Citizen Housing (202227616)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202227616
Citizen Housing
6 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
- This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cockroaches.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant. He lives in the property with his young children. He has vulnerabilities relating to his mental health. The property is a flat in a low-rise block. The landlord is a housing association which owns the block. It rents 1 flat in the block to the local authority. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the local authority used the rented flat to provide temporary accommodation for homeless people. The landlord was responsible for providing services to the flat.
- The resident’s complaint relates to a cockroach infestation. The parties agree the infestation was linked to an individual that was living in the rented flat. The resident says the landlord handled the situation badly and it should have done more to manage the condition of the rented flat. The landlord says it had difficulty accessing the rented flat to address the root cause of the problem. It also says it was unable to treat the resident’s home on several occasions because he declined to facilitate access.
- There is a disagreement about when the landlord was alerted to the infestation. The evidence shows it received a report of cockroaches from the local authority in October 2022. The report said there were cockroaches in a number of locations around the block. The evidence shows the landlord completed some pest control works several days later. In January 2023 the resident told the landlord he would withhold his rent until the infestation was resolved. Soon afterwards, he highlighted a number of welfare concerns and raised a formal complaint.
- On 8 February 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said it needed an opportunity to address the cockroaches in the property and the resident had previously declined treatment works. It did not uphold his complaint. The resident escalated his complaint around 9 days later. He said the infestation was getting worse and the situation was impacting his mental health. He wanted the landlord to rehouse his family or refund some of his rent. In a stage 2 response the following month, the landlord largely reiterated its previous rationale. It did not agree to any of the resident’s preferred solutions.
- The resident raised another complaint in October 2023. It largely related to personal items that were lost/damaged during the infestation. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it could not have predicted the infestation and its complaints policy did not allow it to pay compensation for damaged items. The resident escalated his complaint soon afterwards. Subsequently, the landlord awarded him £250 in compensation to acknowledge the impact of the infestation. It said it was not responsible for the resident’s damaged items.
- The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call in December 2024. He said the infestation had been resolved around November 2023 but he still saw cockroaches on occasions. He also said he had taken time off work to facilitate treatments but the landlord had blamed him for access issues. He recalled the landlord had treated the property 3 or 4 times. He also said he had lost clothes, beds and sofas due to the infestation and this caused him to sleep on the floor. He told us he had been unable to replace some of his belongings to date.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- It is recognised the situation was distressing for the resident and his children. It is also accepted that cockroaches are associated with potential health risks. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts, damage to personal belongings, or loss of earnings. In some circumstances, we can consider whether a landlord’s actions or inaction was a contributory factor.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cockroaches
- The resident told us he first reported cockroaches to the landlord during a phone call in August 2022. The landlord has provided a full contact history for his tenancy. It details the parties’ interactions from 2015 until June 2024. We checked every entry between March 2022 and January 2023. There is no evidence of a corresponding report from the resident around the time in question. From the information both parties provided, there is no documentary evidence to show that the landlord was responsible for any failures at this point.
- In September 2022 the landlord was monitoring the condition of the rented flat. Records show the local authority was also involved in this monitoring. There is no evidence that either of these parties was aware of a cockroach infestation at this time. Since the flat was being used to house a potentially vulnerable person, it was reasonable for the landlord to monitor it in cooperation with the local authority. Subsequent events suggest the cockroaches were discovered during the course of this monitoring.
- On 20 October 2022 the local authority reported cockroaches to the landlord. It said they were affecting a communal landing along with a number of other flats in the block. Since the report said there were cockroaches in several areas, it suggests the infestation may have been ongoing for some time beforehand. Given the extent of the problem that the local authority had reported, it is reasonable to conclude that swift and effective action was needed to manage the situation and to prevent the cockroaches from spreading any further. The block’s repair history shows the landlord raised a corresponding repair order on the same day. This was swift and appropriate action by the landlord.
- The landlord has provided a number of its pest control records. They detail some of its pest control visits to the block. The records show it completed treatment works to another flat on 26 October 2022. This was 4 working days after the local authority’s report. The landlord supplied its relevant estate management policy. The policy did not include any information about the landlord’s approach to pests. In the absence of a stated response timescale, the Ombudsman considered what was reasonable in the circumstances. It is noted the cockroaches were impacting several areas of the block and they are known to be difficult to eradicate. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that a quicker response would have been better.
