Hyde Housing Association Limited (202335922)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335922

Hyde Housing Association Limited

20 June 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of mice in the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat which she occupies with her 2 young children. The resident has mental health conditions which the landlord is aware of.
4. On 10 October 2022 the resident informed the landlord’s pest contractor that there were mice in her kitchen daily. The contractor identified mice droppings under the kitchen units as well as a large ingress point by the pipework. In response, they placed bait under the kitchen unit and informed the landlord that the access point needed to be proofed. On 1 November 2022 the pest contractor carried out a follow-up visit and removed the bait. The resident informed them that she had not seen any mice activity since their last visit. The contractor subsequently informed the landlord that full proofing works could not take place as electrical cables linked to the kitchen unit needed to be removed.
5. On 22 November 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint. She said that the property was infested with mice and although the pest contractor had put in temporary measures, they were unable to proof the access point. She added that she suffered from mental health problems and the living conditions affected the household’s health. On 5 December 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint. It said it had arranged a joint appointment with its pest contractor for 22 December 2022 to try and resolve the issue and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
6. On 20 December 2022 the resident informed the landlord that the appointment for proofing the access point in the kitchen had been cancelled. She added that she was ‘at stage 1 with nothing solved’. On 8 March 2023 the landlord’s pest contractor inspected the property and found no evidence of mice activity. On 23 May 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said that in January 2023 a hole was covered in an attempt the stop the mice from getting in, but they had since come back. She added that she had phoned the landlord a couple of weeks ago to report this but had not heard anything back. She reiterated that the situation was affecting the wellbeing of her household.
7. On 9 June 2023 the pest contractor visited the property and found no evidence of droppings and minimal bait take. They noted that the landlord had carried out concrete proofing work and subsequently placed a mouse box under the kitchen unit. On 15 June 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It partially upheld the complaint. In summary, it said:
   1. It had not fallen outside of its expected response time to complete the works.
   2. It acknowledged that the resident’s escalation request had prompted it into doing the work and apologised for this.
   3. The access point was covered up to stop the mice from entering the home.
   4. It attended on 9 June 2023 where it checked under the kickboards and found no droppings and noted that the proofing works had been carried out.
   5. It had booked a follow-up appointment for 19 June 2023 to investigate further and see if it needed to carry out any extra proofing works.
   6. It would offer £200 compensation. Comprising of £50 for complaint handling failures, £50 for customer effort, £50 for delays and £50 for distress and inconvenience caused.
8. In the resident’s referral to this Service, she said that the mice issue was still ongoing. She felt the landlord did not understand the gravity of the situation and said that the infestation was compromising the quality of life of her household. She added that the situation was affecting her mental health. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to eradicate the mice infestation or move her to a more suitable property.

