Great Places Housing Association (202300681)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300681

Great Places Housing Association

26 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 concerns the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of a rodent infestation.
2. Handling of reports relating to communal repairs and cleaning.
3. Response to reports relating to a bad smell in the bathroom.
4. Handling of the related complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced in December 2019 by way of a mutual exchange. The property is a first floor 2-bedroom flat. The resident has since moved out of the property (in April 2024) via mutual exchange.
The landlord told us it had no vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its system.
On 27 February 2023, the resident reported seeing a rodent in her flat. She told the landlord pest control that she had arranged identified several access points around the building on the ground floor that needed repairing.
On 28 February 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord regarding:
1. A rodent infestation in the block. She asked that the landlord to treat all the flats and communal areas within the block to eliminate rodents.
2. Rubbish being left outside the property. The resident asked for closed circuit television (CCTV) to be installed to capture the culprits.
3. The front entrance door (FED) being left open allowing rodents into the building. The resident also said that the door handle was frequently being broken to enable drug dealers to enter without a fob.
4. “Sewage” smells in her bathroom.
5. General upkeep of the communal areas including:
  1. Walls and staircase in a poor condition.
  2. Doors were chipped.
  3. Communal carpet was unclean.
  4. Electric meter cupboard was “filthy”.
  5. The resident requested the communal areas cleaned and walls and doors repainted.
Within her complaint the resident told the landlord that she had been diagnosed with several health conditions the issues were impacting her health particularly the rodent issue which was affecting her sleep.
On 10 March 2023, the resident called the landlord asking for it to call her back regarding the rodent issue.
On 14 March 2023, the resident’s MP emailed the landlord on her behalf to reiterate the concerns raised in the complaint submitted online on 28 February 2023 which they said the landlord had not replied to. The MP said an appointment was booked for 10 March 2023 however no one attended, and that the resident had called the landlord on the same date, but no one had got back to her.
On 21 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it aimed to provide a response within 10 working days.
On 24 March 2023, the landlord attended the property to investigate the complaints and identify what action should be taken to resolve the issues raised.
On 31 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response in which it:
1. Apologised for not responding to her initial complaint sent on 28 February 2023 and explained it had been experiencing some system problems. It said this had been reported to its IT team for investigation.
2. Said that following receipt of her complaint via her MP it had met with the resident at the property to discuss her concerns and it had agreed to resolve her complaint.
3. Told her that regarding fly tipping at the scheme, there were notices on the notice board regarding resident’s responsibilities around disposing of rubbish correctly as well as a notice for the local council service for large items. It said it would look into the cost of CCTV however initially it would write to residents reminding them of these responsibilities and that costs of removing rubbish would be recharged to individuals/scheme.
4. Said that to resolve the rodent issue, it would cover air bricks with wire mesh and fill holes in the communal area and her property. It would then arrange for a contractor to carry out pest control to communal areas. It also said the drainpipe needed renewing.
5. Explained it had raised a works order for the door stopper to be adjusted. It said residents also needed to “take responsibility” for making sure the FED was shut properly.