- The landlord completed follow-up treatments on 28 October and 3 November 2022. Cockroaches are a potential hazard to be avoided or minimised under the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS is a risk-based approach. Inspections are used to monitor and control hazards. Reinspection is recommended to ensure any hazards are avoided or minimised. This means proactive monitoring is consistent with the HHSRS. The landlord’s repeat visits were appropriate and in line with the HHSRS. However, subsequent events suggest it could have done more to control the infestation.
- Treatment records show the landlord completed another 5 visits between 17 November and 7 December 2022. The records referenced individual flats in the block. They suggest the landlord was responding to reports on a solely reactive basis at this point. Other evidence shows the landlord completed pest treatment works inside the resident’s property at some point in December 2022. There are no records to show what works were carried out or what prompted them. This is concerning and it points to problems with the landlord’s record keeping.
- It is possible the landlord offered to treat the property as part of a block-wide response to the infestation. If that was the case, it could represent good practice on the landlord’s part. It would have been reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to take a holistic approach to the cockroaches given its responsibilities to the block’s residents. However, the landlord has been unable to show it adopted a holistic approach at this point. It is also noted that, based on the period between 20 October and 1 December 2022, it took the landlord at least 6 weeks to treat the property after the local authority’s report. This timescale is not consistent with a swift, coordinated and holistic response.
- The resident reported cockroaches to the landlord on 5 January 2023. The landlord’s notes said they were in a corridor outside the property. They also said the landlord had previously treated the property’s interior but the pests had returned. The landlord raised a corresponding repair order on the same day. This was a swift and appropriate response to the resident’s report. However, there is no evidence to show it completed any works at this point. It is noted the corresponding repair order was marked as complete around 10 weeks later. It did not detail the landlord’s findings or the outcome of any visits. The landlord should be able to evidence its actions. Its record keeping was inappropriate.
- Contact records show the resident called the landlord on 18 January 2023. He reported there were cockroaches inside and outside the property, along with a foul smell in the hallway. He was unhappy that the block was being used to house homeless people. He felt they had caused its condition to decline. He said his son had awoken in the night and found a cockroach on his face. He said the situation was unacceptable and he would withhold his rent payments. The landlord contacted him 2 days later. It said withholding his rent could prompt it to take tenancy action. Since the resident is obliged to pay rent under the tenancy agreement, the landlord’s advice was correct and appropriate.
- In response, the resident said his living conditions were unhygienic and the situation was unfair to his children. He also said members of his family were reluctant to visit him. He felt the landlord should move the homeless person/s or rehouse him. Contact records show the landlord offered to arrange another pest control treatment for the property. The resident declined because the works would involve too much upheaval. He wanted the landlord to tackle the problems in the rented flat. The landlord agreed to raise the situation internally. This was a reasonable and proactive approach to his concerns. The evidence shows the landlord raised an internal enquiry. However, there is no indication it followed up with the resident afterwards. This was unfair in the circumstances.
- The resident’s concerns around hygiene were understandable. His expectation that the landlord should adopt a holistic and structured approach to the infestation was also understandable. However, it is reasonable to conclude that treating the property would have helped to mitigate the impact of any infestation inside his home. As a result, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer him further treatment works in the first instance. As mentioned, it should have responded to his request to move (even if this was something it was unable to offer). The evidence shows the resident subsequently complained because the landlord had not contacted him. This shows the landlord’s poor communication contributed to the resident’s dissatisfaction.
- The resident complained to the landlord on 25 January 2023. He said the infestation was ongoing. He was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the situation. He reiterated that it should address any cleanliness issues in the rented flat. He said he had been approached by staff at his child’s school and they contacted him because his child had a cockroach on their face. He told the landlord the situation was impacting his mental health. There is no evidence to show the landlord offered him any additional support at this point. This was concerning in the circumstances. It was also unfair and unreasonable.
- On the following day, the resident supplied further information to the landlord. He said the school had told him it would refer the matter to social services. He also said the situation was causing friction with his ex-wife and she was threatening to stop their child from visiting him. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was distressing for the resident and his children. Again, there is no indication the landlord tried to engage with his welfare concerns at this time. This was unfair and unreasonable given the distressing situation he had reported.
