Greatwell Homes Limited (202107843)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107843

Greatwell Homes Limited

12 May 2023

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 a bed bug infestation at the property.
The landlord’s approaches in offering temporary accommodation.
The level of compensation paid by the landlord.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. This Service cannot make determinations on health implications caused by a landlord’s actions or inactions. Such matters should be considered by the courts via a personal injury claim. Whilst the resident has provided this Service with detailed medical records and evidence, it does not form part of the determination in this case.

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated to this Service that her benefit claim was affected by the landlord’s actions in this case. Whilst this report does refer in part to her benefit claim, it does not fully consider it nor does it make any determinations on this point. Whilst this was raised by the resident at stage one of the landlord’s complaints process, it was not raised at stage two and therefore did not exhaust the full process.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has lived at the property since 2013. The property is a two-bedroom, second floor flat within a block of general needs properties owned and managed by the landlord. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association.
The landlord’s records and information provided by the resident outline that she has a number of health concerns including visual impairment, cancer, bi-polar disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder. The resident receives support from the local community mental health team, adult social services and has received support in bringing her case to this Service from advocates on her behalf.

Summary of events

On 10 July 2020, the resident first contacted the landlord to report that she was affected by an infestation of bed bugs in the property. The landlord’s records state that it advised the resident to contact the local authority’s environmental health team and to follow the advice on the NHS website. Its records also show that it agreed to treat the infestation as a gesture of goodwill as pest treatments are not its responsibility under its policies and procedures. The landlord informed the resident that it would require her to sign a disclaimer form prior to the treatment taking place.
On 22 July 2020, the resident called the landlord to advise that she had spoken with the local authority environmental health team. She asked the landlord for information on the chemicals that its contractors would use to treat the bedbugs. The landlord’s records state that it attempted to call the resident back but it was unable to speak to her. It is unclear from the evidence reviewed when information regarding the chemicals used was given to the resident.
The resident signed and returned a disclaimer form to the landlord on 6 August 2020. The signed form states that the resident was in full agreement with the planned treatment and that she would carry out the necessary due diligence and research into the chemicals with the contractor, before the treatment took place. The landlord has stated to this Service that the resident signed the disclaimer form in the presence of her mental health support worker. The treatment was carried out by the landlord’s contractors on 10 August 2020. It was also advised that no persons should enter the property until at least six hours following the treatment. Its records show that the contractors advised that four separate chemical treatments would be required to achieve the best results.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 August 2020 to report that she believed she had suffered a reaction to the chemicals used. The landlords records state that the chemical used was standard for treating that type of infestation and its contractors were licenced pest control specialists. The landlord’s records state that its contractors had advised that any chemical residue left in the property would naturally disappear within six weeks of the date of treatment.
Upon receiving the resident’s concerns, the landlord later arranged four separate heat treatments to address the infestation which were completed in December 2020 and January 2021. Around this time the resident made her own arrangements for her bed to be disposed of following the initial treatment, however the contractors advice was for furniture to remain in situ.
The landlord was contacted by the resident’s mental health worker on 10 September 2020, who had asked if it could arrange temporary accommodation for the resident whilst further treatments were carried out. The landlord advised that in order for the planned heat treatments to be effective, the resident should remain in occupation of the property and it would therefore not offer temporary accommodation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 September 2020, to again raise her concerns about the chemicals that its contractors had used. She informed it that she had reported her concerns to the police and the health and safety executive.
On 25 September 2020, the landlord was contacted by the resident’s GP who requested the details for its contractors who carried out the chemical treatment. The landlord provided the required information and states that it received no further contact from the resident’s GP. Its records show that it later spoke with the contractors who confirmed that the resident’s GP had contacted and was happy with the information provided regarding the chemical used.
The landlord’s records show that its housing manager spoke with the resident on 23 October 2020 where it was explained that the pest treatment had been carried out as a gesture of goodwill. The resident was also reminded that she had signed a disclaimer ahead of the treatment taking place. The landlord stated that it would clarify its position on carrying out a heat treatment to address the infestation.
The resident called the landlord on 18 November 2020 and stated that she felt unable to have planned eye surgery the following week as her property was not in a suitable condition to assist her recovery. She stated that she would postpone her surgery until such time that the situation was resolved. The landlord’s records state that during this call, the resident had advised it that she “was not in the right frame of mind” when she signed the disclaimer form in August 2020. The landlord reminded the resident that the form was signed in the presence of her mental health support worker and it had relied on their opinion on the resident’s mental health and capacity at that time.