6. The reported bad smell was being investigated to determine the cause and implement a solution. It said it had also raised a job to treat mould in the bathroom.
7. Regarding the meter room, it would ask operatives to clean the sink area and flooring.
8. It said it would arrange for the removal of graffiti on the ground floor, secure the lighting on the first floor and would carry out repairs to the front wall of the block.
9. Explained that cleaning to the communal areas was done fortnightly.
10. Told the resident that, the sinking fund did not have enough money to cover the cost of a replacement communal carpet however a request had been raised to put this on the planned works programme. It said as an interim measure it would obtain a quote for the cleaning of the carpet.
The landlord said all repairs identified would be booked in and in relation to the repairs to her flat, someone would contact her to book in these works. Due to the delay in logging her complaint, it offered £100 in compensation.
On 17 April 2023, the resident requested escalation of her complaint. She stated:
1. In relation to fly tipping, CCTV was necessary to identify those responsible. The notices in the building are not useful if those dumping rubbish did not reside in the building. It was unacceptable to charge residents for something they may not be responsible for.
2. Her car was broken into on 29 March 2023 and the lack of CCTV meant the police would not investigate further.
3. Regarding the FED, she believed the door was being broken from the inside, but she did not have evidence of this and would like CCTV to be fitted.
4. Regarding the rodent issue, she believed rodents were within the wall cavities and entering individual flats, as such all flats needed to be treated not just in the communal areas or externally.
5. The graffiti and lighting had not been addressed.
6. The meter room had not been cleaned or painted.
7. Regarding communal cleaning, her floor had been vacuumed but no carpet cleaning had been done.
8. In relation to bathroom damp and bad smell, no appointments had been booked with her regarding these issues.
The resident said she was unsatisfied with its response as it lacked timescales and was vague.
In its stage 2 response dated 22 May 2023, the landlord said:
1. Regarding fly tipping, it provided notices about disposing rubbish. This was a problem that had been created by third parties outside of its control. Where possible it would investigate the cause and take appropriate action however it had not received any information from residents about this. It reiterated that any additional cost associated with fly tipping would be charged through the service charge.
2. Should an agreement be reached about installing CCTV, it was obliged to consult with residents regarding the cost of this in line with the service charge agreement.
3. Regarding the rodent issue, a job was raised to block holes and the initial appointment had been attended on 3 May 2023. It said additional work had been raised which was scheduled for 2 June 2023. A job had also been raised with pest control and it was waiting for the pest control report.
4. In relation to the FED, a job had been raised to repair this. If damage was being caused by a resident, it would investigate this however it had not identified individuals responsible as it had not received any supporting information from residents in relation to this.
5. In relation to the meter room, its team attended and completed cleaning on 9 May 2023.
6. In relation to communal cleaning, the carpet had been cleaned and further cleaning was due to be completed.
7. At the time of a site inspection on 18 May 2023, all graffiti had been removed.
8. The repair to the lighting was completed on 11 April 2023.
9. In relation to the bad odour, a job was raised but no problems were found with internal or external drainage.
The landlord concluded that because of her complaint, it had reviewed the areas of service failure and put measures in place to help prevent future service failure, such as regular inspections as part of the facilities team rota and regular visits by the Neighbourhood Manager.

