Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202219536)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219536

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

20 June 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:
1. Reports of recurrent infestations of spider mites.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of a house, owned by the landlord, where she resides with her daughter.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 24 November 2022 about recurrent infestations of spider mites. She said she had reported the issue over a number of years, spent money on sprays, and had to throw away personal belongings. She believed they were entering through vents which were outdated, with no proper seal around them. She also believed a large tree near her home was contributing to the problem. She reported that she and her daughter had health concerns which were exacerbated by the problem.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 20 December 2022, stating that following its inspection of the tree, no work was required, and the leaves had been cleared. It had arranged for its pest control contractor to attend. The resident had advised that she did not require pest control, at that time, as there were no mites present. It assured her that if they returned it would raise a new job. If its investigation advised that the mesh over the air vents was unsuitable, it would evaluate what action could be taken.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 5 January 2023. She said she did not see why she needed to wait for the issue to return, causing more panic and upset to her family before the landlord decided to attend. The pest control contractor had contacted her about rats, which was not what her complaint related to, and she was concerned about how her information was handled. She queried whether there had been a data breach.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 19 May 2023, apologising for its failure to register the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, and offered £50 compensation. It acknowledged that the actions recommended in its stage 1 response had not taken place. It had wrongly thought that she had refused access and apologised for the confusion. It apologised that the contractor had thought it was attending a rat problem and that she felt dismissed by staff on the phone. It was arranging for its tenancy team to visit to discuss her concerns about the property.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She wanted it to put something in place to stop the spiders, or for it to attend when the spiders appeared. She also wanted the vents to be inspected and any issues resolved.
On 5 June 2024, over a year following the landlord’s final response, it wrote to the resident stating that it had undertaken work to the vent covers and awarded £250 for the deterrents she had purchased over the years.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

The role of the Housing Ombudsman is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint through to its final response. This is to ensure that it takes reasonable steps to resolve complaints within its 2-stage process. Therefore, this investigation has focussed on the events leading up to its final response on 19 May 2023. Any events following its stage 2 response, including further offers of compensation, are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.
In the resident’s correspondence she advised that spider mites were causing her daughter distress and impacting her and her daughter’s health. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.
In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint–handling body. Complaints about the way an organisation is handling personal information fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Therefore, we have not considered this aspect of the complaint. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s explanation of any data breach, she should contact the ICO.

Reports of recurrent infestations of spider mites.