The landlord’s pest control contractors attended the property on 25 November 2020 and both its records and the resident’s records confirm that live bedbugs were found in the sofa on which the resident was sleeping at that time. The contractor also raised concerns that the resident may have suffered a reaction to the chemical used in the initial treatment. They were concerned that the resident would have to sleep on a sofa infested with bedbugs during her post-operation recovery. The landlord instructed its contractors to provide a quote for a non-chemical treatment to address the infestation, as per the contractors advice.
In agreement with the resident, the landlord’s contractors carried out the four recommended heat treatments at the property on:
1. 8 December 2020.
2. 18 December 2020.
3. 7 January 2021.
4. 27 January 2021.
On 22 February 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that she was still being bitten by bedbugs. The landlord advised her that all recommended heat treatments had been completed as per its contractor’s advice. During a call to the resident on 25 February 2021, the landlord agreed to the resident’s request for her carpets to be removed and disposed of. It provided the resident with details of the contractors who would remove the carpets and asked her to make the relevant arrangements with them directly. The landlord’s notes state that the resident confirmed that she would make her own arrangements for new carpets to be installed, at her own cost.
The landlord’s records show that its contractors had attended the property on 24 March 2021 and the resident was unhappy as she wanted the carpets to be removed on two separate occasions. This was to allow her time to move furniture within the property. The resident had also stated that she wanted the floors to be re-screeded following the removal of all residue and glue from the floor once the old carpets were removed. As the contractor was not able to facilitate this request, the landlord instructed another contractor.
The resident’s records show that on 30 March 2021 her assessment and enablement worker contacted the landlord to raise concerns around the ongoing situation causing the resident to feel stressed. They advised the landlord that the resident needed to be well enough to undergo an eye operation. An update on the planned works at the resident’s property was also requested.
The landlords records state that on 31 March 2021 its own repairs & maintenance manager and the newly instructed contractors had both agreed that re-screeding of the floor was not required. Any minor imperfections on the floor would be addressed by using a clear filler before the fitting of the new carpets.
Also on 31 March 2021, an advocate acting on behalf of the resident contacted the landlord and requested a further bedbug treatment. The advocate was advised that the landlord was awaiting an update from its pest control contractor regarding proposed inspections in other properties within the block. The resident’s advocate contacted the landlord again on 7 April 2021 to request a schedule of works in relation to the flooring. It was also requested that flooring works were not started until the landlord had inspected the other flats for bedbugs. The resident’s records show that the landlord provided her with a schedule of works on 14 April 2021. It confirmed that its contractors would be inspecting other properties for bedbugs, and her property also.
On 16 April 2021, the landlord’s pest control contractors inspected eight flats within the block, including the resident’s property. It was confirmed that there were three bedbugs found on the resident’s sofa and a moderate infestation in the flat below. The landlord’s records state that its contractors had not suggested or advised that other properties required inspection when the resident first reported bedbugs in July 2020.
On 21 April 2021, the landlord’s pest control contractor sent an email to it stating that as far as it was aware, there were no bedbugs present in the property following the last treatment. The contractors advised that there was no guarantee of fully removing bedbugs when using steam and not chemical treatments. The landlord’s records further show that it made arrangements for its pest control contractors to carry out chemical treatments in the flat below the resident and a heat treatment in her property. The landlord visited the resident and confirmed it would pay for these treatments. The resident also raised the possibility of accessing alternative accommodation.
The landlord arranged for a pest control contractor to carry out a heat treatment in the resident’s property on 23 April 2021. The resident contacted the landlord via email that same day and she stated that she wanted it to first remove all furnishings and carpets from the property as she believed they were contaminated with chemicals.
On 27 April 2021, the landlord’s records state that it removed a sofa and chairs from the property as per the resident’s request. The landlord also provided the resident with a schedule of works relating to the flooring. On 30 April 2021, the landlord confirmed in an email to the resident further works that it would complete before new carpets would be fitted. Its contractors attended on 4 May 2021 and removed the carpets and completed some works to the flooring before new carpets could be fitted.
On 17 May 2021, the resident decided to move out of the property and went to stay with a friend who lived nearby. On that same day the landlord’s flooring contractors attended and removed the carpets and a heat treatment was then carried out on 19 May 2021. New carpets were scheduled to be installed at the property on 20 May 2021, however this was postponed at the resident’s request as she stated the recent finding of bedbugs in the property and the presence of chemicals were her reasons for this.
On 1 June 2021, the landlord sent a detailed email to the resident and her local MP in which it stated;
1. It outlined the actions it had completed to try and address the bedbug outbreak within the block.
2. It informed her that its contractors had stated that it was unlikely that any chemical residue from the flat below would be present in her property after the treatment.
3. It advised that any chemical residue was unlikely to still be present in her property following the one chemical treatment its contractors carried out on 10 August 2020.
4. It outlined that its flooring contractor would fill in any minor imperfections in the floor before the fitting of new carpets, however it felt that the proposed schedule of works given to its contractors by the resident’s advocate was excessive.
5. An offer of temporary accommodation was made to the resident in that the landlord would pay for a hotel stay should the resident wish to do so. The resident’s advocate later advised that hotel accommodation was not suitable for the resident as she required access to a lifeline system for contact with the emergency services.
6. The landlord advised that the resident could make a formal complaint should she remain dissatisfied.
