Red Kite Community Housing Limited (202300173)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300173

Red Kite Community Housing Limited

17 October 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:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.
2. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
4. The resident reported issues with a rat infestation on several occasions in 2021. The landlord determined that the rats were getting into the property through cladding fitted on the property in 2020.
5. On 28 October 2022, the resident informed the landlord of a further rat infestation in the property. The landlord said that it would install aluminium cladding to the resident’s and neighbouring properties to prevent any further infestations. It assured the resident that it would fit the cladding by the end of 2022.
6. The landlord attempted to replace the resident’s cladding in February 2023. However, the resident remained dissatisfied as replacing the cladding would not resolve the existing infestation of rats in the property. Pest control contractors attempted to make an initial appointment for 6 March 2023, but the resident refused access to the property. He requested a face to face meeting with landlord staff to discuss his concerns, particularly around rats potentially chewing through wiring causing his electrics to trip. A meeting between the resident and landlord took place on 14 March 2023.
7. On 28 March 2023, the resident raised a complaint. While the landlord had carried out the electrical work, he was unhappy that specific landlord staff had not contacted him after the meeting to discuss how it intended to address the rat infestation.
8. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 April 2023. It apologised that staff had not contacted the resident since the meeting, and acknowledged the upset and frustration this would have caused. However, it said that another landlord manager had visited the resident on 20 March 2023 and attempted to discuss how it intended to address the issues. The resident had refused to engage and requested a further meeting at the landlord’s office. It also confirmed that it had replaced the necessary electrical wiring.
9. The landlord proposed to meet with the resident and pest contractors at his property to assess the rat infestation and requested that the resident allow contractors to replace the cladding. However, the resident escalated his complaint as he did not feel that the landlord had responded to his concerns adequately.
10. On 28 April 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It assured the resident that it had a robust plan to address the infestation but had been unable to proceed due to his request for a further meeting.
11. Following meetings between the resident, landlord and contractors, pest contractors resolved the infestation. The landlord also fitted aluminium cladding on 28 June 2023.
12. On 8 September 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and advised it had reviewed the case. It apologised for the initial delays in carrying out work to address the infestation and offered the resident £250 compensation as a goodwill gesture.
13. The resident remains dissatisfied due to the length of time it took the landlord to resolve the rat infestation. He is also unhappy with the compensation offer and does not consider that it adequately reflects the delay. The resident said that the long standing issue had a significant detrimental impact on his and his families physical and mental wellbeing.

Assessment and findings

Scope

14. The resident has reported that issues with rats had been longstanding, dating back to 2021. This is not disputed. However, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This means this Service will not normally consider events that have happened more than 6 months prior to them being raised formally with the landlord. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the reported issues from around October 2022, when the resident raised a further issue with rats in the property, and the final complaint response, issued in April 2023.
15. The resident referenced in his communication with the landlord and this Service that the delays in resolving the infestation had affected his and his family’s physical health and mental wellbeing. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these concerns, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s action (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health and wellbeing.
16. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health concern, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or effect on health and wellbeing. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route.
17. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance. This Service will also consider the general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s actions.