- In internal correspondence on the same day, the landlord said its tenancy team was working with the tenant who lived in the rented flat. It also said there was an upcoming meeting about the rented flat and it was trying to improve its related processes. Aside from further treatment works, the landlord was unsure what else it could offer the resident. The correspondence shows it was taking steps to address the wider situation in the block. This was appropriate in the circumstances. However, the evidence shows the landlord have done more to help the resident with his difficult personal situation.
- The Ombudsman expects landlords to engage with and respond to any welfare concerns. This includes signposting affected residents to relevant internal and external support services. If it was unsure what to do, the landlord could have asked the resident if he needed additional support or assistance. It could have then considered whether any requests were feasible. Ultimately, the landlord missed some key opportunities to provide help and support. It is reasonable to conclude that its failure to respond accordingly stemmed from a training issue.
- Call records show the resident accepted a further pest treatment on 2 February 2023. There is no indication the landlord raised a corresponding repair order at this time. On 7 February 2023 the parties spoke again. In related internal correspondence, the landlord said the resident had declined further treatment works. It also said he wanted to be moved temporarily until the infestation was resolved. Given the above, the evidence shows the landlord was responsible for an unreasonable delay between 2 and 7 February 2023. It also shows the resident changed his mind about treatment works during the interim period.
- On 8 February 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It showed some empathy for the resident’s situation. It also included contact details for a number of third party support agencies. In summary, the landlord said it needed an opportunity to address the situation, it was important to avoid the spread of cockroaches, and the resident had previously declined treatment works. It also said it had discussed his rehousing request with a relevant manager (the response implied the manager declined the request). Ultimately, the landlord asked the resident to facilitate further treatment works to the property. Due to procedural issues with its complaint investigation, it did not identify any failures or attempt to put things right. This is concerning in the circumstances. The landlord’s complaint handling will be considered in the relevant section below.
- The landlord’s tenancy management policy shows it can provide an emergency transfer where there is a threat to the life or safety of a resident. Any transfer must be agreed by the landlord’s local manager. Its relevant decant policy shows the landlord has a similar approach where a move is needed to facilitate repair works. The evidence shows the landlord consulted a local manager about the resident’s rehousing request in line with its process (presumably to consider any risk). However, it also shows the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for around 3 weeks. This is based on the period between 18 January and 8 February 2023. This was an unreasonable timeframe.
- Although its stage 1 response appropriately addressed the resident’s welfare concerns, the landlord did not acknowledge it had taken around 10 working days to provide information about relevant support services. This was an unreasonable delay given the resident’s distress. Its relevant compensation framework shows the landlord can pay a discretionary amount of compensation if it does not provide “a high standard of services”. It will consider various factors including the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience, and the “seriousness of any other unfair impact”. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord should have compensated the resident for the delay in line with its framework.
- Complaint records show the resident escalated his complaint on 17 February 2023. He said that the infestation was affecting the whole block and it was getting worse. In addition, his children were afraid to sleep as they were waking up with cockroaches on them. He also said he was receiving treatment for depression and social services were involved. He wanted the landlord to reinvestigate his complaint and move his family. Internal notes show the landlord asked its local representative to check on his welfare. While this was a reasonable step, there is no evidence to show the landlord acted on the request. This is concerning in the circumstances.
- On 15 March 2023 a senior complaint handler spoke to the resident. Records show the resident felt that treating the property would not resolve the wider infestation. He reiterated the landlord should either move his family or the person who was living in the rented flat. As an alternative solution, he wanted it to refund rent he had paid over the last 7 months (the evidence suggests the person in the rented flat had moved in around this time). The complaint handler’s notes said they had signposted the resident to the local authority’s rehousing service. However, the resident had advised he would not take any action because it was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve the problem. It was reasonable for the landlord to signpost alternative methods of moving.
- The case handler made internal enquiries on the same day. They said the resident was still unwilling to provide access for treatment works. They relayed his concerns around the deteriorating situation and the impact on his children. A manager replied that the resident’s new information was not sufficient to warrant an emergency move. It was appropriate for the landlord to engage with the new information and consider whether it needed to change its approach.
- On 17 March 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It acknowledged the impact that the situation was having on the resident and his family. The landlord reiterated that it wanted to arrange a further treatment for the property. It said a “course of treatment” was often needed to resolve infestation problems. It also said it would inspect the block’s communal areas and complete any required treatment works. Other key points from the response were:
- The landlord would not arrange a management move for the resident. He could register for rehousing with the local authority.
