Clarion Housing Association Limited (202219576)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219576

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. A pest infestation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. He occupies a one-bed first floor flat.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for preventing and eradicating any pests such as mice and rats within his own home and garden, including keeping a good level of cleanliness and hygiene.
The landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It is also required to keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of gas and electricity, water and sanitation, space heating and heating water.
The landlord has a pest control policy which confirms that it will identify and block any potential access points for pests in the structure of its properties. It says that responsibility for preventing, reducing, and eradicating pests is shared between the landlord, the resident, and the local authority. Residents are responsible for taking all reasonable action to prevent or reduce pests and infestations, including reporting nests, holes, potential access points or infestations promptly to the landlord. The landlord can then assess the cause and try to prevent access to properties and treat any problems in communal areas. It will also eradicate any infestations and pests in communal areas, or those caused by the landlord’s own actions or lack of action, such as disrepair.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs as ‘emergency’ or ‘non-emergency’. An emergency repair is classified as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property or would jeopardise the health, safety, or security of the resident. Any emergency repair should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at this visit. Further repairs may then subsequently be required. Non-emergency repairs are appointed by the contact centre at the initial point of contact. These appointments are termed as ‘at resident’s convenience’ offering the next available appointment that suits the resident and will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that:
1. Where ASB is the result of criminal activity the landlord expects residents to report criminal behaviour to the police and it will expect the police and other statutory agencies to act where they have sufficient evidence to do so.
2. The police will usually lead on resolving such incidents, but in some serious cases, if it is appropriate to do so, the landlord will explore options for taking its own legal action such as an ex–parte injunction.
3. Where criminal behaviour has been reported, the landlord will contact the resident within 24 hours, and they will be asked to call back with a crime reference number. The case will then be transferred to the appropriate team who will interview the resident and complete an action plan.
The landlord’s ASB procedure details the steps staff will need to take when dealing with complaints of antisocial behaviour and crime. It includes guidance on thresholds for taking action. It also sets out the investigation procedure. This involves liaising with other agencies, interviewing the resident, and gathering evidence. The procedure states that “the source and nature of evidence may vary but may consist of statements or reports from witnesses, oral evidence from witnesses, sound recordings or hearsay.”
The landlord currently has an interim complaints policy, which was introduced in June 2022 following its cyber security incident. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. A complaint should be acknowledged within 10 working days of receipt, and a response should be provided within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. If a resident is dissatisfied with the outcome, they can request a ‘peer review’. Requests should be acknowledged within 10 working days, and a peer review should be responded to within 40 working days.
Its compensation policy states that discretionary compensation can be awarded where there has been a service failure that has had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord can award monetary amounts of between £50 to over £700 depending on the level of service failure and the impact it has had on the resident.

Scope of the investigation

The landlord and resident have provided information about issues raised in this complaint dating back to between 2018 and 2022. Details of earlier reports have been helpful in providing a clear picture of the history of this complaint to date and the landlord’s interventions. For the purpose of this investigation, however, these previous reports and the landlord’s responses are referenced for contextual purposes only. This is because the Ombudsman is limited to investigating only those issues that have progressed through a landlord’s complaints procedure and then brought to the attention of the Ombudsman within a reasonable timescale. Therefore, this investigation will focus on events from November 2022 onwards.

It is also noted that there has been a very significant amount of correspondence between the resident and the landlord. Whilst the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is noted, the report will not be addressing each specific issue or incident referred to. Rather, the Ombudsman has carefully considered all the available evidence and this report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matter.