The flooring contractors contacted the resident via email on 2 June 2021 and recommended a clean of her property in order to remove any possible traces of chemical residue. The resident responded and stated that the landlord had told her that there would be no residue in the property so their position was that a clean was not required. The landlord later changed its position and instructed a contractor to carry out a full deep clean of the property, at its own cost.
On 7 June 2021, the resident’s advocate contacted the landlord via email which stated the following;
1. The resident had no concerns regarding the recent use of chemicals to treat the bedbugs in the flat below her.
2. They believed that had the landlord followed their schedule of proposed works, it would have eliminated any chemical residue in the resident’s flat from the one treatment carried out in August 2020.
3. Concerns were raised that the flooring contractors did not thoroughly clean the floor before primer was applied. It was stated that the contractor did not apply the primer across the whole surface area of the floor and also that the primer would seal in any remaining residue in the concrete floor.
4. The resident was agreeable to having new carpets installed but first wanted the floor and skirting boards re-cleaning as they felt it was not carried out to a suitable standard. The resident would advise when she was ready for the carpets to be installed.
5. A hotel stay was not appropriate for the resident due to her health issues and that she required a lifeline system to enable her to contact the emergency services if required.
6. The resident would consider a permanent move to another property however it would have to be in an area agreeable to the resident and suitable for her health concerns.
7. The landlord would also have to ensure that another property would be decorated to the same standard as her current property and the landlord would have to install new carpets throughout and pay for any removal costs.
On 17 June 2021 the resident’s advocate sent a further email to the landlord in which they stated:
1. There was still a chemical residue in the property and it was affecting the resident’s health.
2. They requested that the landlord attended the property to carry out an inspection of the flooring and alleged chemical residue and requested that its health and safety officer attended also.
3. They stated that the chemical manufacturer was obliged to report this to the health and safety executive.
4. They confirmed that the resident had herself reported this to the health and safety executive.
The landlord’s head of service replied to the resident’s advocate on 18 June 2021 and stated that its contractors had confirmed that no chemical residue remained in the property. It also outlined that the chemical treatment was carried out nine months previously and any residue would have disappeared in the six weeks following the treatment.
Also in June 2021 the resident was in contact with her social worker and had reported that chemicals were still present in the property and her friend had suffered a reaction to it. The resident also highlighted her concerns that the contractors did not do the job they were supposed to and had made the situation worse.
On 2 July 2021 and 7 July 2021, the resident’s records show that she was in contact with the manufacturer of the flooring primer and was arranging for them to visit her property. The resident was informed that they would only attend with the flooring contractor and a representative from the local council or the landlord. The resident has stated to this Service that this visit was not facilitated by the landlord and also that the contractors made a threat to her via her advocate at this time. This Service has not reviewed any further evidence to support this claim.
The resident’s assessment and enablement worker contacted the landlord on 15 July 2021 and asked it to confirm a date and time at which its flooring contractors would attend the property. During emails dated that same day between the resident and the assessment and enablement worker, the resident reported that she was still affected by a chemical smell in the property and she wanted a senior member of the landlord’s staff to attend and inspect. The resident also stated that the landlord would need to move her to another property if it was not willing to clean the property to her required standard. She also raised concerns that her housing benefit payment would be affected if she did not return to the property by mid-August 2021.
On 27 July 2021, the landlord agreed to include the resident on its internal transfer list under its management move process. It suggested two available properties which it felt may be suitable for the resident however she declined both, stating that she wanted more time to consider any offers.
Also on 27 July 2021, the landlord made a referral on the resident’s behalf to its internal benefits and money advisor in relation to her concerns about her benefits payments. The following day the resident advised the landlord that she needed to give an update to the department for work and pensions on when she could return to live at her property. The resident has informed this Service that the landlord did not comply with this request and her housing benefit claim was stopped on 13 August 2021. From evidence provided by the Resident, the landlord contacted the resident on 28 July 2021 and advised her that the local authority were aware that she was not currently living at the property and that she may be eligible for up to 52 weeks of housing benefit payments, but this was at the local authority’s discretion.
On 5 August 2021, the resident contacted her mental health worker and stated that she wished to remain at her property, providing that the landlord carried out a full clean of the property and removed any chemical residue. The resident further stated that she would consider an alternative property, specifically an independent living property. She outlined her areas of preference. The resident’s email was passed to the landlord for its consideration.
Also on 5 August 2021, the resident’s housing benefit entitlement was suspended. The landlord called the resident the following day and explained that she did qualify under the 52-week absence ruling. It also advised that the resident’s housing benefit payments would cease altogether unless she returned to live at her property by 16 August 2021.
The resident’s advocate submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 5 August 2021. It acknowledged the complaint the following day and advised that it would issue its response at stage one of its complaints process within ten working days, whilst noting that the resident’s advocate had requested a response within 24 hours.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage one complaint response on 11 August 2021, in which it stated that it did not uphold her complaint. Its response stated;
1. It outlined the actions taken in relation to the treatment of bedbugs in the property and that it ceased the treatments when the resident informed it that she had suffered a reaction to the chemicals used.