- The landlord would not refund the resident’s rent. Withholding rent could impact his chances of obtaining accommodation in the future.
- The landlord was taking action in relation to the rented flat.
- The landlord did not agree with the resident’s preferred solutions. He had not given it an opportunity to address the infestation.
- As mentioned, the evidence points to delays as well as a lack of communication and timely support. The landlord did not recognise these issues or attempt to put things right. Its handling of the issue at stage 2 was unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances. However, there is no evidence to show it should have moved the resident. For example, there is no information to show an emergency move was recommended by a relevant specialist. In general, there is a high threshold to qualify for an emergency move. From the evidence both parties provided, the Ombudsman is unable to point to any flaws in the landlord’s related decision-making.
- The evidence shows there was limited contact between the parties for several months after the landlord’s stage 2 response. There were some interactions around rent arrears in May 2023. Subsequently, the landlord updated the resident on 1 June 2023. It said the rented flat was currently empty and it would arrange some urgent pest control works to treat it. The evidence indicates it offered to treat the resident’s property as well. This was good practice in the circumstances. It suggests the landlord took a holistic view of the problem and it was seeking to eradicate any cockroaches throughout the block. It is unclear how the resident responded to the landlord’s offer of treatment works.
- The resident made a further report of cockroaches on 9 June 2023. He said he had seen a “swarm of them” on a communal landing that morning. Contact records show the landlord updated him about its ongoing pest control measures and it promised to provide a further update in due course. The records said the resident wanted “a move and compensation immediately”. Repair records show the landlord completed some prearranged treatment works to the communal area several hours later. There is no evidence of any failures by the landlord at this time.
- On 13 June 2023 the landlord called the resident. It offered to complete treatment works to the property on 20 June 2023. It said, during the interim period, it would clear the rented flat and carry out a second pest treatment in there. The resident said he would respond to the landlord’s proposed appointment in due course. The call shows the landlord had updated the resident in line with its promise. It also gave him a reasonable amount of notice in relation to the proposed treatment works. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord’s approach at this time was reasonable in the circumstances.
- The resident reported a failed appointment on 20 June 2023. He said he was expecting treatment works to take place that day. He also said he had called the landlord the previous week to confirm his availability. There is no record of a corresponding call in the landlord’s contact history. The Ombudsman is unable to evidence a related failure by the landlord. However, it would have been better if the landlord had followed up its proposed appointment with the resident before this point. During the call, the resident reiterated his previous request to move. The landlord replied he had exhausted its complaints process but he could contact the Ombudsman. This was a reasonable approach.
- The landlord called the resident 2 days later with an update. It said the rented flat was clear and it had received a final pest treatment. It offered to treat the resident’s home on the following day. It was reasonable for the landlord to try and progress the works swiftly. Records show the resident asked for an appointment on 30 June 2023. Separate repair records show he called the landlord on this date to cancel the appointment. The notes said he had to go to work. There is no evidence of any failures by the landlord at this time.
- On 10 July 2023 the landlord called the resident to discuss his approach to the treatment works. This was a reasonable and proactive measure. Records show the resident said he had nowhere to wait while the works were carried out. Separate records show the landlord contacted him again on 18 July 2023. After a discussion, it arranged an appointment on 21 July 2023. On this date, the resident called the landlord around 20 minutes before the treatment was due to take place. He said he was no longer available to facilitate the works. Again, there is no evidence of any failures by the landlord at this time.
- The landlord made further calls to the resident on 24 and 25 July 2023. At this point, the parties agreed to carry out a treatment on 26 July 2023. The landlord told the resident that the works would take around 4 hours. Subsequent records confirm the works were completed as planned on this date. Around the same time, the resident told the landlord he had disposed of his mattresses due to the infestation. It is unclear how the landlord responded to his comments. This was concerning and inappropriate. It should have engaged with his report of lost/damaged items. It should also have records to evidence its actions.