Summary of events

The council’s environmental health team contacted the resident on 18 November 2022 in response to his report of rats in and around his property. They advised that they had contacted the landlord, and they were waiting for a response. They said that they would revisit his report during the following week as it may be necessary to visit adjoining properties.
The resident contacted the landlord and environmental health on 18 and 21 November 2022 to complain that rats had entered his property and that he believed that they were coming from a neighbouring property. He said he wanted the landlord to resolve the problem without delay.
The resident made a formal complaint on 24 November 2022 in which he:
1. Claimed that a neighbour was dealing drugs and wanted the landlord to disclose what arrangements were being made to transfer the tenant of the property to alternative housing.
2. Informed the landlord that the source of the rat infestation was a neighbouring property, and that the landlord must investigate this promptly and offer compensation to the resident for its service failure.
The landlord sent an acknowledgement email to the resident on 24 November 2022 and informed him that he should receive a response within 10 working days.
On 27 November 2022, the resident contacted the council’s environmental health section by email as he had been disturbed at night by the sounds of rodents in his property. He asked for an update regarding any proposed action.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 November 2022 to inform him that due to a cyber-attack in June 2022, its systems had yet to be fully restored and this could mean that its complaint response may be delayed.
A surveyor attended the property on 1 December 2022. Details of this inspection have not been provided to this Service.
On 5 and 6 December 2022, works were raised for units and fittings to be moved to allow pest control to lay poison bait in access points.
On 13 December 2022 a repair was raised for works to be completed in the resident’s bathroom to repair damage caused by rodents. This job was marked as completed on 18 January 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 December 2022 as he had been informed that the neighbour had not allowed the landlord access to their property to investigate the rodent problem. He expressed that, while pest control was to attend his property the following day, any actions taken to bait and proof the property would be ineffective unless his neighbour’s property was also treated.
On 21 December 2022 the resident sent another email to the landlord and environmental health to report that the pest control appointment had been rescheduled for the 9 January 2023 as the operative had cancelled due to illness. He asked that his complaint about drug dealing from the neighbour’s property be addressed.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 30 December 2022 to request that pest control put poison bait under his bath and in the loft when they attended on 9 January 2023.
On 9 January 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to report that pest control had baited the property and that works had been raised to replace the bath panel, seal the hole under the bath, and to board the small insulation pipe in the bathroom.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 11 January 2023 reporting that he had heard noise, that he believed to be rodents, in his bathroom the previous evening and therefore the pest treatment had been ineffective. He asked that an urgent repair be raised for proofing works in the bathroom to prevent rodents entering.
On 11 January 2023, the landlord’s internal correspondence records that there was no open ASB case relating to the resident’s reports of drug dealing. It requested that the resident be directed to its ASB team to report the incident. The last reported incident of ASB the resident had made was in September 2022, however this was regarding a separate issue and had been closed.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 11 January 2023. It stated that:
1. The resident had not reported the ASB incidents to the landlord and he was advised to do so through its contact centre.
2. It could not provide information about a neighbour due to data protection restrictions. It had followed the correct process in relation to its response to the resident’s pest control complaints.
3. It acknowledged that its complaint response was issued outside of its target timescales and offered the resident £50 in compensation for this service failure.
On 19 January 2023 the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. Further information in support of this request was provided as follows:
1. On 18 January the landlord had arranged for two holes to be sealed in his property where rodents were entering. A third hole, under the bath, had not been sealed.
2. He was told that he would receive an email on 19 January 2023 letting him know when works to replace the bath panel and to seal the hole under the bath would be scheduled. He had not been contacted about this appointment.
3. He asked what the landlord was doing to investigate the pest problem in the adjoining property.
The landlord acknowledged his correspondence the same day but said that it could not disclose any action it had taken in relation to a neighbouring property.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request on 23 January 2023 and advised that he should receive a response within 20 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 27 January 2023 to request that it provide him with the surveyor’s report from the inspection dated 1 December 2022. He also asked that works be raised urgently to replace his bath panel and fill the hole under his bath.
In correspondence with the landlord about a separate issue on 9 February 2023, the resident said that pest control was due to attend on 15 February 2023, and asked that the hole be sealed in advance or on the same day.
On 10 February the landlord wrote to the resident to inform him that he should receive a response to his stage 2 complaint request by 10 March 2023.
On 15 February 2023 the landlord attended the property to inspect the property for pest entry points. The landlord identified that a new hole had appeared underneath the bath. Some of the other holes had been filled with expanding foam but it was recommended that other sealants be used to prevent further reinfestation. A new pest control appointment was arranged for 1 March 2023.
On 16 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to inform him that a job had been raised to repair the two holes under the bath and that he would be contacted with an appointment in due course.
On 16 February 2023 the resident reported drug dealing by his neighbour to the police. A police reference number was provided. On 1 March 2023 the resident submitted further information in support of his complaint regarding ASB from his neighbour.
On 24 February 2023 works to fill the holes in the resident’s property with wire mesh and cement were completed.
On 8 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It stated that:
1. Following the landlord’s stage one response, an active ASB case had been raised and was being investigated in conjunction with the police.
2. Further ASB reports should be directed to the ASB team and not the complaints team, who cannot investigate ASB incidents.
3. The pest control issue was being managed appropriately by the housing team in accordance with its policies and procedures. An order had been raised for a survey of the drains to investigate whether any drain repairs were required and a start date for this was being organised.
4. A job was raised on 16 February 2023 to install wire mesh and cement filling the holes under the bath and this had been completed.
5. The landlord’s stage two response had been delayed and therefore a further £50 had been offered in compensation, in addition to the £50 offered at stage 1.
On 8 March 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that the reboarding of the bath panel and full boarding of insulated pipes besides the toilet and sink were yet to be completed. He asked that he be contacted with an appointment date for the works.
On 9 March 2023 a job was raised to reboard the bath panel and insulated pipes. An appointment was made for 20 March 2023.
On 20 March 2023 a repair was raised to box in behind the toilet and the sink and to instal skirting on the bath panel. This was marked as completed on 3 April 2023.
On 3 April 2023 the landlord replaced and sealed the boxing around the toilet and sink. Following an inspection, a further job was raised to repair the toilet handle and to apply sealant in additional areas that had been missed. An appointment was made for 4 May 2023.
On 6 July 2023 the resident completed diary sheets detailing alleged incidents of drug dealing. The landlord reviewed the information provided and noted that the police reference related to a report from February 2023 and did not relate to recent incidents. A letter was sent to the resident on 7 July 2023 advising of this and that his case would be closed.
The resident subsequently asked this Service to investigate his complaint as he was dissatisfied with the outcome, particularly in relation to the ASB.