Post landlord’s final response

On 8 June 2023, the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy about its handling of the issues raised and said it should not expect her to continue living in these conditions, in particular due to the rodent infestation. She asked for details of when the consultation in regard to installing CCTV would take place.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the formal complaint to the landlord and in her referral to this Service, the resident told the landlord the issues being experienced in particular the rodent infestation was impacting her mental and physical health.
This Service recognises that the situation has caused the resident significant distress however it is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by the resident and the actions of the landlord. As these claims are more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, the resident may wish to seek legal advice about bringing a personal injury claim. This element will not be investigated however consideration has been given to if the landlord considered any vulnerabilities when dealing with the issues raised.

The landlord’s response to reports of a rodent infestation

The landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the building and common parts. Information on the landlord’s website (the landlord’s policy) also makes clear that it is responsible for any repairs that may be causing a pest infestation.
The resident first reported a rodent issue on 27 February 2023 explaining that pest control (that she had arranged) identified several access points around the building on the ground floor that needed repairing. As such we would expect the landlord in this circumstance to block openings into the main property building as well as in the resident’s flat and also for the landlord to arrange treatment of the rodent infestation.
Although the landlord told the resident it would arrange for someone to attend the property to investigate the pest issue and raised a job for this on the same date, there is no evidence of anyone attending. It was only after further contact from the resident and her MP that the landlord attended the property to assess the problem. This was on 24 March 2023, around 4 weeks after her initial report. The landlord’s policy does not state a timescale for responding to a pest report however bearing in mind the potential risk to health and safety caused by a rodent infestation, on balance the length of time taken by the landlord to inspect the property to assess the issue, was unreasonable particularly as the resident told the landlord she had health conditions and the rodent issue was affecting her ability to sleep.
During its visit of 24 March 2023, the landlord identified that wire mesh was needed to be fitted to all the airbricks externally around the building, that holes in the communal areas and in the resident’s flat needed filling and that a drainpipe needed renewing. The landlord’s records show it also planned to engage a contractor to carry out pest control work in the resident’s flat once gaps had been sealed as well as in 2 other flats who had reported the same issue. Such action was appropriate and in its stage 1 response, the landlord explained to the resident the measures it was taking to resolve the issue.
The landlord’s repair records show that over the next few days it appropriately raised jobs with its repair team to complete the promised works however these records do not include any target or completion dates. Incomplete or missing information in repairs records can mean it is difficult for landlords to understand the progress of a job once raised and it may also hinder an investigation into what went wrong where a complaint is raised as in this case. In response to our evidence request, the landlord provided job notes (separate from its repair records) which suggest it booked an appointment for 24 April 2023 to fill holes in the communal areas however it is clear this appointment did not go ahead. While the note says the tenant refused access, as no mention is made of any issue with access elsewhere including in the landlord’s complaint responses, this Service considers there is insufficient evidence to establish the resident was to blame for any missed appointment on 24 April 2023. In any event repairs to the communal areas would not usually need a resident to allow access. It is noted that in its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident it had undertaken some remedial work to fill holes on 3 May 2023 but said that additional work was scheduled for 2 June 2023. However, no records have been provided to this Service to demonstrate work to seal gaps was completed at these times.
The failure of the landlord to update its repair records with details of actions taken once a job is raised is inappropriate. Due to this issue and because the job notes which have been supplied do not always match what the landlord has told the resident or this Service, this is evidence of a knowledge and information management (KIM) failing by the landlord. As a result, this Service has not been able to determine when, if at all, the landlord sealed in holes in the communal areas or renewed the drainpipe.
However, the evidence does show that the landlord fitted wire mesh to the airbricks externally on 24 May 2023 and that it raised a job with a pest contractor on 15 May 2023 to complete 4 pest treatments within the resident’s property as well as 2 other flats affected by the issue. This action was appropriate, and it is noted that the pest control report indicates that at the final visit on 4 July 2023 no fresh activity was observed in the resident’s flat however the report recommended that gaps in the pipework in the flat were sealed. The landlord’s records show it raised a job to seal gaps in the resident’s flat around 2 months later on 7 September 2023 and that this work was completed on 19 September 2023. Bearing in mind the resident first reported the issue on 27 February 2023 and also the landlord initially raised a job for this work on 3 April 2023, the failure to rodent–proof the resident’s flat until this time, is evidence of an unreasonable delay by the landlord in completing this work.
In summary, the landlord did not treat the resident’s initial report with sufficient urgency as there was an unreasonable delay in taking any action. While the landlord then raised appropriate jobs to tackle the issue after it inspected the property around 4 weeks later, there were further delays in carrying out the repairs it deemed were required including sealing holes in the resident’s flat which took the landlord more than 6 months to complete. Due to the landlord’s inadequate KIM, it is unclear when some of the repairs promised were provided. It is also evident that the landlord did not appropriately consider the resident’s personal circumstances while handling her reports.
Due to the failings identified, which the landlord did not acknowledge or put right, this is indicative of maladministration by the landlord while handling the residents’ reports.
This Service is mindful that the landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on its system yet in her formal complaint the resident informed it that she suffered from various health conditions. The landlord’s failure to update its records at this time indicates poor KIM and a lack of an appropriate process around dealing with vulnerabilities.

The landlord’s handling of reports relating to communal repairs and cleaning.