- On 28 July 2023 there were multiple calls between the parties. The resident reported there were cockroaches in the block’s communal area. He later reported there were cockroaches in the property. He repeated his previous requests for compensation and an urgent move. He said the infestation was a safety risk for his children. The landlord said it would take 10 days for the treatment to be “fully effective” in the property. It also said it would seek advice from its pest control team and update the resident afterwards. This was a positive approach from the landlord in a distressing situation for the resident.
- There was a similar pattern of calls on 31 July 2023. The resident said the situation had been ongoing for a year. He also said the treatments were not working and the landlord should do more to eradicate the cockroaches. The landlord relayed some advice from its pest control team. It said he needed to allow sufficient time for the treatment to work. The resident felt some flats in the block had not received any treatments and it would remain infested until they were addressed. The Ombudsman was unable to either confirm or disprove his assertion using the landlord’s records. This points to further issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
- In early August 2023, the resident made multiple reports of cockroaches over consecutive days. They were raised within the landlord’s 10–day timescale (which expired on 5 August 2023). On 4 August 2023 the landlord offered to complete a further treatment to the property. Records show the resident declined the works on the basis they were not convenient “at any time”. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident a further treatment at this point. Soon afterwards, he told the landlord he had arranged for the local authority to treat the property.
- There is no indication that the resident made any further reports of cockroaches after August 2023. The block’s repair history shows the landlord received a final report from another resident on 20 October 2023. Corresponding notes said they were in the reporting resident’s flat and the block’s communal area. From the evidence both parties provided, the infestation lasted for around 13 months between October 2022 and November 2023. Later, during its internal correspondence, the landlord described the infestation as “vast”. Given the above identified delays and the initial lack of a holistic approach, there is evidence that the landlord’s handling contributed to its overall scale and duration. However, other factors outside the landlord’s control also contributed.
- On 9 October 2023 the landlord raised a new complaint about the infestation. It was prompted by a call from the resident. Contact notes said he wanted compensation for furniture that was infested with cockroaches. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 24 October 2023. It addressed events from around June 2023 onwards. It referred to a plan of works that was created around this time. It said the plan was created because the whole block was affected by the infestation. This is further evidence that the landlord eventually adopted a holistic and structured approach to the infestation. It is noted the landlord did not refer to an action plan during the initial phase of the infestation.
- The response also referenced damage to the resident’s furniture and carpets. This suggests he had raised concerns around additional damaged items. The response said the property was the only flat in the block that had not received all of the recommended pest treatment works. It also said it had been difficult to contact the resident and access the property. Other key points were:
- The resident had facilitated treatment works in June 2023 (the evidence shows the works took place the following month) but he subsequently refused them.
- Any cockroach activity in the property must be reported swiftly because the whole block could be reinfected.
- The landlord’s complaints policy did not allow it to award compensation for damaged items.
- The landlord could not have predicted the infestation.
- The resident should refer the damages to his own contents insurer.
- Based on the period between 26 July and 9 October 2023, it took the landlord around 11 weeks to respond to the resident’s report of damaged items. This was an unreasonable timeframe in the circumstances. Its compensation framework, effective March 2022, says the landlord can award discretionary compensation if a resident has suffered a loss due to its negligence. This includes “putting right damage to property or replacing personal belongings damaged as a result of [the landlord’s] actions … or inaction”. Where the value of a claim exceeds the excess on its insurance policy, the landlord should refer the matter to its insurer for an assessment. This approach is in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations.
- It was clear that the resident held the landlord responsible for loss of/damage to personal items. Since the landlord said it was unable to provide compensation for damaged items under its policy, aspects of its response were inaccurate and potentially misleading. The evidence suggests it should have gathered information about the resident’s lost/damaged belongings and referred the matter to its insurer. This is because his claim involved complex liability issues and some potentially high value items. It is noted that insurers specialise in resolving liability matters. Since the landlord had assumed responsibility for assessing its own liability, it should have carefully considered the full infestation timeline. It did not do this and its response was unfair in the circumstances.
- The resident escalated his complaint during a call on 27 October 2023. He said the landlord’s response was incorrect. This was on the basis it had made 2 pest control visits to the property (the call notes did not specify when) and it had delayed treating another home in the block. On 24 November 2023 the landlord issued a final stage 2 response. It addressed events from around January 2023 onwards. It acknowledged the resident was impacted by the infestation. It awarded him £250 in compensation to recognise this impact and the time he had spent pursuing his complaint. Other key points were:
- The landlord was unable to compensate the resident for damaged furniture. This is because it had acted appropriately in response to the infestation.
