ForHousing Limited (202229855)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229855

ForHousing Limited

13 November 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. Repairs needed in communal areas.
2. A pest infestation at the property.
The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the top floor of a 3-storey block. The resident purchased the property from the landlord in March 2018. She lives in the property with her son.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 February 2021 asking for the bins to be cleared as she said they were full of rats. On 29 December 2021 and 21 January 2022 she contacted it again asking for it to address the issues with rubbish and rats. In her email of 21 January the resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint.
On 30 August 2022 the landlord sent a mailshot to all residents in the building about an ongoing concern with rats and rubbish in the area. It said it had paid for treatment and was working with the local authority. However, it had seen tenants throw bags of rubbish from balconies and asked them to stop doing this.
On 5 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord asking to raise a complaint. She said that a rat had got into her car and caused damage. On 24 February 2023 she emailed her local MP to say that the building had a rat problem and the bins had not been cleared. On 25 February 2023 she contacted the landlord again asking to raise a formal complaint. She then contacted this Service on 28 February as she had not had a response to her complaint.
This Service contacted the landlord on 3 March 2023 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint. We told the landlord that the complaint was about rats damaging her car and also entering the building.
The landlord tried to discuss the complaint with the resident over the phone on 8 March 2023, however she declined to do so. The landlord sent its stage 1 response the same day, in which it said it needed more information to be able to investigate further. It explained that because the building was close to a canal and sewer, rat activity was inevitable. It said it would clear bins and inspect them for holes, as well as writing to all residents to remind them to use the bins correctly.
The resident responded to the landlord on 9 March 2023 saying that it had not addressed her issues. She said that it should refund her for damage to her car, the cost of rat poison she had purchased, and for extra electricity she had used. She said she had been staying at her mum’s at weekends as rats were in the building.
On 14 March 2023 the local authority told the landlord that it had carried out a follow up visit to the resident after she had contacted it directly to pay for treatment. It had found rat droppings in the communal roof space and baited the space. It had identified an access point but said it needed to get rid of the rats first before blocking this up, so that the rats would not get trapped inside.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 March 2023, saying that the rats had damaged the living room light fitting and damaged tiles in the bathroom by trying to push through them. She said they had to sleep with the lights on as they felt unsafe so were using more energy.
On 20 March 2023 the landlord told the resident it would escalate her complaint. It said it would reimburse her for the cost of pest control, if she provided an invoice and bank details. It asked her for more details about her car and the extra electricity used.
On 20 March 2023 the local authority told the landlord that the bins were overflowing the previous week. It had baited 3 drains but could not do more due to where cars were parked. It said it was booked to revisit the resident tomorrow and would inspect wires for signs of chewing in case that had caused the problem with her living room light.
On 18 April 2023 the landlord asked the local authority for an update. It responded to say that it had not had access since 21 March, when it was unable to gain access. It had left a note for the resident and tried to call her, but had no response from her. Whilst there it did check the communal roof space, but there were no takes of the bait, and no evidence of chewed wiring. The local authority said it would need the resident to call to rebook before it would visit again. The landlord told the local authority it would pay for ongoing treatment if needed.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 20 April 2023, in which it said:
1. The local authority’s environmental health had laid bait but found no further signs of rats. It said it would refund the cost of this treatment if she provided a receipt and her bank details.
2. It did not accept responsibility for damage to her car in an open public space. The local authority was attending regularly to bait the sewer and empty bins.
3. She had mentioned building repairs but had not specified what the issues were. All recent block repairs had been completed within target and there were no outstanding repairs. The windows are washed quarterly, with the last visit being in February 2023.
4. There was no service failure so it would not refund any of her service charge.
On 27 April 2023 the resident contacted this Service and asked us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
According to paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it by email on 29 December 2021 asking about communal repairs. She did not raise this issue as part of her complaint on 21 January or 5 December 2022. This was not raised as a complaint to the landlord until she contacted it on 25 February 2023. So, this investigation has focussed on events from February 2022 onwards, 12 months before the resident first complained about this issue.
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord in April, June and December 2020 about bins overflowing and rats around the building. This Service has seen no evidence that the resident raised a complaint about this at that time. So, this investigation has focussed on events from January 2021 onwards, 12 months before the resident first asked to raise a complaint.

Repairs to communal areas

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it is responsible for maintaining and repairing communal lighting, entrances, halls, passageways, stairways, lifts and security systems.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 December 2021, saying that there were issues with old, damaged windows, an entrance door that needed redecorating, and an issue with tiling on a staircase. This Service has not seen any evidence that these issues were raised again with the landlord after this. So, as explained above, these issues have not been investigated.