2. It outlined that following this it used a different contractor to carry out a non-chemical treatment, as per her request.
3. It stated that it had followed the advice of its contractors and treated other affected properties within the block. It stated that it was not advised to treat the whole block.
4. It had shared with the resident’s GP the requested information on the chemicals used to treat her property. It had not received any further contact from her GP.
5. It had offered her a management move to an alternative property which she had declined.
6. It confirmed that as a gesture of goodwill it would replace the carpets in the property and prior to fitting, it would pay for a full clean of the property.
7. It advised the resident that her housing benefit payment would resume if she moved back into the property.
It is noted that the resident did not request an escalation to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process within 20 working days following its stage one response dated 11 August 2021. It is also noted that on 23 August 2021 the resident advised the landlord that she no longer wished to involve her advocate in the case.
The landlord and its cleaning contractors attended the property on 11 August 2021 to assess the cleaning required. The landlord advised the resident in an email dated 18 August 2021, that its contractors had proposed the use of a white vinegar and water solution to clean the property in order to minimise any chemical reaction that the resident may suffer. The resident agreed to this proposal. Following this, the resident has advised this Service that the landlord did not facilitate the cleaning of the property.
In an email sent to the landlord on 25 August 2021, the resident’s mental health worker advised that the resident did not want to return to the property. The email outlined that she wanted to move to an alternative property instead. The worker outlined the resident’s areas of choice and drew their attention to her medical needs. As the resident had indicated she did not wish to return to the property, the landlord cancelled its proposed cleaning of the floors and fitting of new carpets.
On 26 August 2021, the landlord’s records show that it received contact from the health and safety executive which confirmed that no further action was being taken in relation to the chemicals used at the property in August 2020.
The landlord completed a management move application on 8 September 2021 on the resident’s behalf. It listed that the resident wished to be considered for both general needs and independent living properties. It also completed a housing needs assessment with the resident to determine her suitability for consideration of moving to one of its independent living schemes. It is also noted that within this document the landlord stated its pest control contractor’s investigations in other properties in the block had confirmed that the source of the bedbug infestation was from within the property below the resident.
On 9 September 2021, within emails between the resident and her assessment and enablement worker, she advised that she was still “sofa surfing” and highlighted that she was still having to pay rent on her property. Her worker advised that she had sent an email to the landlord in support of the resident’s management move request.
By late September 2021, the landlord had identified that the resident did not meet the criteria for its independent living provision due to her complex health needs. It advised the resident and her support workers of this. On 29 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident advising her of its decision.
On 6 October 2021, the landlord’s allocations panel heard the resident’s case. The panel refused the resident’s rehousing request as it felt she was not at significant risk of harm and that there was no reason why she could not return to the property. The landlord’s notes state that it felt it had treated the issues within the property and there was no evidence of chemical residue in the property.
Later in October 2021, the resident submitted an appeal against the allocations panel’s decision. She outlined her health concerns and stated that she was still “sofa surfing” and was paying rent on a property she could not use.
On 28 October 2021, the landlord reviewed and changed its decision around its refusal to allow her to access its independent living schemes. On that same day it offered her an alternative property which it classed as its first formal offer under its management move process.
On 3 November 2021, the resident’s assessment and enablement worker called the landlord and advised that she refused the property offer, following a visit to view the exterior of the property. The landlord advised that this offer was one of the two formal rehousing offers it would make, and it confirmed this in a letter to the resident. Advice was provided that the resident may wish to consider bidding on properties via the local choice-based lettings system. On that same day, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord which was acknowledge the following day via letter. This followed the resident making contact with this Service.
On 5 November 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss a potential property offer. The resident refused this stating that she wanted to move to an independent living property. The landlord did not count this offer under its management move process. The landlord sent a letter to the resident that same day, reiterating its position in that it would only make two formal offers of rehousing before it would remove her application. The landlord advised the resident that she may wish to consider rehousing options with other housing providers and to consider a mutual exchange.
On 10 November 2021, the landlord called the resident to advise that it had a ground-floor flat for her to consider. The resident stated that she would consider this if the landlord would agree to fit new carpets and move her blinds from her current property. The landlord agreed to this however, the resident later advised the landlord that she did not wish to consider this property.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 16 November 2021 to complete an inspection. The resident was present along with a new advocate and her mental health worker. The landlord’s notes state that the advocate and the mental health worker both commented that they had previously experienced a dry throat whilst in the property but confirmed no such affects during that visit. The resident stated that she was experiencing a tightness in her chest and itchy skin during the visit and the landlord asked if she could provide any medical evidence around this. During the visit the landlord determined that the floor was in a suitable condition for new carpets to be laid.