The landlord’s repairs policy and the tenancy agreement are silent on pest control. However, at the time of the resident’s complaint its position was that residents were responsible for pest control concerns.
In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it stated that it did not have a pest control policy. This had been recognised and it had started a trial to run from April to September 2023, whereby it would investigate pests including rats, mice, and wasps. Residents would be advised to self-treat spider infestations, unless a false widow spider was confirmed, and it would send a contractor. As red spider mites could bite, customers should send a photo of the mites, which would be considered by its contractor, and if confirmed it would raise a job to attend.
In the resident’s complaint she stated that:
1. She had raised concerns about the infestation of spider mites for a number of years. She first had the issue a few years ago where her daughter woke in the night to dozens of spiders coming down from the ceiling.
2. She had lost 100s of pounds of belongings as they infested curtains and other items, and when killing them they caused stains.
3. The landlord had put mesh in the vents in order to deter them. She had spent a lot of money on sprays but every year “like clockwork” they returned in large numbers. She believed they were coming in via the vent system that was outdated and old with no proper seals around them.
4. After speaking with the council, she believed the large tree at the front of the property was contributing to the problem. She also had fallen leaves in the garden which may be a way of them entering the house.
5. She had contacted the landlord but “was met with no real concern” and advised it was not something it would deal with. She accepted they could not remove the ones she had but that there must be a way of preventing them from entering.
6. She could not afford to keep paying for pest control and was limited how much prevention she could do herself due to restriction with her mobility. Her daughter had complex stomach problems, as well as asthma. Stress was a trigger for her condition, and this had caused her to be worried that the events were repeating themselves.
7. She did not open her windows at all during the year, only slightly in the summer. She had not heated her home at all that autumn/winter and was sitting in the cold.
8. She asked for her concerns to be taken seriously and acknowledged. She would welcome anyone into her home to inspect the problem.
The landlord’s records of November and December 2022 referred to the resident’s concerns. The records stated that:
1. Its customer service team were correct, that pest control in houses was the resident’s responsibility. It would look into the issue in more detail and get some advice.
2. It contacted its pest control service and asked if spider mites was something it could treat. It also enquired as to when the tree was last cut back. It had reviewed the vents previously and was attending in January 2023 but would try and bring the appointment forward.
3. It had asked its pest control contractor whether it was a spider or red mite infestation, who responded that it was unusual for it to be red spider mites at that time of year and asked if the resident had been bitten.
4. On this occasion, it would pay for its contractor’s services to establish the cause of the problem to prevent re-occurrence in the future and treat the issue.
5. There were a number of options it could consider in relation to the resident’s comments about not using the heating. This included fuel payments from its tenancy support fund. It suggested completing a support needs assessment to assist the resident.
6. The pest control contractor had spoken with the resident and asked her to capture some of the spiders/mites to enable it to identify them. Once it knew what they were it could produce a treatment plan.
7. Following a telephone call with the resident the following day, it stated that she had been distressed at being asked to capture live samples and she did not believe she should have to do this herself. It asked if the contractor could arrange to collect the samples instead. Its records also referred to bypassing its policy in order to assist the resident.
8. The resident’s daughter had purchased a product from the internet and used it to treat the spiders. She had stated that she no longer had the problem.
This Service appreciates that the presence of spiders in the resident’s home would have been distressing. However, the evidence demonstrated that, while the landlord had no obligation to undertake works for pest control, it had listened to the resident’s concerns and shown empathy for her situation. It took reasonable action in seeking advice from its contractor, made an exception to its policy, and instructed its contractor to investigate. It also considered the resident’s comments, about not heating her home, and sought advice from its tenancy support team to see if there was any support it could offer the resident.
Further records of 16 December 2022 referred to a telephone conversation with the resident. She advised the landlord that she had received a call from pest control about rats. She had left a message to say she did not have rats. They had called back and agreed it was the wrong address. She explained that her daughter had purchased a product online which had reduced the situation, however, she said they would need to collect samples when the mites came back. She stated that her local councillor had visited and agreed the vents needed sorting to stop any ingress. Mesh was put in the vents, but webs were still inside. It had agreed that the contractor could attend should the mites return. Its records of 20 December 2022 referred to being reluctant to block the vents as this may cause damp in the home.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that it had arranged an inspection of the tree and for the leaves to be cleared. It had also arranged for its pest control contractor to arrange to visit, investigate, and complete any required treatment. Following the inspection of the tree, its contractor had advised that it did not require work as it had been reduced in summer 2021. The leaf clearance took place on 7 December 2022. She had stated that she did not require pest control as there were no mites present in her home at that time. Should the mites return, she could contact its customer service team so that a pest control job could be raised. If the investigation advised that the mesh over the air vents was unsuitable, it would evaluate what action was best. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and assured her that if the issue returned, it would assist the best it could to find a resolution.
The landlord’s response was reasonable, given that pest control was the responsibility of the resident. It had made an exception and offered to support the resident in finding a solution. Given that the resident had advised that her daughter had treated the mites, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to assume that the pest control contractor was no longer required at the time. It had given assurance that it would attend should the mites return. It had also addressed the resident’s concern about the tree in completing an inspection and removing the leaves. It would, however, have been helpful at this point to have included a date for the inspection of the vents in its response.
In the resident’s escalation request she stated as follows:
1. She felt she had communicated what she wanted done. She understood that the spider mites were in retreat and that it could not do anything “right now”, however, she had asked on a number of occasions for someone to attend and have a look at the areas she believed they nested. She did not see why she needed to wait for it to escalate again before it attended.
2. She had 2 separate calls from the pest control contractor. She received a text stating that it would come out to check the rat problem. She had tried to call the contractor to advise this was not the issue she had complained about. The contractor called her back and “went on about rats”, which turned out to be another resident’s address. She asked why her telephone number was attached to the job as, she was concerned about how her information was being handled, and whether there had been a data breach.
3. She had been told during a telephone call with the landlord, that she had refused access to the contractor. It asked what she wanted to happen as there were currently no spiders upstairs and she had explained that she wanted someone to check all the entry points she had previously discussed.
4. She had contacted her MP and was not happy to drop the complaint as, other than gathering the leaves, nothing had happened. She wanted the landlord to get back to her and for better communication.
The landlord’s records of 13 January 2023 referred to a telephone conversation with the resident. It had assured her that her information was secure, and that no data breach had taken place. It had also reiterated that she could contact the member of staff directly if the mites returned to arrange an inspection. She was unhappy that the vents had not been inspected. It would arrange for a repairs manager to inspect the vents, discuss any limitations, and see if there was anything else that could be done. There was no evidence that the resident had been given a date for inspection during the call.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised that her request to escalate her complaint had not been registered. It could not find a record of the email but having reviewed this it had clearly been sent to its customer service inbox. It “upheld” the complaint as it could see that its recommendations in its stage 1 response did not take place. It stated that:
1. It understood that it wrongly thought she had refused access when the contractor had advised that it would not visit unless there was evidence of mites in the property. It apologised and confirmed that its contractor had been asked to attend and inspect the loft for mites or any evidence they had nested there previously. It was also sorry for the confusion around the original appointment, during which the contractor thought they were attending for rats, and that she felt dismissed by staff. It would ensure she had direct contact details.
2. It was arranging for its tenancy team to visit in the coming weeks to discuss the concerns she had about her home.
3. It apologised again for the delay in registering the stage 2 complaint and offered £50 in recognition of the error.
This Service’s dispute resolution principles are, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acknowledged that it had not undertaken the recommendations set out in its stage 1 response, however, it failed to offer any recompense or demonstrate any learning from the complaint. There were also delays in inspecting the vents.
The landlord’s response also did not fully address the resident’s concerns about how her information had been used by the contractor or how her telephone number became attached to a different pest control job. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have explained further how the error occurred in its response.
The landlord’s records of 26 June 2023 referred to visiting the resident and discussing the recurrence of spider mites and cleaning of the vents in the hallway.
On 16 September 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the spider mites had returned. She had taken photographs which she attached to her email. She had also collected some specimens.
The landlord’s records of 20 September 2023 referred to visiting the resident’s home with the pest control contractor. Photographs had been taken of the areas the resident had requested sealing which included around windows and a vent. It had collected the spider samples and confirmed that there were no other specimens in the property and the loft was clear and clean. The samples would be formally identified by an entomologist.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 September 2023, advising that the entomologist had confirmed the samples to be money spiders/spiderlings, and they were not a threat of venomous. There was no specific treatment which could be undertaken other than vacuuming. It hoped the confirmation put her mind at ease. It was inspecting the vents the following day. This suggested that it had still not fully investigated the vents in the resident’s home, some 9 months after the resident’s request, and since the landlord’s stage 1 response where it advised it would investigate.
On 24 June 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident. It had visited her home, removed the vent cover, thoroughly washed and replaced it. It had sealed around the previously fitted vent on the stairs. It assured her that any new instances of spider mites would be thoroughly investigated. It encouraged her to provide photographs to assist it to investigate. As a token of its appreciation for the deterrents she had purchased over the years, it awarded £250. The landlord’s offer of £250 for deterrent sprays was generous given that it had no obligation to reimburse the resident. However, this offer was made more than a year after the complaint had been exhausted, thus has not remedied the prior failings identified in this report.
In summary, while the landlord showed empathy, made an exception to its policy, and took action to support the resident in finding a solution, it raised the resident’s expectations about what it could do to resolve the matter. There were repeated delays in inspecting the vents or carrying out work that it had stated it would undertake. This led to further frustration for the resident. It would have been appropriate to have carried out an inspection at an earlier stage to alleviate the resident’s concerns as it had stated in its stage 1 response. For the reasons set out above, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of recurrent infestation of spider mites.

