Barnsbury Housing Association (202439886)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202439886

Barnsbury Housing Association

31 January 2025

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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its pest control contractor taking pictures in the property without permission.
2. The landlord’s handling of its contractor reports concerning the cleanliness of the property, and the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a ground floor flat.
The landlord has confirmed an awareness of mental health and physical disabilities within the household.
The landlord had been treating a rodent issue in the property and communal areas of the building for several months prior to the complaint being raised.
The landlord instructed its pest control contractor on 12 February 2024, to remove a bait tray from under the resident’s fridge, at the resident’s request. The landlord’s contractor made arrangements to attend the property on 19 February 2024. The resident told the Ombudsman, that she had been aware of the appointment. But did not expect its contractor to attend at 8am, which gave her no opportunity to put anything away from breakfast.
The landlord’s contractor provided the landlord with a report and photographs later the same day, confirming the action that it had taken, and making several observations and suggestions. It stated that there was no longer any rodent activity in communal area or in the recovered bait tray. It suggested that there was little merit in placing any additional treatment in the property, “until the hygiene conditions are changed”. It said that it had already mentioned the cat food on the floor and the food left in pans on the cooker, to the resident.
The landlord’s housing manager wrote to the resident on 23 February 2024, to update her on the findings of its pest control contractor. It attached some photographs taken by its contractor of the kitchen, from which it concluded, “it is evident that poor housekeeping could relate to the previous issues with pests within the property”. It noted that its contractor had given her advice about leaving cat food on floor, or other food on work surfaces and the cooker, which could attract pests. It encouraged her to follow its advice. It reminded the resident of her obligation to keep the property clean and tidy, in accordance with her conditions of tenancy.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 28 February 2024. The resident was troubled by landlord’s letter dated 23 February 2024 and asked for an apology. The resident:
1. Said she had not given permission for its pest control contractor to take pictures inside the property. She said the landlord ought to have notified her in writing if it wanted to inspect the property and should have been clear if it intended to take photographs.
2. Said the landlord was blaming her for contributing to the issue with rodents, by not keeping the kitchen clean. She said she was committed to keeping the property clean and tidy and had a regular cleaner. But pointed out, the kitchen was in need of refurbishment and there was nowhere to store anything. She added that its contractor had arrived at 8am, just after making a cup of tea so there were a few cups visible. She said the landlord’s letter about “poor housekeeping” was insulting. She felt that its housing manager had a problem with her and victimised her whenever possible.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 4 March 2023 and the final stage 2 response on 28 March 2024. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint at either stage. In summary, the landlord:
1. Said its contractor had confirmed telling the resident that it would be taking pictures. It said its contractor had also clarified that it had only taken photographs of areas where the rodents had been seen and where bait traps had been laid. It noted that its contractor had expressed a view, that any food debris left out could contribute to the presence of rodents, and ought to be addressed. The landlord said that it had not received any new reports about rodents in the communal area for some time and was keen that the problem did not spread.
2. Said it was sorry if the resident felt victimised by its comments about housekeeping, which was not its intention. It reassured the resident that its housing manager had been working in line with its policies and procedures and was not blaming her or her cat for the issue with rodents. But said it was encouraging her to exercise good housekeeping practices, to deter rodents from entering the building. The landlord clarified its policy on responding to pests.
3. Commented, that while a separate issue to the substantive complaints raised, it had been a difficult 2 years for all parties involved in the dispute with her neighbour. But said it was able to conclude from previous complaint reviews and independent reviews carried out by the local authority, that its housing manager had acted professionally, fairly, and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 7 January 2024, that the accusation made about her housekeeping was “ridiculous” and the landlord ought to have inspected the property itself before writing to her. The resident said the letter from its housing manager was unnecessary and was the “final straw, after experiencing years of harassment”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the complaint

This investigation will consider the substantive issues raised by the resident and that were addressed by the landlord during its internal complaint process. The Ombudsman’s assessment will focus on the landlord’s response to events that happened between 12 February 2024 and 4 March 2024. This being the date the landlord instructed its pest control contractor to attend the property, through to when the landlord issued the stage 2 response.

Obligations, policies, and procedures

The tenancy agreement sets out the contractual obligations of the resident and the landlord. The resident is obliged to provide access to the landlord’s staff, its agents, or its contractors, to inspect the property and carry out repairs. The landlord will normally give the resident at least 24 hours’ notice of its intention to access the property. The tenancy agreement does not set out the method by which such notice will be given. The resident is responsible for keeping the property clean and tidy.
According to the landlord’s repairs booklet, the landlord will treat any pest infestation that may have spread across 2 or more of its properties. Residents are responsible for treating one off pest infestations within the property. The booklet states that residents are responsible for keeping the property clean and hygienic, so pests are unlikely to come indoors looking for food, shelter, or somewhere to nest and / or breed.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its pest control contractor taking pictures in the property without permission