On 18 November 2021, the landlord met with the resident to discuss her rehousing preferences. The landlord’s notes state that the resident confirmed that she would like a first floor property with lift access due to her health needs. The landlord advised that they had a potentially suitable void property which they would hold for her. The landlord agreed that it would decorate the property and install new carpets should the resident choose to accept it. The landlord classed this as its second and final offer to the resident as per its management move process.
In a letter sent to the resident that same day, the landlord offered for its income officer to contact her to assist with her housing benefit claim. It also advised that it may be able to assist with a discretionary housing payment to cover the rent at her current property, during the period before a new property would be ready in the event she decided to accept a new property.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 23 November 2023 and advised that she wished to decline its offer of a new property. She outlined her reasons for her refusal.
On 24 November 2021, the landlord issued a further stage one complaint response to the resident. It has stated to this Service that it did this due to not receiving an escalation request to stage two of its complaints process from the resident in the three-month period from issuing its stage one response on 11 August 2021. The landlord stated;
1. It did not uphold her complaint.
2. It outlined in detail the actions it had taken to treat the bedbugs in her property and the property below.
3. It did not accept liability for any adverse reaction the resident had suffered due to the chemicals used in the bedbug treatment in August 2021.
4. It outlined the actions taken and offers made to her in relation to temporary and permanent rehousing.
5. It believed that its most recent offer of rehousing met her needs and her support workers had also confirmed that this was a suitable offer, with one of its independent living schemes.
6. It asked the resident to reconsider her refusal and explained that they would allow her until 29 November 2021 to decide.
7. It reminded the resident that should she choose not to accept the property, it would not make any further rehousing offers to her, as per its process.
8. It outlined that it felt it had been supportive in trying to find alternative accommodation for her.
The resident replied to the landlord that same day and advised that its stage one response was factually incorrect. She sought clarity on which property the landlord stated she had refused. She also outlined that she was too unwell to view the property and would consider viewing it once she was well enough to do so.
Also on 24 November 2021, the landlord made a new offer of an independent living property to the resident and stated that it believed it fitted her criteria. It advised that it would not make a further property offer to her. It further advised that should she choose not to return to her property, she may face tenancy enforcement action.
On 27 November 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord in which she confirmed that she was willing to view the property it had offered. She also named two other independent living schemes that she would consider.
On 1 December 2021, the resident viewed the property with her support worker. The resident informed the landlord that she would accept the property if it could arrange for a space to be made in the kitchen for her washing machine. The landlord agreed to this and also agreed that it would decorate the property and fit new carpets throughout. The landlord also advised that another potentially suitable property had become available although the resident declined due to the area having links to her previous employment.
The resident submitted a stage two complaint on 2 December 2021 which the landlord acknowledged in writing that same day. It advised that it would respond to the resident within 20 working days.
On 4 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and her support worker to advise that she would not be able to attend an arranged viewing of the property it had offered. This was due to the resident having Covid-19. She advised that her isolation period would end on 12 December 2021. The resident’s support worker asked her to provide evidence of this so that the local authority could withhold the property on her behalf. The resident provided the evidence as requested.
The landlord’s records show that its contractors carried out a heat treatment at the property on 8 December 2021.
On 14 December 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and asked if she would like to arrange a second viewing of the property it had offered on 24 November 2021. The resident replied to the landlord the following day and confirmed that she did not want to accept the property and instead wished to return to her property. The resident has advised this Service of the confidential reasons why she declined this property. She also stated that she felt the landlord gave her no leeway around its policies in subsequently removing her from its rehousing list following her decision.
On 16 December 2021, the landlord provided the resident with its stage two complaint response in which it stated:
1. It outlined the resident’s reports that the chemical treatment of the bedbugs caused her to have a reaction and damaged her furniture.
2. It does not accept liability for any reaction. It states that it and the contractors provided detailed info to her doctor who was satisfied with the information provided regarding the chemicals used in the bedbug treatment.
3. It acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with its offers of alternative accommodation.
4. It stated that it had made several offers of other properties but the resident had declined these.
5. It confirmed that it would re-screed the flooring and fit new carpets at her property.
6. It did not uphold her complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident on 17 December 2021, to discuss her housing benefit claim being closed. Its records state that the resident was very upset during the call and it offered her advice and assistance around the possibility of her obtaining a discretionary housing payment to assist with her rent. Its records state that the resident declined the assistance, stating that her support worker was helping her in this regard.
The landlord’s records show that its contractors carried out a second heat treatment at the property on 18 December 2021.
The landlord’s records show that its contractors carried out a third heat treatment at the property on 7 January 2022.
On 11 January 2022, the resident called the landlord to discuss its stage two complaint response. She asked the landlord to agree to the following;
1. To thoroughly clean her property before she moved back in.
2. For it to ensure that the new floor was sealed.
3. For it to provide and fit new carpets and underlay.