Assessment and findings

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

The landlord’s records show that reports of a rodent infestation were first made on 18 November 2022 although it is noted that the resident had reported the same issue in May of the same year. The landlord followed its policy by arranging for holes to be filled where it suspected that rodents were entering the property. It also correctly identified that it should make arrangements for pest control to attend to treat the property, in accordance with its policy, given the circumstances.
While the landlord’s actions post-date the resident’s complaint, the resident raised a complaint only shortly after he had made the service request. While there were delays to pest control attending, these delays were due to a cancellation by the contractor and the need for units to be removed in advance of the appointment. Overall, the works were carried out in a timely manner.
There were follow up appointments to undertake proofing works and for pest control to attend a second time on 15 February 2023, following further reports by the resident on 11 January 2023. This response was within the landlord’s target timescales for non-emergency repairs.
The resident was clearly frustrated at what he perceived to be the landlord’s inaction in response to his reports that the vermin problem had originated in the neighbouring property. However, the landlord was not able to disclose information to the resident about its contact with the occupiers of the neighbouring property due to data protection restrictions. If there were issues with access to a neighbouring property, the landlord would not have been able to enter without the permission of the occupier, unless it obtained an access injunction from the court.
Overall, the landlord responded to the residents reports of a pest infestation in line with its policy. It took appropriate action to treat and pest proof the resident’s home. Return visits were arranged when the resident made further reports of pest issues. When the problem persisted, the landlord arranged for an investigation of the drains. It also liaised with the council’s environmental health team to address the wider problem. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is to consider not whether the ASB occurred, but whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about ASB reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
The resident first reported the ASB to the landlord in his complaint of 27 November 2022. He raised this issue again with the landlord in correspondence dated 21 December 2022. The landlord noted in January 2023 that the resident did not have an open ASB case at that time. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have directed the resident as to how to make ASB report or to have asked the ASB team to contact the resident. No evidence has been provided that this action had been taken.
As part of the landlord’s complaint response, it directed the resident as to how he should raise a report of ASB, and this was done on 11 January 2023. From the evidence provided, the landlord did open an ASB case after the resident provided a police reference number on 16 February 2023. This was confirmed in the landlord’s stage 2 response letter to the resident. However, no documents have been provided to this Service showing that the resident’s complaint was opened and subsequently closed and the reasons for this. From the evidence provided by the resident, the case was closed as the police had taken no further action. It is unclear whether correspondence from the landlord had not been provided to this Service, or whether this information had not been provided in writing to the resident. In either case, this was a service failure.
The resident’s frustration about the landlord opening and later closing an investigation following each report of ASB is understandable. It is apparent that he felt that his reports were not taken seriously, that the landlord has taken too long to progress the case or that it had closed the case prematurely. It is important to highlight that a landlord can only investigate issues as they arise and must do so in a fair and proportionate way. Its role is to ensure that it responds to any reports it receives in accordance with its policies and legal obligations. This will involve following its ASB procedure, gathering, and reviewing evidence and then taking actions proportionate to its understanding of such evidence. Further, landlords must protect their residents personal data, therefore the landlord is limited as to how much information it can disclose to other residents about its interventions.
Where criminal behaviour is alleged, the police will be the lead agency as they have greater powers to take legal action. In instances where the police do not take action, the powers of the landlord are limited. They can apply for a civil injunction, or they can apply for a possession order to end a tenancy. The landlord signposted the resident to the police, in its complaint response, as his reports related to criminal activity. It also reminded the resident to provide it with police references for each report made, so that this could be followed up. This approach was standard and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. It was reasonable for the landlord’s actions to be informed by information it sought and received from the police. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the actions of the police; however, this was outside of the landlord’s control. This Service notes that the resident had pursued a separate complaint against the police.
If the tenant of the neighbouring property was in the process of being rehoused, it may not be proportionate for the landlord to commence legal action against them for ASB when arrangements were being made for them to move to alternative accommodation. With regards to an unauthorised occupier remaining in the property after the tenant had been rehoused, this person would not be bound by the terms of the tenancy. The landlord would need to commence legal proceedings to evict them from the property which could take time.
A finding of service failure has been made in relation to this aspect of the complaint. While this Service is satisfied that the landlord’s response was broadly in accordance with its ASB policy, in terms of procedure and response times, its communication with the resident and record keeping was lacking. It is noted that the landlord had restricted the resident’s contact with it to once a week due to the large volume of correspondence it received from him. While this Service acknowledges that unreasonable levels of contact from a resident can have a detrimental impact on service delivery, it would have been appropriate for the resident to have been signposted in a timely manner to the correct team for reporting ASB. It would also have been in line with the landlord’s policy for confirmation to be sent to the resident when a case was opened and closed, and an action plan provided. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation for this service failure.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged delays in responding to the resident’s complaint at both stage one and stage two of its complaints procedure and offered the resident compensation of £100. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where a service failure has had a minimal impact on the resident. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the landlord has made an offer of redress that was reasonable in the circumstances, and which satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

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 infestation.
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 ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in relation to its complaints handling, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s view, resolves the matter satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord acted in accordance with its policy in its response to the resident’s reports of vermin in his property. It was unable to share with the resident any steps it had taken to raise this issue with his neighbour due to data protection restrictions. It undertook appropriate baiting and proofing works and took steps to investigate the drains when the resident had reported that the problem persisted.
The landlord was restricted in what it could do to address the resident’s reports that a neighbour had been dealing drugs from his property as the police had not proceeded with an investigation. There was also an issue that the alleged perpetrator was not the tenant in the property and was an unauthorised occupant. Its actions were therefore proportionate in the circumstances. However, it failed to provide this Service with evidence of correspondence with the resident confirming an action plan and subsequently that the case had been closed, which was a failing.
The landlord had delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint, however it had acknowledged this in its complaint response and offered compensation, which the Ombudsman considers was reasonable redress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to pay the resident £100 in compensation to the resident for his distress and inconvenience due to service failures identified by this report in its ASB handling. The landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service once payment has been made.

Recommendations

If the landlord has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £100 it had offered as redress due to its complaint handling service failures.