The landlord’s repair policy requires it to respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, ‘routine’ repairs within 20 working days. Regarding major works, its policy says it will tell the resident the timescale involved.
In her formal complaint the resident raised several concerns regarding communal repairs and cleaning. This including a broken FED and “rubbish piled up” at the scheme.
The resident said the broken FED compromised security and allowed drug dealers into the communal areas of the property. She told the landlord that she believed the door was being broken from the inside and requested the landlord install CCTV to stop this and the fly tipping. Following her complaint, the landlord appropriately raised a job to repair the FED, however it is not clear from its repair records when exactly the FED was fixed. This Service is mindful that in its final response dated 22 May 2023, the landlord did not state the repair had been completed only that a job had been raised. While it is clear from the resident’s communication dated 8 June 2023, that the FED had been repaired by this stage, bearing in mind the resident first told the landlord about the broken FED in her 28 February 2023 complaint, this shows the repair to the FED was provided well outside its 20-working day timescale, indicating a significant delay by the landlord while handling this repair.
Regarding fly tipping, the landlord acknowledged this was a regular occurrence at the scheme. Notes of its inspection on 24 March 2023 show it checked to ensure that notices which informed residents of their responsibility around disposing of rubbish correctly, were up within the communal area. This was reasonable and the landlord also agreed to send out letters to all residents to remind them of this responsibility and inform them that any costs incurred for rubbish removal would be charged back through the service charge. It is clear the landlord sent these letters to all residents on 25 April 2023, therefore, it acted appropriately in this regard.
In its final response, the landlord explained that because it did not have any information about who was leaving rubbish or breaking or leaving the FED open, it was unable to stop the issues reoccurring. Although this was understandable, the landlord agreed to check the costs of installing CCTV to monitor these areas and said it would consult with residents regarding adding this cost to the service charge. This approach was reasonable, however there is no evidence of the landlord taking any steps to then do so.
Therefore, by fixing the FED and removing rubbish, albeit with a delay, the landlord addressed the issues in the short-term. However, because it did not look into the costs of installing CCTV as per its promise and as there is no evidence of it exploring any other measures to prevent the issues reoccurring, overall, there was a shortcoming in the landlord’s handling of these issues.
In regards to the resident’s report of graffiti, it is evident that the landlord arranged for all graffiti to be removed from the (internal) walls of the communal areas. The landlord also arranged for the meter room to be cleaned and rubbish removed in response to the resident’s concern raised about the “filthy” condition of this room. Therefore, as the landlord resolved these issues, its response was appropriate.
Regarding the resident’s concern about the standard of cleaning in the communal areas and the condition of the communal carpet, the landlord inspected these during its visit of the scheme on 24 March 2023 and then contacted its cleaning contractor to ask that it ensure these areas were properly cleaned and to provide photos of the cleaning carried out on the next visit.
Although this shows the landlord was taking steps to ensure the cleaning service being provided was to the appropriate standard, the landlord’s communication with its contractor seen by this service does not reference the resident’s block but a different site as such it is unclear if the photos subsequently provided from its contractor relate to the resident’s block. Again, this suggests the landlord has an issue with poor KIM. Nonetheless, its internal communications show that as carpet cleaning was not included in the service contract, the landlord arranged for a different contractor to carry out a deep clean of the communal carpets as an interim measure. It also told the resident it had added a replacement carpet onto its planned works programme. These actions were appropriate in the circumstances.
In relation to communal lighting on the first floor, during its inspection on 24 March 2023 the landlord noted this needed securing and in its stage 1 response told the resident it would carry out this repair. This was reasonable however in her stage 2 complaint raised more than 2 weeks later, the resident told the landlord that the lighting had not been repaired and also said that the lighting on the top staircase had stopped working. Although in its stage 2 response it told the resident it completed this repair on 11 April 2023, there is no evidence in its repair records to demonstrate this or to show the landlord revisited the lighting at the scheme following the resident’s stage 2 complaint. As such based on the available evidence, its response to this repair was unreasonable.
In summary, the landlord took some appropriate steps to resolve the issues raised relating to communal repairs and cleaning. However, the majority of the repairs were not responded to promptly or within its 20-working day timescale. This included fixing the FED. Furthermore, the lighting in the communal areas was not fully addressed and the landlord also failed to follow up on its promise to find out the cost of installing CCTV and consult with residents about this. These failings are indicative of maladministration by the landlord.