The landlord replied and agreed to all of the resident’s requests.

Throughout January 2022, the resident and the landlord were in frequent contact regarding the agreed deep clean of the property and flooring works. The resident also advised that she was looking to move elsewhere and the landlord informed her that its available properties which met her criteria were limited and she could explore the possibility of mutual exchange, or other housing providers.
On 26 January 2022, the resident sent an email to the landlord in which she raised her concerns that it had not correctly applied a primer to the floor. The landlord replied the following day and advised that it would shortly provide her with a full schedule of works regarding the flooring and carpets.
The landlord’s records show that its contractors carried out a fourth heat treatment at the property on 27 January 2022.
On 9 February 2022, the landlord advised the resident that the flooring works would take place on 24 February 2022 and would take three days to complete. It advised the resident that it wanted to arrange the agreed deep clean of the property to take place as soon as possible once the works were completed. It also provided the resident with the details of its carpet contractor and asked her to give her preference around how the carpets would be attached to the new floor. The resident replied the same day and agreed to the flooring works and deep clean.
In an email to the landlord on 11 February 2022, the resident raised her concerns that carpets from the flat below her were being removed during void works and had been left uncovered. She was worried that this may allow chemicals and bedbugs to enter her property as the carpets were being removed via the communal areas of the building. The landlord responded the same day and confirmed that it would be cleaning the communal areas once the void works were completed.
On 16 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and advised that she was unhappy with the standard of cleaning the landlord had carried out in the communal areas on 14 February 2022. The landlord replied to the resident in which it advised that its voids supervisor had visited the block on 14 February 2022 and signed off the standard of cleaning as acceptable. The landlord felt that it had taken all reasonable steps to keep communal areas clean whilst carrying out works in the flat below.
On 17 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and confirmed that its cleaners had attended the previous day, however she raised further concerns about the standard of cleaning and provided photographs. The landlord replied and stated it had scheduled a further clean of the communal areas later that same day. It also advised that it would carry out a further clean once all works had been completed in the flat below.
The landlord’s records state that on 28 February 2022, the resident had confirmed she was happy with the standard of the recently completed flooring works and she had requested a deep clean of her property. The landlord agreed to this request and advised that its contractors would check her property for bedbugs also.
On 10 March 2022, the landlord’s cleaning contractor attended the property and carried out a full check of the property. The landlord sent an email to the resident in which it stated;
1. No evidence of bedbugs were found, following a thorough inspection of the property.
2. It did however note that a carpet beetle had been sighted in the property. The contractor believed that in the absence of any carpets in the property at that time, the beetle may have entered the property via an open window.
3. It sought to reassure the resident that there was no beetle infestation in her property and the one beetle which was found was removed and disposed of. It advised also that there were no carpets in the property for any beetles to feed from.
4. The contractor had left bedbug monitors in the property which it would inspect on its return to the property on 17 March 2022. It stated that it wanted to reassure the resident that this action was being taken to allow it to be 100% assured that there were no bedbugs in the property.
5. It outlined that its contractors would be carried out a further check of the empty flat below hers. It did advise the resident that its contractor had been bitten whilst in that flat, but this was a flea bite, not a bedbug bite.
6. Following the further check of the property on 17 March 2022, if it was confirmed that there were no further pests in the property, it would instruct its contractor to carry out a full deep-clean of the property on 21 March 2022.
7. Following this, its carpet contractors would attend to take measurements and supply the resident with samples of carpet for her to choose. A date on which the carpets would be fitted was to be agreed with the resident directly.
The resident has stated to this Service that a beetle being present in the property was impossible as she was not living at the property at that time. She has confirmed to this Service that she spoke with the contractor directly who advised being bitten by a flea in the property below which they felt was from a dog. The resident has stated to this Service that there were never any dogs within that property. She has also advised that she passed details of the landlord’s contractors carrying out bedbug treatments in the flat below to the new tenant who moved into the property in April 2022.
On 15 March 2022, the landlord’s carpet contractors attended the property and took measurements. The landlord had agreed to pay for the underlay also. At the resident’s request, the contractors agreed not to use nails to secure any gripper rods to the newly finished floor so as to not damage it.
A full deep clean of the property was completed on 21 March 2022. The landlord’s records state that no chemical products were used as per the resident’s requests.
On 30 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to advise during a visit to the property, she had noticed splashes of the screeding product used on the walls and paintwork in the property. The landlord advised her that she could clean this with soap and water but also agreed to provide her with decorating vouchers to the value of £150.
On 7 April 2022, the resident’s advocate contacted the landlord via email. A request was made for the landlord to offer the resident compensation as she had not lived at the property for eleven months due to it being uninhabitable.
On 14 April 2022, it was confirmed that the resident moved back in to the property, following the new carpets being fitted that same day.
On 19 April 2022, the resident raised concerns with the landlord about the quality of the works carried out by its carpet contractor. She stated that she was having to pay storage costs for a new sofa which she could not have delivered until the issues with the carpets were addressed. She also raised concerns about her benefit payments. The landlord replied the same day and confirmed it would discuss her concerns with the carpet contractors and offered her a call from its benefits advisor.
The landlord’s records show that on 23 April 2022 its carpet contractor completed further works at the property.
On 23 April 2022, the landlord contacted the resident’s advocate via email and confirmed that it was offering the resident £5148.52 in compensation. It gave a breakdown of this figure as follows;
1. £2605.52 which was a reimbursement of rent paid by the resident from 17 August 2021 to 10 April 2022 (when HB was not payable due to non-occupation)
2. £1343.00 for a replacement Sofa.
3. £800.00 for a replacement bed.
4. £400.00 for monthly storage charge from September 2021 to April 2022 (8 months at £50 per month)
5. Also within the email the landlord advised that it still disputed the resident’s view that she could not live in the property.
6. It accepted that the resident’s mental health diagnosis would have contributed to a high level of anxiety and as such is in part why it agreed to such extensive additional works to try to offer the reassurance she was looking for.
7. It also outlined that it had made several offers of alternative accommodation, but again due to several reasons given these were not accepted as being suitable by the resident.
On 30 May 2022, the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of £5148.52 in compensation however it is noted that she accepted it as an interim offer and not in full and final settlement of her case. The landlord responded and acknowledged her comments, confirming that the resident had accepted this offer as an interim measure, pending full and final determination from this Service.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s obligations

