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

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202223136)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223136

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

15 January 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;
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in her property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a two bedroom flat within a block. On 11 January 2022, the council contacted the landlord and advised that the resident had discovered rats in her property and subsequently spent two nights in a hotel. The council also advised that other residents in the block had heard pests within the walls of the building.
  2. On 13 January 2022, the landlord’s contractors conducted an inspection of the building and various flats. It was recommended that the landlord complete several actions, including a drain survey, providing access under kitchen units to allow contractors to proof any unsealed holes and proofing damaged air bricks. Proofing is the process of sealing entry points that pests could use to enter a building. The landlord sent a letter to all residents within the block on 18 January 2022 and advised that work would be undertaken to eradicate the pests from the building, including individual flats.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 February 2022 and raised her concerns regarding the delay with the issue being resolved, as well as the expenses she had incurred and the lack of updates she had received. There is no evidence of a response from the landlord.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions between 10-19 May 2022 with various reports of seeing live rats in her property, despite her trying to block all holes to prevent pests from entering the property. On 21 May 2022, pest contractors attended the resident’s property and completed the necessary proofing work. 
  5. On 14 September 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She stated that since reporting the infestation in early 2022, the landlord failed to act with any urgency and refused to help her when she reported that live rats were inside her property. She further stated that this meant she had to stay in a hotel, at her expense. The resident also said that due to the presence of rats, she needed to replace her curtains and have her carpets cleaned. The resident wanted to be reimbursed by the landlord for the expenses incurred, as well as an apology from the landlord for the poor customer service she had received.
  6. The landlord issued its stage one response on 30 September 2022 and advised that baiting in the resident’s property started in January 2022, and all works to the building were completed on 1 July 2022. It further advised that the property was deemed to be safe and habitable, due to evidence of low pest activity. The landlord confirmed that it could not reimburse the resident as all expenditure was the resident’s choice. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 12 October 2022.
  7. On 17 November 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response. In its response, the landlord acknowledged that its communication with residents regarding wider pest control works was poor. However, it stated that contractors regularly attended the resident’s property to bait and identify access areas that the pests were entering the property. This was done while pest proofing works continued in and around the building. It also maintained that whilst an awareness of pests in the property was unpleasant for the resident, a decant was not necessary. For its poor communication, the landlord offered the resident £75 compensation.
  8. The resident has informed this Service that she remains dissatisfied as she believes the landlord was dismissive of her when she repeatedly reported issues with pests. The resident does not feel the matter was taken seriously by the landlord and it did not act with any urgency when she reported seeing pests in the property.