In its complaint response, the landlord said that its contractors were allowed to take pictures of the property for maintenance and tenancy purposes. It said that its contractors and / or the landlord, would always advise residents when taking pictures in a property. It reassured the resident that any pictures taken would not include any images of the resident or any personal items that could identify her.
The resident accepted that it was common practice for the landlord’s contractors to take pictures of work carried out. But maintained that its contactor should have asked permission before taking pictures of the wider property.
The landlord investigated the circumstances under which photographs had been taken, with its contractor. This was encouraging.
Given the role of the landlord’s pest control contractor was to help eliminate pests, it was reasonable for it to bring its observations about the condition of the property to the landlord’s attention. But it should have been evident to the resident that photographs of the wider property were being taken and would be sent to the landlord.
The landlord told the resident that its contractor had confirmed telling her it would be taking pictures on the day. It said its contractor had also clarified that it had only taken photographs of areas where mice had been seen and where bait traps had been laid. The landlord recognised that “it could not confirm this directly, as it was not present”. But said that it accepted its contractor’s account because it had “worked with the contractor previously and believed it to be professional and trustworthy”.
The landlord relied on its contractor’s account given its previous experience of the contractor and based on the photos it was provided with. However, the landlord’s response lacked objectivity, since it was not present at the time of the inspection. This was likely to have resulted in disappointment for the resident. The landlord should reflect on the adequacy of any existing processes in place, for notifying residents of the circumstances under which photographs may be taken. It should also reflect on how it evidences that it has provided this information to a resident. The landlord should act accordingly, depending upon its findings.
On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its pest control contractor taking pictures in the property without permission.
The Ombudsman makes an order for compensation which reflects the likely distress caused to the resident, arising from the failing identified by this investigation. This compensation is made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of its contractor reports concerning the cleanliness of the property, and the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

The Ombudsman’s website contains guidance for residents and landlords on dealing with pests. In accordance with this guidance, if a landlord is concerned that a resident’s actions may be contributing to a pest infestation, it should identify the problem and support the resident to resolve it.
The landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its qualified contractor, to prevent repeat episodes of pest infestations within the property and the wider building. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord’s housing manager to draw the resident’s attention to advice from its contractor about hygiene within the property, if it was concerned that the resident’s actions could be contributing to reoccurring issues with pests.
The landlord said it was sorry, at stage 1 of its complaint process, if the resident felt its housing manager was victimising her by sending her a letter about this. But said its housing manager had been working in accordance with the job role, and in line with its policies and procedures. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the landlord’s tenancy management policy or procedure. However, it would be normal for a housing manager to take reasonable and proportionate steps to address such an issue, following a report from a contractor.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the letter sent to the resident by its housing manager on 23 February 2024, could have been addressed more sensitively. It is likely to have been difficult for the resident to read that “it is evident that poor housekeeping could relate to previous issues of pests within your property”, without some prior dialogue. Highlighting the resident’s tenancy obligations in bold, to keep the property clean and tidy, also appeared heavy-handed for a first letter. There was also no mention or offer of support, to resolve the matter. This was troubling given the known vulnerabilities within the household.
This matter is likely to have been better received by the resident, had its housing manager arranged a telephone call with the resident in the first instance. Better still, it could have endeavoured to arrange a face-to-face meeting at the property. This would have enabled it to obtain a more complete understanding of the resident’s circumstances and her living conditions, to discuss its contractor’s observations and recommendations, to identify any mitigation, and to investigate any potential support needs. It could then have agreed an action plan with the resident, as may have been appropriate, dependent on its findings. This is likely to have fostered a more supportive and resolution focused approach. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was a missed opportunity by the landlord to address the matter in a holistic manner.
The landlord addressed the resident’s allegations of past victimisation by its housing manager, in the stage 2 response. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the outcomes of previous internal and external review processes, to conclude that its housing manager had carried out its duties professionally, fairly, and in line with its policies and procedures.
It was evident from the evidence seen, and from speaking with the resident, there was a loss of trust by the resident in the abilities and motivations of the landlord’s housing manager. The resident told the Ombudsman that she now tries to have as little to do with its housing manager as she can. This was troubling. The Ombudsman accepts that this is a small landlord and there may be practical challenges associated with allocating the resident an alternative point of contact. But the landlord should give some consideration to the steps it might take, to help rebuild the tenant landlord relationship and regain the resident’s trust.
On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in landlord’s handling of its contractor reports concerning the cleanliness of the property, and the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
The Ombudsman makes an order for compensation which reflects the likely distress caused to the resident, arising from the failings identified by this investigation. This compensation is made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure:
1. In the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its pest control contractor taking pictures in the property without permission.
2. In the landlord’s handling of its contractor reports concerning the cleanliness of the property, and the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must pay compensation of £150 directly to the resident. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £50 compensation, which reflects the likely distress caused to the resident, by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its pest control contractor taking pictures in the property without permission.
2. £100 compensation, which reflects the likely distress caused to the resident, by the landlord’s handling of its contractor reports concerning the cleanliness of the property, and the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
The landlord must write to the resident, offering a face-to-face meeting, preferably with an appropriate manager. During this meeting, the landlord must:
1. Discuss the resident’s circumstances and her living conditions, discuss its pest control contractor’s observations and recommendations, identify any reasons for mitigation, and explore the resident’s support needs.
2. Commit any actions that may be reasonably agreed by the parties, in a written action plan, which must include timescales.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should reflect on the adequacy of any existing processes in place, for notifying residents of the circumstances under which photographs may be taken. It should also reflect on how it evidences that it has provided this information to a resident. The landlord should act accordingly, depending upon its findings.
The landlord should explore with the resident, any reasonable and practicable steps, that both parties may take, to help rebuild the tenant landlord relationship and restore the resident’s trust.