The resident’s signed tenancy agreement details the areas of responsibility for both the resident and the landlord in relation to the repair and upkeep of the property. It states that the landlord will keep in good condition the internal walls, floors and ceilings, amongst other fittings and fixtures. It outlines that this obligation does not include internal paint and decorating.
Its customer complaints and concerns policy outlines a two-stage complaints process. It will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s repairs & maintenance policy outlines that it will not replace resdent’s goods, furniture or other belongings unless it is at fault. It advises residents to arrange their own contents insurance.
With regards to the presence of pests in resident’s homes, the landlord’s website asks residents to report such issues to it and advice will be given. It also advises residents to contact the local council’s environmental health team.
The landlord’s allocations policy details that it will carry out management moves within its stock where individual circumstances require a letting outside of its established policy, including where customers have additional needs. It further details that it will seek independent evidence from partner agencies and other professionals to highlight the need.
Its management move procedure document outlines that it will make a maximum of two reasonable offers of alternative accommodation.
Its decant policy outlines that it will support its customers on a case-by-case basis and it will work closely with the customer on their requirements throughout the period of the decant process. This policy also outlines that in circumstances where a customer refuses to move back into a property once works are completed, it may serve a notice to quit and take the relevant action through the courts.

The landlord’s handling of a bed bug infestation at the property.

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy does not outline its responsibilities in relation to pest infestations in its properties. Whilst its website does contain brief information regarding pests, it asks resident to contact it for advice. Its website does not outline whether it or its residents are responsible for dealing with pest infestations. Additionally, the resident’s signed tenancy agreement does not clearly clarify the responsibilities of the resident or the landlord in relation to pest infestations.
The landlord advised the resident from the start of the case that it would address the bedbug infestation in her property, despite it not having an obligation to do so. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to request a signed disclaimer form from the resident which was signed in the presence of her support worker. Whilst the resident later advised that she was unwell at the moment in time when she signed the disclaimer, this Service finds that the landlord acted in good faith and would have correctly assumed that the resident was well enough to sign it. This is because her support worker was present when the form was signed and there is no evidence to suggest that professional concerns were raised at that moment about the resident’s capacity. It is noted that the signed disclaimer form outlines that the resident was to research with the pest control contractor the details of any chemicals it would use.
The landlord ceased the use of chemical treatments as soon as the resident informed it that she had suffered a reaction. This was an appropriate step for it to take and to then offer the use of non-chemical methods to treat the pests. The landlord however did highlight to the resident that that the use of non-chemical treatments may not be as effective as chemical treatments. This Service finds that the landlord acted appropriately in this regard and listened to the resident’s concerns.
From the evidence reviewed by this Service, the landlord followed the advice given to it from its specialist pest control contractors in that it did not investigate the root cause of the bedbug infestation which it confirmed nine months later in April 2021, as coming from the flat below the resident’s property. Had the landlord carried out these investigations at its earliest opportunity, it may have determined much sooner in the case that the property below also had an infestation and it could have taken steps to resolve it. This would in turn have resolved the situation for the resident, who would have been reassured that all bedbugs within the block had been eradicated, therefore she would have felt able to return to her property sooner. This Service therefore finds this to be a service failure on the landlord’s behalf as it did not investigate and resolve the root cause of the issues at the earliest possible stage.
It was reasonable for the landlord to consider and agree to the resident’s request for the floor in property to be re-screeded, despite it obtaining expert advice that this was not required. This demonstrates that the landlord was considering the her requests and preferences whilst giving due regard to her health concerns. This Service finds that the landlord went above and beyond its stated policy positions to try and resolve the situation to the resident’s standards.
The landlord carried out and paid for four cleans of the property at the resident’s request, despite the landlord stating that it wasn’t necessary as per the advice it had received from its specialist pest control contractors. This point is contested as the resident has stated that the landlord was made aware by its pest control contractors on 2 June 2021 that it recommended a clean of the property in order to remove any chemical residue.