Assessment and findings

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

  1. The landlord’s environmental services policy states that the landlord is responsible for dealing with any pest infestations that start in communal areas. It will also undertake pest control works in individual properties where the infestation has started in communal areas. In this instance, the landlord accepted responsibility for the issue and required pest control to eradicate the problem.
  2. The landlord is obligated to ensure that the property is habitable and free from the risk of disease. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System, used by local authorities when assessing hazards and risks in a property, says that landlords should take preventative measures to reduce the means of access by pests to a ‘minimum.’
  3. The landlord first became aware of the property having a pest issue on 6 January 2022. The council later contacted the landlord on 11 January 2022 and advised that pests had been raised as an issue by various residents within the block, and urgent action was required. The landlord’s pest contractor attended on 13 January 2022 and conducted an inspection, which was reasonable and timely.
  4. The contractor provided the landlord with various recommendations, which included the landlord providing access under kitchen cupboards, as well as carrying out a drain survey. The landlord wrote to all residents on 18 January 2022 and advised that treatment and proofing would be carried out in communal areas and individual properties. This was positive and evidenced effective communication on the landlord’s part. It sent a further letter on 3 February 2022 advising of the work carried out to date to eradicate the pests, and further work required. Again, this was positive.
  5. According to the landlord, contractors continued with a baiting programme in the building, as well as drain surveys being undertaken, as per the recommendations made following the inspection by the pest contractors. However, a recommendation was also made for the landlord to provide pest contractors with access under the kitchen units to bait and/or proof any unsealed holes. There is no evidence that the landlord did this until 21 May 2022, nor is this Service aware of why it took a little over 4 months for the landlord to undertake the recommended work in the resident’s property.
  6. On several occasions in May 2022, the resident reported seeing live rats in the property. It was only after the council intervened, warning enforcement action against the landlord, that the landlord took action and arranged for the required proofing to be done. This was unreasonable. While this Service understands that infestations can take time to resolve, the landlord failed to act promptly to try and ensure that the resident’s property was appropriately proofed and the risks of any pests entering were minimised to the best of its ability. The delay to undertake the recommended work was a failure of the landlord and caused the resident significant distress.
  7. As part of her complaint, the resident requested to be reimbursed for expenses incurred as a result of staying in a hotel for 2 nights, due to the presence of pests in the property.
  8. A property would not automatically be considered to be uninhabitable because of a pest infestation. For the property to be considered to be uninhabitable, there would need to be evidence to confirm it was not safe to live in due to the infestation. Before agreeing a temporary move for pest infestations, the landlord would be entitled to assess the property and be assured that the property is uninhabitable as a result of the pests. 
  9. The landlord was not afforded the opportunity to complete an inspection of the property to assess if it was habitable, before the resident spent 2 nights in a hotel. Therefore, the landlord’s refusal to reimburse the resident for the expenses incurred as a result of staying out of the property was reasonable.
  10. Overall, it is evident that the landlord took action to eradicate pests from the building and work was undertaken between January-July 2022. However, there was a notable delay in undertaking the recommended work in the resident’s property, namely proofing behind the kitchen cupboards, which resulted in live rats entering the living space. This caused significant distress to the resident and her family. Had the landlord undertaken the recommended work sooner, the resident may not have experienced such distress and inconvenience.
  11. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  12. Within the stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to effectively communicate with residents after February 2022 about the ongoing pest control works. It apologised for its poor communication and offered the resident £75 compensation, which was reasonable. However, it failed to consider or offer any redress to the resident in view of the impact the situation had on her. There had been delays in its service which caused the resident distress and inconvenience, which the landlord failed to provide any redress for.
  13. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, additional compensation of £50 would provide adequate redress for the failings identified. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range for cases where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact from the failure.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord 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. This is in accordance with the response timescales outlined within this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC). The CHC is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints.
  2. The resident initially complained on 14 September 2022. The landlord issued its response on 30 September 2022; 12 working days after the complaint was raised. While slightly outside the timescales outlined within the landlord’s complaints policy and the CHC, the minor delay did not have a detrimental impact on the resident.
  3. The CHC states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. In her complaint, the resident referred to receiving poor customer service by the landlord, and she felt that the landlord did not care about its resident’s. However, the landlord failed to respond to that element of the complaint in its stage one response.
  4. The lack of acknowledgment could arguably make the resident feel that her negative experience was not important or considered, thus damaging the landlord and resident relationship. While this Service does not deem this aspect to be a service failure, the importance of an apology cannot be diminished, and the landlord should reflect upon to this to ensure that resident’s experiences are not overlooked, and complaints are thoroughly responded to at the earliest opportunity.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 October 2022. The landlord issued its stage two response on 17 November 2022; 27 working days after the escalation. Again, this was not in line with its complaints policy or the CHC whereby stage two responses should be sent within 20 working days. While not significantly outside of the required response timeframe, the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay. An apology would have reasonably remedied this failure, but its lack of acknowledgement for the delay was not appropriate.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s responses were fair and reasonable in tone and content. However, its failure to acknowledge and provide the resident with a remedy for the delay at stage two was unreasonable and amounts to service failure. The landlord will be ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation for the identified failures in its complaint handling. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which outlines that awards of £50 are appropriate when there was a minor failure by the landlord, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £175 compensation within the next four weeks. This is made up of:
    1. £75 previously offered to the resident, if it has not already been paid.
    2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by pest control delays.
    3. £50 for the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.