Reports of pests

18. The landlord’s website outlines that if rats are present because of a problem with the building, the landlord would be responsible for any pest control treatment and remedial work. In this case, there is no dispute that the rat infestation had been caused by cladding fitted by the landlord in 2020.
19. The landlord’s responsibility concerning the infestation was to;
    1. Treat the infestation in the property.
    2. Respond to the resident’s concerns regarding the impact of the infestation.
    3. Take proportionate action to prevent any future infiltration of rats.
20. The resident reported a rat infestation on 28 October 2022. The landlord does not have a standalone policy or procedure for dealing with infestations. In the absence of a policy or procedure setting out response timescales, we have assessed the landlord’s actions on the basis of reasonableness.
21. The landlord asked pest control contractors to contact the resident on 24 February 2023; 83 workings days after the resident reported an infestation. It is unclear why the job was not raised sooner, and the delay was unreasonable.
22. This Service does not dispute that the resident initially refused access to the pest contractors, which caused avoidable delays outside of the landlord’s control. However, this does not detract from the significant delay already experienced by the resident and his frustration was understandable.
23. There is no evidence that the resident raised concerns regarding the rats causing issues with the electrics prior to meeting with the landlord on 14 March 2023. Once it was made aware, the landlord responded to his concerns promptly and within the same month. The specific date the works were completed is unclear. However, it is evident that the landlord completed the required electrical work shortly after the meeting, and prior to the resident raising his complaint. This was appropriate.
24. With regards to the infiltration of rats, the evidence reviewed by this Service indicates that the landlord was aware in 2021 that the cladding was the likely point of entry for rats. It is unclear why the landlord failed to consider replacing the cladding in 2021.
25. Nevertheless, following the resident’s reports in October 2022, the landlord advised that it would replace the cladding by the end of 2022. Given that replacing the cladding to several properties could reasonably be considered as major works, the timeframe provided by the landlord was fair. However, the landlord should reasonably have considered whether any interim measures or repairs could be carried out to reduce the likelihood of further pest infestation. That no action was taking in relation to this was a shortcoming.
26. The landlord was subsequently unable to complete the cladding replacement works in 2022. When repair timeframes are exceeded, the landlord should ensure it keeps the resident appropriately up to date and manages their expectations. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident that the replacement cladding would not be completed in 2022. This was unreasonable.
27. The landlord attempted to replace the cladding on 23 February 2023. As above, this Service is aware that the resident initially refused the work as he wished to meet with the landlord to discuss follow on works. While the reasons for the resident’s request are acknowledged, it did ultimately cause avoidable delays in preventing any further infiltration of rats into the property.
28. Positively, the landlord facilitated meetings and after it issued its stage 2 response, pest control treatment started promptly, and it replaced the cladding. However, the landlord failed to appropriately acknowledge the delays experienced by the resident that were in the landlord’s control via its complaint responses.
29. The landlord offered £250 compensation approximately 5 months after the stage 2 response. The financial remedy provides, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, an appropriate level of redress in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance. However, the length of time taken to address the failings and offer appropriate compensation was unreasonable and was not in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles. This is addressed further below when assessing the landlord’s complaint handling.
30. Given that the landlord failed to acknowledge and address the initial delays in dealing with the infestation when responding to the resident’s complaint we have concluded that there was service failure in respect of this complaint.

Complaint handling

31. 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 resident’s and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
32. The Code aims to support the earliest resolution of complaints while the matters are still within the landlord’s own procedure, without the need for intervention and investigation by the Ombudsman.
33. The landlord conducted a review of the complaint on 8 September 2023. After doing so, it apologised to the resident, acknowledged the delays in resolving the infestation and offered compensation.
34. While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and offer of compensation, it is not clear why the landlord did not offer this amount when considering the complaint within its own complaint procedure. The landlord’s reconsideration appears to have been prompted by the complaint being referred to the Ombudsman. This was a missed opportunity to potentially resolve the complaint at an earlier point, and it is of concern that the landlord did not use its complaints procedure to address these matters.
35. As above, the landlord offered compensation approximately 5 months after the stage 2 response. This leads this Service to conclude that, had the complaint not been referred to this Service, the offer of compensation may not have been awarded.
36. Further, the landlord has not explained how it would avoid its complaints process repeating these failings in the future. For these reasons, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s;
    1. Handling of the residents reports of pests in the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

38. Within the next 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £250 compensation that it has already offered, if it has not done so.
    2. Pay an additional £100 compensation for the identified complaint handling failures.
    3. Provide the resident with a written apology regarding its failure to fully acknowledge its failings via the internal complaints process, and for the delay in compensating the resident.
    4. The landlord should remind complaints handling staff of the guidance set out in the Code and that where failings have been identified, steps should be taken to try to put things right (in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles).
39. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

40. The landlord may wish to implement a specific pests policy and/or procedure. This Service has provided guidance for landlord’s regarding pests, which may assist the landlord in implementing such a policy. Our guidance can be found on our website.