been failures by the landlord which have adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a rat infestation, and her subsequent request for compensation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report. The landlord should consider its communication and record keeping failures and explain to the resident any learning it has taken from her complaint to improve its services going forward.
Directly pay the resident a total of £612.42 in compensation, made up of:
1. £112.42 in compensation based on rent for the 8 days when the landlord did not provide the resident with temporary accommodation, although it accepted her home was uninhabitable.
2. £350 for the avoidable time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her reports of a rat infestation, and her subsequent request for compensation.
3. £100 for the avoidable distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to give the resident the details of its liability insurance.
4. £50 for the cost of laundering the resident’s clothes.
5. This compensation is awarded in addition to the £270 the landlord paid the resident during its complaints process.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the orders made within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider implementing a pest control policy unless it has already done so.
To ensure its record keeping practices are robust, the landlord should consider self-assessing against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, unless it has already done so.
The landlord should tell the resident in writing whether it will consider covering the cost of her buying floor coverings for her new home and explain the reasons for its decision.