Response to reports relating to a bad smell in the bathroom.

In her formal complaint the resident told the landlord that there was a “sewage” smell in the bathroom that needed investigating. The landlord inspected the bathroom on 24 March 2023 and its records show it found “slight signs of damp” and noted the presence of an odour that needed investigating. It told the resident in its stage 1 response that a repair had been requested to treat the mould and that it was in the process of investigating the odour.
Although it was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the bathroom and act upon the mould in the bathroom, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to explain how it would investigate in order to manage her expectations. The lack of detail given in its response in this regard was inappropriate.
In her stage 2 complaint raised around 2 to 3 weeks later, the resident told the landlord that no appointments had been made either in relation to the damp or to investigate the odour. The delay in progressing these issues since its stage 1 response was unreasonable and evidence of a further failing by the landlord.
Although it is clear the landlord did then arrange for antimould treatment to be applied to the walls of the bathroom, it is not clear from its repair records when this work was completed. This is further evidence of poor KIM.
The landlord’s internal communications indicate it also arranged for a drainage contractor to attend on 11 May 2023. This was appropriate however while it told the resident in its final response that no problems were found with either the internal or external drainage, this Service has not seen any evidence to enable us to verify this. The landlord did not give any further details about the outcome of the visit in its final response or tell the resident if it was willing to take any further action to investigate the reported smell.
Therefore, as there were delays investigating the issue by the landlord, poor communication, and insufficient evidence to establish the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve the issue, this constitutes evidence of maladministration by the landlord when responding to this report.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process under which it is required to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days.
It did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint when the resident initially sent this to the landlord through its online system on 28 February 2023. However, when the resident’s MP resent the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 14 March 2023, it acknowledged and issued a stage 1 response within a further 5 and 10 working days respectively.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained that due a system issue, it had not received the resident’s complaint when she sent this on 28 February 2023. It apologised for the delay in logging her complaint, told her it had reported the problem and offered her £100 in compensation. On balance, the redress it offered in recognition of its failing was reasonable.
However, the landlord’s complaint responses did not give expected timescales for all the repairs and outstanding actions mentioned and its explanations provided were generally brief without detail or descriptions of works to be undertaken or of findings reached. This lack of clarity is evidence of poor communication. The landlord also used acronyms and referred to operatives using their first names. This was also inappropriate.
In some instances, it did not respond to the resident’s requests for remedies, for example in her formal complaint she asked for all flats within the property building to be treated for the rodent infestation and for walls and doors in the communal area to be painted. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code makes clear landlords are expected to acknowledge all points raised so residents feel heard and understood. Its failure to do so here is evidence of inadequate complaint handling.
In summary the additional failings identified above demonstrate there was maladministration by the landlord whilst handling the related complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when responding to reports of a rodent infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling reports relating to communal repairs and cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when responding to reports relating to a bad smell in the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord while handling the related complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within 4 weeks to:
1. Provide an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay additional compensation of £800 to the resident comprising:
  1. £300 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble for failings while responding to reports of a rodent infestation.
  2. £200 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings while handling reports relating to communal repairs and cleaning.
  3. £150 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble for failings while responding to report of a bad smell in the bathroom.
  4. £150 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble due to failings while handling the related complaint.
3. If not already done so, the landlord is to consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on KIM and self-assess against these findings and provide this Service with the outcome of its findings and any actions it proposes to take.
4. Review how it records and deals with vulnerabilities particularly while handling repairs and complaints.
5. Provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.