The resident did not raise any issues with communal repairs in her complaints made on 21 January and 5 December 2022. In her email of 25 February 2023 she said the landlord had ‘neglected building repairs’ and had not washed windows. She did not specify what repairs had been neglected. The landlord attempted to speak with the resident at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaint to obtain more detail, however she declined to speak with it.
The landlord has provided a copy of its repairs log which shows that all outstanding repairs have been completed. There is no evidence that there were any outstanding communal repairs when the resident raised her complaint. The resident has provided this Service with photos of the issues she says need addressing. However, there is no evidence that these photos were shared with the landlord during its investigation.
The Ombudsman does not consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed in communal areas. All repairs that the landlord had logged were completed. The resident did not provide the landlord with any detail in order for it to investigate further.
A recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss her outstanding concerns about communal repairs, so that it can investigate these fully.

Pest infestation

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that the landlord is responsible for all external brickwork, drains, gutters and external pipes. The policy and the lease agreement are silent on who is responsible for pests. In the absence of such a provision, this Service would expect the landlord to be responsible for pest control in all communal areas. This includes external areas such as bin storage.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 February 2021 asking for bins to be cleared due to rats. The landlord responded to say it would forward the information to the appropriate team who would take action within 3 working days. The landlord has provided no evidence that any action was taken or any follow-up communication sent to the resident.
On 29 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord reminding it of the rat and rubbish problem. The landlord again said it would take action within 3 working days, but no evidence of such action or any further update to the resident has been provided to this Service.
On 21 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that bins had not been cleared and waste remained. She asked to raise a formal complaint about the problem. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord raised a complaint or took any action to resolve the issue at this time.
On 30 August 2022 the landlord sent a mailshot to all residents in the building. It said there was an ongoing concern with rats and rubbish in the area. It said it had paid for treatment and was working with the local authority, but asked residents to stop throwing bags from their balconies towards bins. It said further action would be taken if people were seen littering. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord requires the cooperation of all residents in using the bins correctly to help reduce the rat problem. Sending this mailshot was a positive step by the landlord, however it could have taken this action sooner.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 December 2022 to again ask for a complaint to be raised. She said that a rat had got into her car and caused damage. On 3 March 2023 she emailed the landlord again to say that the rats had been waking her and her son at night. She said that they had also damaged tiles in the bathroom and a ceiling light fixture in the living room.
On 7 March 2023 the landlord contacted the local authority and said that it seemed many residents were not using the correct bins and it would need to try and change their behaviour. It said it would clean the bins and check for holes and mailshot residents and asked the local authority to bait the sewers.
On 8 March 2023 the landlord tried to call the resident to discuss the complaint in more detail, but she did not want to discuss it over the phone. Later that day it sent its stage 1 response in which it asked for more specific information about the damage caused by the rats. It explained that the property was situated near a sewer and a canal so rat activity was inevitable. It said the local authority was responsible for pest control and bin collection and said it attended regularly to bait the sewer. The landlord said it would take the following actions:
1. Write to all residents about disposing of rubbish correctly.
2. Arrange for the bins to be fully cleared and inspect to see if repairs were required.
3. Inspect drains and gullies for holes.
On 9 March 2023 the resident responded to say that the landlord had not addressed all of her issues. She said it should refund her for damage to her car, the cost of rat poison she had purchased and the cost of extra electricity she had used. She said that she was sleeping at her mum’s on weekends due to the rats keeping her awake at night. She asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
On 14 March 2023 the local authority emailed the landlord and said it had carried out a revisit to the resident’s property after she had contacted it and paid for her own treatment. It had found rat droppings in the communal roof space and identified an access point next to a drain. It said it had baited the roof space and would revisit the following week. It said that treatment needed to be completed before the access point could be blocked up to avoid blocking rats in.
On 15 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said that the rats were trying to push through tiles in the bathroom and had caused damage to tiles and grouting. She said that rats had chewed through wires for the light in the living room which was not working. She told the landlord she was sleeping with lights on due to fear of the rats, which was using additional energy.
On 20 March 2023 the landlord acknowledged her escalation request and said the complaint was being taken seriously. Its records state that it again offered to discuss the complaint over the phone, but she declined. It said that if she provided a receipt and her bank details it would reimburse her for the cost of the pest control she had paid for. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
On the same day, the local authority told the landlord that the bins were overflowing the previous week. It said that the resident had told its pest control that the living room light was not working and could have had the wires chewed. It said it was booked to revisit the next day and agreed to check for signs of chewed wiring.