Associated formal complaint.

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. An acknowledgement of a stage 1 complaint will be issued via email no later than 1 working day after the complaint is registered. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days. Escalation requests will be responded to within 5 working days, with a full response at stage 2 within 20 working days. Any extension of timescales will not exceed 10 working days.
The resident raised her complaint on 24 November 2022 but was not acknowledged by the landlord until 13 December 2022. 13 working days later, and 12 working days later than its complaint policy timescale.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 20 December 2022, 18 working days later, and 8 working days later than its complaint policy timescale.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 5 January 2023. Having received no response, she contacted this Service. The landlord was asked to complete a stage 2 response within 5 working days, by 19 May 2023. In its stage 2 decision of 19 May 2023, it apologised for the delay in registering the escalation request and stated that it could find no record of the email. Having reviewed this, it had clearly been sent to its customer service inbox. It offered £50 in compensation for its error.
The landlord’s records of 9 January 2023 referred to communication following its stage 1 response. It asked for the points to be considered, specifically if its contractor could look at the nesting areas and to also investigate the telephone “mix up” on its systems. It could get a response to the customer addressing the points and avoid a stage 2 investigation. This suggested that the landlord had in fact received the resident’s correspondence from 5 January 2023.
This Service’s dispute resolution principles are, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. There were minor delays in the landlord’s initial acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint, and response at stage 1, which were not considered. While it apologised for its error in escalating the complaint to stage 2, and offered £50 in compensation, this was not proportionate to the delay experienced by the resident, or her time and trouble in contacting this Service. This Service therefore finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of recurrent infestations of spider mites.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay directly to the resident £150 broken down as follows:
1. £100 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble in chasing the landlord for inspections of the vents.
2. £50 for time and trouble for its complaint handling failures (this is in addition to the £50 offered in its stage 2 response).
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident £300 if not already paid (£50 offered in its stage 2 response, and £250 offered in its letter of 24 June 2024).
The landlord should ensure that residents are aware of any responsibilities with regard to pest control and finalise its policy.