Settle Group (202218809)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218809

Settle Group

30 May 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:
   1. the resident’s request for repairs;
   2. the resident’s reports of a pest infestation;
   3. the resident’s decant; and
   4. the resident’s request for reimbursement for her costs and damaged belongings.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident held a secure tenancy with the landlord. The Ombudsman understands that the resident has since been relocated to a new property as part of the landlord’s management move process.
4. On 10 January 2022, the resident moved into the property as part of a mutual exchange. On 21 January 2022, she raised a formal complaint to the landlord. In the complaint she raised concerns about the condition of the property. These included outstanding repairs, cleanliness, and a flea infestation. She explained she had been quoted around £300 to resolve the infestation issue herself, but could not afford to do so.
5. On 4 February 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident. It confirmed that following her complaint it had inspected the property on 25 January 2022 and agreed repairs should be undertaken to bring it up to an “acceptable standard.” It also agreed to reimburse the resident £240 for pest control, and apologised for the resident’s stress and inconvenience. It concluded by setting out its schedule of repairs for the resident. This consisted off a mould wash to the kitchen to be completed by 16 February 2022, wiring to the outhouse and hallway light to be completed by 28 January 2022, and carpentry work to be completed by 17 March 2022.
6. On 9 May 2022, the resident attended the landlord’s offices in person to escalate her complaint, and reiterated that outstanding repairs and the pest problem had not been resolved.  On 17 May 2022, the resident’s neighbourhood officer contacted the landlord and told it that the resident would not return to the property until all repairs had been completed and the pest infestation was “in hand.” They also explained that the resident had been staying at her mother’s and in a hotel for a few days, and asked the landlord if it had a property the resident could be decanted to.
7. On 20 May 2022, the landlord issued a second stage 1 response. It confirmed that outstanding repairs would be booked in with the resident, and explained that because the resident had moved in as part of a mutual exchange, it was not responsible for the cleanliness of the property. Between May 2022 and July 2022 the resident was decanted by the landlord while it carried out pest control and repair work.
8. On 17 July 2022, the resident escalated her complaint. She asked for a reimbursement of costs she had incurred as a result of the issues at the property, and a rent and utility bill refund for the length of time she had not been residing at the property.
9. On 18 August 2022, the landlord issued its final response. It confirmed that it had approved a managed move for the resident, and offered her £1,724 in compensation.
10. The resident remains dissatisfied because she feels she has not been fully reimbursed for the money she paid out on pest control treatments, or reimbursed for her damaged belongings. She also states that she was advised not to pay her rent while the issues were ongoing, and so the compensation awarded by the landlord was offset against arrears that she was not aware of.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs

11. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for carrying out the majority of repairs to the structure of the property. It states emergency repairs will be responded to within 24 hours, and appointed or routine repairs will be responded to within an average of 22 days.
12. For mutual exchanges, the landlord’s website states that a ‘technical inspection’ of both properties will be carried out prior to an exchange. These inspections can include gas safety checks, electrical checks, and a general inspection. The website also states that ‘sometimes [it] might need to repair things, or [it] might ask [the resident] to repair things that are [the resident’s] responsibility.
13. The ‘frequently asked questions’ section of the landlord’s website says it does not redecorate properties prior to an exchange, and that residents will move into a property ‘as is.’ It also says that when it has completed its inspection, residents receive a property pack including a letter the landlord which the landlord asks residents to sign and accept the property as it is.
14. The resident first raised concerns about the condition of the property shortly after moving in on 10 January 2022. On 25 January 2022, the landlord inspected the property and agreed that repairs would be carried out to ‘meet acceptable standards.’ It was a reasonable approach for the landlord to arrange an inspection following the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs, given that she had accepted the property “as is” before moving in. The landlord also recognised that the repairs needed should have been picked up during its property inspection.
15. In its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint in February 2022, the landlord set out its schedule of repairs for the resident. This consisted off a mould wash to the kitchen to be completed by 16 February 2022, wiring to the outhouse and hallway light to be completed by 28 January 2022, and carpentry work to be completed by 17 March 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide a schedule of works for the resident, and although the timescales given did not align with the 22 days for routine repairs set out in its repairs policy, it did manage the resident’s expectations accordingly.
16. In its second stage 1 response to the resident on 20 May 2022, the landlord confirmed that the mould wash and kitchen decoration that it had scheduled for February 2022 remained outstanding, and would be booked in once the resident confirmed her availability with its contractor. No explanation has been given by the landlord for the delay in completing this work, and it has provided no repair log information. This was an unreasonable delay, and demonstrated that the landlord failed to follow its own repairs policy as expected. Furthermore, the landlord did not offer an appropriate remedy in recognition of this failure, and the inevitable frustration caused to the resident.
17. In addition, this delay meant that the resident was living with mould in her home for several months. Landlords must ensure that accommodation is free from serious hazards, including damp and mould, and that homes are fit for habitation. Furthermore, the landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks with its rented properties. Damp and mould growth poses a health risk to residents and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a health hazard that require a prompt remedy.
18. Due to a lack of records, it is unclear when the wiring and carpentry work was completed by the landlord, but according to the landlord’s communication with the resident, these do appear to have been completed between February 2022 and May 2022.
19. However overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs and as such, this Service has concluded that there was maladministration by the landlord. Subsequently, the landlord has been ordered below to pay the resident £100 in compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures that have adversely affected a resident and where the landlord has failed to acknowledge these or made an attempt to put them right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation

20. The landlord’s pest control policy states that it will meet costs for pest control when the infestation is in a ‘communal area, primarily in and around [its] flat blocks both internally and externally. The policy also states that infestation of individual properties is a tenant/leaseholder responsibility.
21. When the resident reported outstanding repairs to the landlord in January 2022, she also reported a flea infestation at the property. She told it she paid for her own pest control service to treat the problem. In response, the landlord advised her to provide proof of payment for the pest control service, and confirmed it would reimburse her. This was a reasonable response from the landlord, as according to its own pest control policy, it was only responsible for pest control and associated costs in communal areas.
22. In April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said that despite new carpets being laid, fleas were still present at the property, and she could hear vermin in the walls. The landlord contacted its contractor to request a pest control inspection, and said that the resident had previously had the property treated for pests 3 times.
23. On 3 May 2022, the landlord contacted its contractor to ask for an update on when an inspection would be taking place. The contractor responded recommending that a ‘monitoring treatment’ be put in place to determine what was happening at the property. On 25 May 2022, the landlord’s contractor fumigated the loft space at the property, and sprayed insecticide throughout the house for the treatment of fleas. They advised that the resident should stay out of the property for 4 hours before returning. They also explained that if the property remained empty the fleas would stay dormant and the problem would remain. If she continued to live there, the heat from living there and the sounds of someone being there would draw the fleas out, helping the chemical treatment to work. They explained that the treatment itself was not toxic to humans.
24. The resident refused to return to the property, as she was worried about exposing her family to fleas, which was understandable. However, it was not inappropriate for the landlord to reiterate what its contractor had said, or to rely on their expert advice. In June 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended the property twice to inspect and deal with the vermin problem. It confirmed the problem was resolved on its second visit. Subsequently, the landlord confirmed that the property was habitable for the resident.
25. The Ombudsman appreciates that the eradication of pests is often not a quick fix and can take several courses of treatment. As such, the presence of an issue over several months will not always be considered to be a failing on the landlord’s part. In this instance, it is clear that the landlord made the appropriate arrangements to address the flees and while it was not a quick fix, it managed to resolve this. It was also reasonable that the landlord sought alternative accommodation for the resident when she declined to return to the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant

26. The landlord’s decant policy says that where it has identified the need to carry out essential repairs to a property and are unable to complete them with a resident in occupation, it will temporarily decant them. It says that if the repair works needed are for ‘a few days or a short period’, it would ask residents whether they could stay with family or friends. In some circumstances where a short timeframe is needed, the landlord may make use of a hotel. The decant policy also says that once a decant is agreed, it will visit the resident to discuss the decant, explaining how the process will work, what it is able to offer, and identify any specific needs the resident might have.
27. On 17 May 2022, the resident’s neighbourhood officer contacted the landlord on her behalf, and told it that the resident had stayed in a hotel “for a few days” the previous week, and was also “sleeping on the sofa” at her mother’s because the works required were “no further along”. The neighbourhood officer said the resident would not return to the property until all works had been completed, and asked the landlord if it had a property to decant her to.
28. Subsequently, the landlord booked the resident into hotel accommodation. From the information available, it does not look like the resident made the landlord aware she was not at the property, so arranging a decant when it was made aware of this my her neighbourhood officer was reasonable action to take.
29. The resident was first decanted to a hotel on 18 May 2022 until 20 May 2022. They were then moved into a different hotel on 23 May 2022 until 27 May 2022. In June 2022 the resident and her family stayed with her parents as she did not want to return to the property due to the pest problem. The landlord then decanted her for a third time on 21 June 2022 while it confirmed the problem with vermin was resolved. The resident and her family were then placed into 6 different hotels between June 2022 and July 2022, until the landlord was able to arrange a management move for the resident. Given that the property had been treated for pests and confirmed to be habitable, the landlord was not obliged to decant the resident. The fact that it did so because she did not feel she could return to the property was reasonable.
30. While the Ombudsman appreciates that moving from hotel to hotel would have been inconvenient for the resident and her family, the landlord did not act inappropriately here. The Ombudsman is also aware that in the landlord’s final response, with recognition of the resident’s experience, it awarded the resident £500 for the time and trouble. This was appropriate and in the Ombudsman’s view, was fair in resolving this element of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement for her costs and damaged belongings.

31. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider compensation where it has ‘caused damage to a [residents] home or belongings by [its] direct actions or inaction. The policy also says that the landlord will not consider compensation ‘where damage or loss of [the resident’s] belongings was caused through no fault of [the landlord’s]. [Residents] should ensure that they have home contents insurance to cover damage to their belongings in such circumstances.
32. The resident told the landlord she had been advised it was responsible for vermin problems, and was therefore liable for the cost of replacing any personal items that had been damaged by them. However, as per the landlord’s pest control policy, it is only responsible for pest infestations in communal areas. In its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, the landlord explained that it would not cover the costs for personal items, and that the resident should make a claim through her own contents insurance. This was a reasonable response from the landlord, and one in line with its compensation policy.
33. The landlord’s management move policy states that a management move can be used ‘when someone is at serious risk of harm if they remain in the current property. They can also be used where the landlord wishes to move someone for housing management purposes.’
34. To resolve the resident’s complaint, the landlord arranged a managed move to a new property on 15 July 2022. To support the resident’s move, it arranged a removal service and paid for the costs. It also arranged for installation of white goods, for the new property’s garden to be cleared, and for the new property to be decorated throughout. Additionally, to recognise the issues raised by the resident in her complaints, the landlord offered the resident £1,224 in compensation. This was broken down as £75 for the disconnection and reconnection of her washing machine and dishwasher, £45 for redirection of mail, £130 for telephone disconnection and reconnection,  £600 for carpeting, £175 for curtains, and £199 as reimbursement for her hoover. This was proportionate and reasonable, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for significant failures in service which have had a seriously detrimental impact on a resident.
35. The resident has said that she wants the rent she paid on the property refunded for the time that she was not residing there. However, the landlord placed her in alternative accommodation when it was not obliged to, and covered the cost of this. It was not obliged to cover her rent costs either, as the property was still being rented out in her name and it had confirmed the property to be habitable.
36. The resident has also stated that she was advised not to pay her rent while the issues were ongoing, and so the compensation awarded by the landlord was offset against arrears that she was not aware of. However, no information has been provided to show that she was advised this, and the landlord has confirmed that it paid the compensation of £1,724 to the resident directly, after she provided it with her bank details.
37. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

38. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
39. The landlord’s complaint policy outlines that it operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. These timescales are in accordance with the CHC.
40. The resident raised her complaint on 21 January 2022. In accordance with its policy and the CHC, the landlord needed to have issued a response on 4 February 2022. The CHC states that any delays in providing a complaint response must not exceed an additional ten working days without good reason. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 February 2022, in line with both its own policy and the CHC.
41. According to the landlord’s records, the resident attended its offices on 9 May 2022 to complain about the same issues she had raised in her January 2022 complaint. Following this, the landlord raised a new stage 1 complaint when it would have been more appropriate and in line with both its own policy and the CHC to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. It failed to do this, and instead issued a second stage 1 response on 20 May 2022. This was an unreasonable approach for the landlord to take, and as a consequence the resident was delayed in escalating her complaint further.
42. On 17 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord asking for reimbursement and a refund of her rent and bills. The landlord recorded this as a stage 2 escalation, which was reasonable. In accordance with its policy, the landlord should have issued its stage 2 response on 12 August 2022.
43. A stage 2 response was issued on 18 August 2022, 4 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. However, the landlord had written to the resident on 12 August 2022, explaining that it would need more time to complete its review of her complaint, and would provide her with an answer the following week. This was reasonable, and in line with its complaints policy and the CHC.
44. Overall, while adhering to its own timescales, the landlord did not follow its complaint procedure correctly, which delayed the resident in bringing her complaint to this Service. Furthermore, the landlord did not offer an appropriate remedy to recognise this. As such, this Service has concluded that there was service failure in the handling of the resident’s complaint. It has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident £50 in compensation to recognise this, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failures that it did not acknowledge or fully put right.

Determination

45. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for repairs.
46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest problem.
47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s decant.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement for her costs and damaged belongings.
49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

50. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation within the next 4 weeks for the identified failures in its handling of the requested repairs.
51. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation within the next 4 weeks for the identified failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
52. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.