Assessment and findings

9. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
   1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
   2. Put things right.
   3. Learn from outcomes. 
10. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
11. The landlord’s pest control procedure states that when a report is received it will either raise a request with its specialist contractor or refer the matter to its property services team. It states that it will give further instructions for any pest control works such as treatment and/or proofing and explains that possible access points which pests have used to get into the property must be blocked to prevent further entry.
12. While it is unclear what prompted the pest control visit to the property on 10 October 2022, the landlord acted in line with its policy by requesting its contractor to attend the property to assess the issue. The contractor’s report identified mice droppings under the kitchen sink. In response, they put down 2 large trays of bait. In addition, they found a large ingress point under the kitchen unit where the mice were gaining access. The report recommended that the landlord instruct its contractors to proof the access point.
13. On 1 November 2022 the landlord’s pest contractor carried out a follow-up visit to the property. The report stated that no bait was taken from their previous visit. Further, it indicated that the landlord had carried out ‘temporary’ proofing works. However, it is unclear when this work took place or what it consisted of. This likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping. In any case, the report suggested that the landlord would need to instruct an electrician to disconnect wiring to the kitchen unit to carry out ‘full’ proofing works.
14. Subsequently, the landlord raised an appointment for 22 December 2022 to complete the works, yet this work did not appear to go ahead. The landlord’s records showed the resident emailed it on 20 December 2022 informing it that the appointment had been cancelled and that no new appointment had been provided. Yet there is no evidence that the landlord responded to her. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that the landlord was not addressing her concerns.
15. Indeed, on 16 January 2023, the landlord’s internal records stated that it had not completed the ‘follow on works’ and this was holding things up. In addition, it noted that the resident had children in the property and that the matter needed to be looked into urgently. While it is unclear when exactly the ‘full’ proofing work took place, a follow-up visit to the property by the landlord’s pest contractor on 8 March 2023 indicated that it had attended to check the property for mice following the completion of the proofing work. In addition, the resident’s escalation request in May 2023 stated that the ‘hole was covered’ in January 2023. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that proofing works likely took place around January 2023. While this was not a considerable delay the evidence showed that the resident had to prompt the landlord to act. This demonstrated a reactive rather than proactive approach to the issue. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt the onus was on her to progress the matter.
16. Nonetheless, this Service notes that the contractor’s 8 March 2023 report said that the resident had informed them that she had not experienced any mice activity since their last visit in November 2022. Moreover, they did not find evidence of mice activity during this visit. While not diminishing the impact the matter had on the resident, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the adverse effect caused by the delay in completing the proofing works was minimal based on this evidence.
17. Furthermore, when the resident informed the landlord in May 2023 that the mice had come back the landlord acted promptly and in line with its policy by instructing its pest contractor to re-attend the property. At this visit, the contractor found no droppings and ‘minimal’ bait take following its previous March 2023 visit and placed a mouse box under the kitchen units. The landlord’s final response stated that its contractor would carry out a follow-up visit in June 2023. They attended on 30 June 2023 and again found no further mice activity and no bait take.
18. Overall, the landlord acted fairly by instructing its pest contractor to assess and reassess the issue during the period of the complaint. In addition, it acted in line with its policy by blocking the access points and carrying out proofing work to address the potential route cause. Furthermore, the landlord was entitled to rely on the findings and recommendations of its specialist pest contractor. This Service considers that the £150 compensation offered in the landlord’s final response was satisfactory in putting things right for the resident for the failures identified in this report. This is in line with this service’s guidance which states that compensation of over £100 should be considered where there have been failures that have adversely affected the resident.
19. The Ombudsman notes in the resident’s referral to this Service she stated that the mice infestation was ongoing and is affecting the wellbeing of the household. She added that following the landlord’s final response she reported the issue again in October 2023 and that the landlord had not adequately addressed the matter. While this investigation is focused on the landlord’s actions up to its final response in June 2023, this Service acknowledges the ongoing distress this situation has caused to the resident, therefore a recommendation is made below for the landlord to resolve these concerns.

Complaint handling

20. The landlord’s complaints policy states that its formal response will include its review of what has happened and details of next steps. It adds that it will escalate the complaint where it fails to deliver against commitments made in its response. It states that stage 2 responses will be provided within 20 working days of escalation. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling Code ‘The Code’ states that stage 1 responses must include details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2.
21. Although the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 within its proposed timescales it failed to include a review of what had happened, and the response was lacking in detail. This was a failure on the part of the landlord who demonstrated a hurried approach. Furthermore, it failed to include any details on how the resident could escalate her complaint if she was unhappy. This was contrary to ‘The Code’ and would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely been unclear on how she could progress this matter further.
22. On 20 December 2022 the resident informed the landlord that the appointment arranged for 22 December 2022 had been cancelled and she added that she was a ‘stage 1 with nothing solved’. This should have prompted the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. Moreover, given that the landlord had committed to this appointment in its stage 1 response it should have escalated the complaint, in line with its policy, yet it failed to do so. The landlord eventually escalated the complaint in May 2023. This was a failure on the part of the landlord that delayed getting matters resolved for the resident.
23. While the landlord offered £50 compensation for its complaint handling failures in its final response, it failed to explain what these were, nor did it apologise or provide any learning from them. Furthermore, had the landlord escalated the complaint in December 2022 it is likely the landlord’s stage 2 response would have been issued much sooner. Overall, the landlord failed to respond at stage 2 stage within its policy timescales. In addition, its stage 1 response failed to include a review of what had happened, nor did it provide details on how to escalate the complaint. This amounts to service failure and a further award of compensation is made below for remedy in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of reports of mice in the property.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

26. The landlord must, within the next four weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £150 comprised of:
       1. £50 offered in its final response for the complaint handling failures, if it has not already done so.
       2. A further £100 or the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
27. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with this order within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

28. The landlord should pay £150 compensation as offered in its final response for its handling of reports of mice in the property if it has not done so already. This Service has made a finding of reasonable redress based on the landlord paying this compensation amount to the resident.
29. The landlord should liaise with the resident about her ongoing concerns about a mice infestation and take appropriate action in line with its procedures. In doing so the landlord should consider the vulnerabilities of the resident and her household.