On 18 April 2023 the landlord contacted the local authority for an update. The local authority said that it had not been able to access the resident’s property on its visit on 21 March and had not heard from her since despite leaving a note. The attending officer was able to check the roof space and found no bait had been taken and no evidence of chewed wiring. The landlord told the local authority it would pay for ongoing treatment if needed, if the local authority was able to book this in with the resident. This Service has seen no evidence that the resident made further contact with the local authority. The landlord’s approach here was reasonable, as the local authority was already taking action and the landlord offered to pay for any further treatment required.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 20 April 2023. It said that it would not accept responsibility for damage to her car in an open public space. The local authority regularly collected bins and baited the sewer, however some rat activity was unavoidable. This was a reasonable response, as the landlord cannot be expected to prevent damage to a resident’s car parked in an open space. The resident may wish to contact her car insurer to discuss a claim if she has not already done so.
The landlord again offered to refund her the cost of the pest control she had paid for. It explained that the local authority had revisited the property on 21 March 2023 and found no further signs of rats, and no chewed wiring. It said that as a leaseholder she was responsible for internal repairs. Without evidence that there was damage to the wiring caused by rats, it said it would not pay for her living room light to be repaired. It also said that the damage to the bathroom was her responsibility to repair. This Service has seen no evidence that either of these issues were caused by rats, or any failing by the landlord, so it was reasonable for it to say these issues were her responsibility to repair.
On 27 April 2023 the resident contacted this Service as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said the bins were not being kept clean and she still heard rats daily in the wall cavities.
Since issuing its final response the landlord has liaised regularly with the local authority to try to reduce the rat problem. On 5 May 2023 the landlord visited the building and found rats and told the local authority it would arrange for excess rubbish to be removed again. It asked for an update on bait. The local authority visited on 9 May and found some bins overflowing, others half empty with lids open and waste on the floor.
The local authority found no bait taken in the roof space and said that the hole could be repaired if no bait was taken by the next visit. It topped up bait in the burrows behind the bin area. This Service has seen no evidence that the hole allowing access for rats was ever repaired. This does not demonstrate that the landlord took the appropriate action to stop the rats from re-entering the building.
The landlord visited again on 6 July 2023 and found a number of dead rats. The local authority told the landlord it had also recently visited and found a number of alive rats. It said that there was a hole on a step at the front of the building that needed repairing urgently to stop rats getting into the building. The landlord told the local authority it was looking to increase the number of rat treatments and was looking at ways to contain rubbish.
On 25 July 2023 the local authority sent the landlord a contract to increase the bin collections from 3-weekly to weekly, which the landlord subsequently authorised on 22 September. It is not clear from the landlord’s records why there was a delay in this contract being authorised. On 27 September it sent a mailshot to all residents encouraging them to use the bins correctly to avoid rats. The landlord had already taken this action unsuccessfully in the past, when it had said there would be action taken against residents who failed to comply. This Service has seen no evidence that any such action was taken against residents to try to curb the littering.
On 26 September 2023 the landlord carried out work to dig out the burrows and fill with concrete, it confirmed to the local authority on 5 October that weekly bin collections had started. The local authority said it had visited and found the rats had made new burrows.
The landlord visited on 31 October 2023 and found that all bins had closed lids and were on stands but there was some waste on the floor around the bins. As well as the weekly collection of rubbish, the landlord had also now contracted a company to compact the rubbish weekly and tidy the area to try to keep excess rubbish to a minimum.
On 20 November 2023 the landlord asked the local authority for a quote for ongoing treatment, as the original 6 weeks it had arranged was coming to an end. The local authority responded on 21 November saying that there were still bulky items being left by the bins but there had been a noticeable difference in the rat activity.
On 11 December 2023 the landlord emailed the resident saying it was doing what it could to improve the situation. It said that it was her responsibility to arrange an electrician to repair the living room light, but that it could consider reimbursement if evidence of chewed wiring was found. Given that the local authority had already checked the wiring, and that the resident was a leaseholder, this was a reasonable approach.
On 13 December 2023 the landlord sent a further mailshot to all residents saying that the bins were not being used correctly. It said that it was a breach of tenancy to fly-tip.
On 12 January 2024 the local authority confirmed to the landlord that another round of treatment had finished. It said that rubbish was still being left around bins and it had been told by residents that people were dumping bags as they were scared to open the bin lids. The landlord sent a further mailshot on 8 February saying that no items should be left in communal areas.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation at the property. The Ombudsman does appreciate that the location of the building means some level of rat activity is unavoidable. All tenants of the building also have a responsibility to work together to keep the bin area tidy, and it is evident that incorrect use of the bins made the problem worse.