- The landlord had treated the property in December 2022 and July 2023. It was sorry its stage 1 response had only referred to 1 treatment visit.
- The landlord had received a report which confirmed it was able to access all areas of the block. It was sorry “if the resident had been given incorrect information”.
- The landlord was aware its previous complaint responses had encouraged the resident to provide access for treatment works. It felt this would have reduced the impact on the resident’s household.
- There were delays because the landlord had to create an action plan for the entire block. Access issues prevented it from completing some treatments.
- The landlord referenced incorrect information and delays in its response. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for it to compensate the resident given what went wrong. However, the landlord also said it had responded appropriately to the infestation and it was not liable for any damaged items. This was conflicting and potentially confusing information. Ultimately, the evidence shows the landlord failed to recognise the full extent of its delays and failures or the corresponding impact to the resident. As a result, its response was unfair and it did not award an adequate amount of compensation to put things right.
- In summary, there were issues with the landlord’s initial response to the infestation. Despite the nature and spread of the infestation, the landlord has been unable to show that it adopted a holistic and structured approach to the infestation following the local authority’s initial report. It is reasonable to conclude this may have contributed to the presence of cockroaches inside the property. Due to poor record keeping, the landlord was unable to show what prompted it to treat the resident’s home (an individual report or a block-wide response).
- Subsequently, the landlord was responsible for delays, communication failures and further delays/engagement issues related to the resident’s welfare concerns. There is no indication it has acknowledged these issues or attempted to put things right. This is unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances. In mitigation, the evidence shows the resident declined treatment works on a number of occasions. It is reasonable to conclude these works may have improved his situation. The landlord was entitled to consider the resident’s actions (in declining a number of offers to treat the property).
- Later, the landlord acknowledged that aspects of its second stage 1 response were inaccurate. It said it had taken time to create an action plan (to tackle the infestation) and there were problems implementing it. This suggests the landlord accepted some responsibility for the overall duration of the infestation. In contrast, it also said it had responded to the infestation accordingly and it was not responsible for any damage to the resident’s personal items. This was conflicting information. In relation to any damages, the landlord should have followed the approach that is outlined in its relevant compensation framework.
- In particular, the evidence suggests it should have referred the matter to its insurer for an assessment. The landlord’s approach was unreasonable and amounts to a procedural failure on its part. The evidence shows the resident’s concerns around damages have not been fully addressed to date. Based on the timing of this assessment, this represents an unreasonable delay of around 17 months. The resident has said he lacked key items during this period. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was distressing for him. Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
- Although it attempted to put things right, the landlord’s compensation offer was disproportionate given what went wrong. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident some additional compensation. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation framework and our own guidance on remedies. It also reflects the mitigating circumstances in this case.
The landlord’s complaint handling
- The resident complained on 25 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on the following day. This timeframe shows it logged and progressed his complaint swiftly. The landlord subsequently issued a stage 1 response on 8 February 2023. This was 10 working days later. Its relevant complaints policy shows the landlord should respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. The evidence confirms it responded in line with its policy at this point.
- The landlord showed empathy in the wording and tone of its response. This was good practice and it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s distress. Nevertheless, there were problems with the response. It included a timeline of events which began on 18 January 2023. By starting at this point, the landlord overlooked some relevant events and reports which had occurred beforehand. It is reasonable to conclude its incomplete timeline reduced the accuracy of the landlord’s investigation and made it difficult to identify or measure any delays that may have occurred.
- For example, the landlord’s timeline did not reflect the resident’s report on 5 January 2023. This report referenced previous pest control works inside the property. An accurate timeline should have included the resident’s initial report of cockroaches. The applicable version of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) was published in March 2022. Section 5.4 said “Where the problem is a recurring issue, the landlord should consider any older reports as part of the background”. The evidence indicates the landlord did not do this. Its lack of thoroughness was unfair to the resident and contrary to the Code.
- The response did not include a clear case outcome or a clear rationale. Section 5.8 of the Code said a stage 1 response must include, in plain language, the landlord’s decision on the complaint and the reasons for any decisions made. It is noted this failure was subsequently repeated in the landlord’s first stage 2 response. Ultimately, the landlord’s stage 1 investigation was inadequate, its response was inappropriate, and the resident was impacted by these failures.