The landlord’s approaches in offering temporary accommodation.

It is clear from the evidence reviewed by this Service that the resident has very specific needs, so it is therefore understandable that the landlord would not have immediate access to the exact type of property she desires. Whilst landlord’s may have available properties to offer its resident’s under their management move processes, they may not always have properties available which meet induvial resident’s very specific needs.
It is noted that the landlord did offer the resident a temporary decant to a hotel but this was declined by her advocate due to her specific medical needs. This Service finds that it was therefore appropriate for the landlord to then change its approach and consider permanent rehousing options.
Whilst the landlord did advise the resident that as per its decant policy that it may serve a notice to quit to on her, it did not do this. This Service finds that it reasonable for the landlord to not take this action, instead choosing to continue to offer her suitable rehousing options, based on her needs and preferences.
As per its policy, the landlord made two formal offers to the resident for alternative permanent accommodation. The landlord also made a further five informal offers to the resident. This Service finds that the landlord acted reasonably by stepping outside of its prescribed policy position by making further offers for the resident to consider, which were based on the information and specific criteria she had provided.
It is positive that the landlord advised the resident that she may wish to consider her rehousing options through the use of the mutual exchange process and by contacting other housing providers. From the evidence reviewed by this Service it is not clear if the resident decided to explore these options. However, the landlord could have offered the resident support in finding a suitable property via mutual exchange or with another housing provider earlier in the case.
The landlord considered the resident’s appeal against its decision to remove her from its internal rehousing list following its two formal offers of alternative accommodation. This Service finds that it was reasonable for it to change its position and then continue to make other suitable offers, however these were declined by the resident.
On balance, this Service finds that the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve this matter. It actively listened to the resident’s concerns and worked with her support network to try and resolve the situation. It communicated with the resident throughout and understood her needs. It considered a full range of options when responding to her requests.

The level of compensation paid by the landlord.

Although not referenced within any of its formal complaint responses to the resident, the landlord did offer a significant amount of compensation to the resident, following the completion of its internal complaints process. This Service finds that the amount offered by the landlord and accepted by the resident was reasonable redress. This is because it refunded the rent she had paid during the period she did not occupy the property whilst the bedbugs were treated and flooring works completed. It is further noted that the landlord provided a detailed breakdown of the amount and clearly explained its reasons for doing so.
It is also noted that the landlord’s compensation offer included £2605.52 which was the full amount of rent she was liable to pay during the period she did not reside at the property. In conjunction with the support offered to the resident by the landlord in relation to advice around her housing benefit claim, this Service finds that the landlord acted appropriately in this regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of a bed bug infestation at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its approaches in offering temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in the amount of compensation paid to the resident.

Reasons

The landlord gave due consideration to the resident’s complex physical and mental health needs in this case. It worked outside of its policies and procedures to try and meet her needs and accommodate her requests. It made reasonable adjustments throughout the case and involved her, her advocates and professional support network in making its decisions.
The landlord followed its policies and procedures but was prepared to operate outside of these to try and accommodate the resident’s specific rehousing request and preferences. However, its repairs and maintenance policy, along with the resident’s signed tenancy agreement does not clearly define responsibilities in relation to pest infestations.
Whilst the landlord chose to follow the advice from its specialist pest control contractors in not inspecting other properties as early as July 2020, it also went against the advice of its specialist flooring contractors by re-screeding the floors of the resident’s property in 2022. Landlords should apply a consistent approach when following the advice of specialist contractors.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to;
1. Review its policies and procedures and amend accordingly to clearly define its responsibilities and resident’s responsibilities in relation to tackling pest infestations.
2. Update its website with the above information.
3. Pay the resident £250 in compensation due to the identified service failing and to reflect the time, trouble and inconvenience caused in identifying and resolving the root cause of the bedbug infestation.
4. Provide this Service evidence of compliance with the above orders.