It is also appreciated that since sending its stage 2 response, the landlord has put a lot of effort into trying to reduce the rat problem. Bin collection and pest control is the responsibility of the local authority. However, the landlord has paid for additional pest control treatment and increased bin collections to try to reduce the problem.
However, these actions were taken more than 2 years after the resident first raised concerns, and after the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident first raised concerns about rubbish and rats in February 2021 and the first evidence of the landlord taking any action was a mailshot to all residents on 30 August 2022, which represented a significant delay in it taking any action. The landlord should have acted more quickly to try to resolve the issue.
This mailshot said that action would be taken against resident’s that were caught fly-tipping. The landlord has since sent further mailshots but it has provided no evidence it has attempted to monitor which resident(s) are leaving rubbish outside the bins. It also has not provided evidence it has taken any actions against residents who have failed to dispose of rubbish in line with their tenancy agreements.
In relation to the rat problem in the vicinity of the resident’s flat, the landlord liaised with the local authority after the resident arranged for it to carry out pest control. It offered to reimburse the resident for the cost of this, which was fair, however it does not appear the resident provided the landlord with information for it to do so. The local authority checked for chewed wiring and could not find evidence of this, so it was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to arrange for her own electrician to carry out the repair.
However, the local authority did initially find evidence of rats in the attic, and found an entry point. In May 2023 it told the landlord that the entry point would need to be sealed off after the next visit. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord ever carried out this repair to ensure that rats could no longer get into the communal attic above the resident’s property.
The landlord was not responsible for the damage to the resident’s car, and no evidence has been provided that any damage was caused to the resident’s property by rats. However, it is clear that the landlord’s failure to act within a reasonable timescale did cause the resident distress and inconvenience.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delayed response.
An order has also been made for the landlord to carry out repairs to the entry point to the attic, if this has not already been done. A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to consider a permanent solution to prevent rats burrowing on the land behind the bins.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of logging it. It says it will acknowledge escalation within 5 working days and send its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation request.
The resident first asked the landlord to raise a complaint about the rat problem on 21 January 2022. The wording of her email was very clear in expressing her dissatisfaction and asking for a formal complaint to be raised. The records provided by the landlord do not show that it raised a complaint at that time, or provided any response at all. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy, or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
On 5 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord by email to again raise a complaint about the same issue. She used an email address available on the landlord’s website, which the landlord’s records show she had previously used to correspond with it. The landlord has not provided a copy of this email or any evidence that it responded to it or raised a complaint that that time, which was not appropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 February 2023 asking to raise a formal complaint. The landlord has said that whilst it received this complaint, it closed it down in error straight away. The resident then contacted this Service on 28 February asking for our help as she had received no response to her complaint. We contacted the landlord on 3 March and asked it to respond to the complaint, which it did on 8 March. Whilst it responded quickly after we contacted it, it was not appropriate that the resident had to ask this Service to intervene in order to get a response from the landlord.
The resident responded to the landlord on 9 March 2023 to say she was not happy with its response and asked for the complaint to be escalated. The landlord did not acknowledge this escalation request until 20 March, outside its policy timescale of 5 working days. It sent its stage 2 complaint response on 20 April, again outside its policy timescale of 20 working days.
At stage 2 the landlord acknowledged that it had not addressed the resident’s concerns at stage 1 about communal repairs. However, she had not specified what these outstanding repairs were, and declined to speak with the landlord at both complaint stages to provide more detail. Therefore, it was not easy for the landlord to investigate this issue and it responded as best as it was able to.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It failed to log her complaint on two occasions, and closed it down in error on a third occasion, so she had to ask this Service to step in. This led to an unreasonable delay in her complaint being responded to.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
An order has also been made for the landlord to carry out a case review to understand why the resident’s emails of 21 January and 5 December 2022 were overlooked, and ensure it has systems in place to stop this happening again.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed in communal areas.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation at the property.
3. Maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £750, broken down as follows:
1. £500 in relation to the pest infestation.
2. £250 in relation to its complaint handling failure.
The landlord to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above order within 28 days of this report.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord to:
1. Carry out repairs to the entry point to the attic, if this has not already been done and provide evidence that this has been completed to this Service.
2. Carry out a case review to understand why the resident’s emails of 21 January and 5 December 2022 were overlooked, and ensure it has systems in place to stop this happening again. The landlord to provide this Service with a copy of this review.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident to discuss her outstanding concerns about communal repairs so it can investigate these fully.
The landlord to consider a permanent solution to prevent rats burrowing on the land behind the bins.