- The resident escalated his complaint on 17 February 2023. He wanted the landlord to reinvestigate his complaint. This shows he was unhappy with the quality of its previous investigation. The landlord acknowledged his request on the same day. It subsequently issued a stage 2 response on 17 March 2023. This was 20 working days later. Its complaints policy shows the landlord should respond to complaints within 20 working days at stage 2. The evidence confirms the response was issued in line with the landlord’s relevant timescale. However, it also shows there were similar problems with the contents of the response.
- The response acknowledged that the resident believed the infestation started when the homeless person moved to the rented flat. This shows the landlord engaged with his concerns about the overall duration of the infestation. Since the resident was impacted by an infestation he did not cause, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether it did enough to tackle the problem in the first instance. However, its stage 2 response focused on treating the property and its recent actions around the rented flat (the landlord said it was trying to improve its processes around this time). This was an unreasonably narrow approach to the resident’s complaint.
- The landlord should have tried to establish whether any initial delays or service failures had allowed the infestation to spread. There is no indication it considered this approach. This was unfair in the circumstances. Had it done so, the landlord could have strengthened its response by explaining its investigation and referring to any relevant policies or procedures. The evidence shows its investigations lacked an appropriate degree of thoroughness given what had happened. As a result, the landlord was unable to use its complaints process as an effective tool to resolve the resident’s complaint. It is reasonable to conclude its flawed complaint handling added to his frustration.
- The resident complained again on 9 October 2023. The landlord’s records show it logged and acknowledged his complaint on the same day. This was swift and effective action by the landlord. Contact records show it sent the resident a complaint update 7 days later. Subsequently, the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 25 October 2023. Although this was 15 working days after his complaint, the evidence confirms it kept the resident updated during the interim period. Overall, there is no evidence of any inappropriate delays or complaint handling failures by the landlord at this point.
- There were similar issues with the contents of the landlord’s response. It did not reference the full infestation timeline or its previous responses. It also included a number of inaccuracies for which the landlord later apologised. It did not include a clear complaint outcome (upheld/not upheld), contrary to the Code. Ultimately, the response was further evidence of an inappropriate lack of thoroughness on the landlord’s part. Records show the resident escalated his complaint on the basis the response was incorrect. It is reasonable to conclude the response compounded his frustration and undermined his confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- The resident escalated his complaint on 27 October 2023. The landlord issued its final response on 25 November 2023. This was in line with its relevant response timescale. The response was more comprehensive than the landlord’s previous responses. It identified some failures and made a reasonable attempt to put things right for the resident. It said the landlord would take a more robust approach in similar situations going forwards. This shows the landlord also attempted to learn from the complaint. Given the number of inaccuracies it identified, and the corresponding impact to the resident, the landlord could have reasonably awarded him some compensation for its complaint handling errors. However, again, the response did not include a clear complaint outcome or rationale. This was inappropriate and contrary to the Code.
- In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling was unfair, unreasonable, inappropriate and contrary to the Code at times. The landlord did not recognise the full extent of its failures or do enough to put things right. The evidence shows its complaint handling compounded the resident’s frustration. It is reasonable to conclude it also undermined his confidence in the landlord and this had a resulting impact on the landlord and tenant relationship. Given the circumstances, the Ombudsman has ordered a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
- Response to the resident’s reports of cockroaches.
- Complaint handling.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £800 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
- £600 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to his reports of cockroaches. If it has already paid this amount, the landlord is free to deduct the £250 it awarded the resident in its second stage 2 response.
- £200 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
- The landlord is ordered to contact the resident and gather details of his lost/damaged items. It must then assess them in line with its relevant compensation framework. Since it was responsible for a significant procedural delay, the landlord should avoid imposing onerous evidence requirements on the resident. The landlord should inform the resident and the Ombudsman about its decision. It must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
- The landlord must share a summary of this report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It must share a copy of its relevant internal communication with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks. The communication must refer to the landlord’s infestation and complaint handling, its response to welfare issues, its process for damage claims, and its record keeping. The landlord is free to include other issues.
Recommendations
- It is recommended that the landlord writes to the block’s residents about cockroaches. It should explain that any sightings must be reported swiftly so the landlord can inspect/respond accordingly.